Only One Place of Redress

Bernstein David E. Bernstein

Description

In Only One Place of Redress David E. Bernstein offers a bold reinterpretation of American legal history: he argues that American labor and occupational laws, enacted by state and federal governments after the Civil War and into the twentieth century, benefited dominant groups in society to the detriment of those who lacked political power. Both intentionally and incidentally, claims Bernstein, these laws restricted in particular the job mobility and economic opportunity of blacks.A pioneer in applying the insights of public choice theory to legal history, Bernstein contends that the much-maligned jurisprudence of the Lochner era-with its emphasis on freedom of contract and private market ordering-actually discouraged discrimination and assisted groups with little political clout. To support this thesis he examines the motivation behind and practical impact of laws restricting interstate labor recruitment, occupational licensing laws, railroad labor laws, minimum wage statutes, the Davis-Bacon Act, and New Deal collective bargaining. He concludes that the ultimate failure of Lochnerism-and the triumph of the regulatory state-not only strengthened racially exclusive labor unions but contributed to a massive loss of employment opportunities for African Americans, the effects of which continue to this day.Scholars and students interested in race relations, labor law, and legalor constitutional history will be fascinated by Bernstein's daring-and controversial-argument.

Sujets

• Histoire
• USA
• Legal history
• 20th century
• History of the Americas
• États-Unis

Informations

• Publié par: Duke University Press
• Date de parution: 18 janvier 2001
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9780822383055
• Langue: English

Extrait

only one place of redress

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n f l i c t s

A Series with the Institute of Bill of Rights

Law at the College of William and Mary

Neal Devins, series editor

only one place of redress

African Americans, Labor Regulations, and the Courts

from Reconstruction to the New Deal

David E. Bernstein *

duke uni versi ty press

Durham & London

2001

∫2001 Duke University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper$ Designed by Rebecca Giménez Typeset in Sabon by Keystone Typesetting, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging- in-Publication Data appear on the last printed page of this book. Acknowledgments for the use of copyrighted material appear on page 191 which constitutes an extension of the copyright page.

for my parents,

Stanley & Lillian Bernstein

Bibliography

Conclusion

[1]

Index

[183]

[119]

*

[ix]

[66]

[46]

Notes

four§swaLeevaiPr-Wagling

three§Railroad Labor Regulations

five§New Deal Labor Laws

[85]

one§Emigrant Agent Laws

[111]

[163]

[28]

two§Licensing Laws

[8]

Contents

[xi]

Preface

Introduction

Acknowledgments

Preface

*

this book examines how several different types of labor regulations enacted between Reconstruction and the New Deal era—laws restricting interstate labor recruitment, occupational licensing laws, railroad labor laws, public works labor legislation, and New Deal minimum wage and collective bargaining laws—harmed African Americans. Labor regula- tions were vulnerable to constitutional challenges until 1937. Court deci- sions invalidating labor laws on constitutional grounds have traditionally been seen as irredeemably reactionary. The judiciary is said to have been blind to economic realities that required government to intervene to en- sure that labor markets functioned properly, and to redress inequalities of bargaining power. The traditional sanguine view of the intent and effects of labor legisla- tion neglects a very simple but powerful insight provided by modern polit- ical and economic theory—regulatory legislation tends to benefit those with political power, at the expense of those without such power. Many labor laws were blatant special-interest legislation that, at best, helped certain workers at the expense of others, while reducing market efficiency. Even laws that were initially motivated by legitimate public health, safety, and welfare concerns were frequently drafted and/or enforced to benefit the politically powerful at the expense of the politically vulnerable.