党在全国产业工人中成功建党的光辉范例——安源工运时期党组织建设发展的历程与现实启示

中国共产党成立后即在产业工人中建立党的组织,以领导产业工人运动。毛泽东、李立三、刘少奇等人在安源路矿创建了全国产业工人中的第一个党组织。安源党组织在领导和开展整个安源工运的历史进程中,发挥了党对工人阶级和工会组织的领导核心作用,卓有成效地开展了产业工人党组织的各项建设,引领安源路矿工人俱乐部的各项事业全面发展,最终率领数以万计的安源工人走上了中国革命的正确道路。通过近十年的探索和实践,党在产业工人中积累了较为丰富的、宝贵的建设发展的历史经验,至今仍具有重要的现实意义。     

论劳动学院与中国劳动关系学院的校史渊源

1926年,中华全国总工会在广州创建劳动学院,其在办学理念、办学宗旨、办学目标、办学主体、课程设置、学员管理等方面与中国劳动关系学院及其前身有着明显的校史关联。加之刘少奇在劳动学院、延安工人学校以及全总干部学校之间的传承因素,劳动学院可以被视为中国劳动关系学院办学历史的最早发端,也是全总举办工人干部高等教育的开端。本研究探讨劳动学院与中国劳动关系学院的校史渊源,有助于推动中国劳动关系学院当前的学校建设,推进学校课程思政“立德树人”的建设,呈现出中华全国总工会干部培训事业的发展历程,增进理解中国共产党领导下劳动教育的历史传承,具有强烈的现实意义。     

受刑人权利的法律定位

对受刑人权利保护必须对受刑人权利进行准确的法律定位,在受刑人权利的价值基础上,正当性的权利本质是受刑人权利法律定位的逻辑起点;在受刑人权利的逻辑结构上,可以将受刑人权利分为受刑人人权、受刑人公民权和受刑人基于矫正产生的特殊权利;在法律关系的考量上,将受刑人权利和刑罚执行权力作为刑事法律关系的核心范畴,而不是将受刑人的权利与义务作为刑事法律关系的核心范畴;在刑事法律关系的运作中,以受刑人权利为本位,而不以受刑人管理为本位,以实现对刑罚执行权力的制约和对受刑人权利的保护。     

价值共创:公共服务合作生产的新趋势

合作生产是一种重要的公共服务生产模式,在提高公共部门回应性和推动公共服务创新方面发挥了重要作用。面对解决"棘手问题"的挑战,复杂的外部治理环境催生了对公共行政价值问题的反思,合作生产不仅要关注行政效率的提升,也要重视以公民为中心的多元价值创造。在此情境下,公共服务合作生产向价值共创转变。本文梳理了不同时期的公共行政理论对合作生产的影响,对合作生产概念的演变与发展进行了探讨,阐释了从合作生产发展为价值共创的内在逻辑。在此基础上,本文分析了理解价值共创的三种理论路径,并结合我国公共服务发展的现实背景,讨论了公共服务价值共创的启示。     

工会应急协同能力评价方法研究

工会是职工群体性事件应对的重要主体之一,而应急协同能力又是决定其应急事件处理效果的一个重要因素。因此,对应急能力的评估至关重要。研究分析了职工群体性事件的动态演化过程,找出其应急协同能力影响因素,并依据协同分析方法构建了工会应急协同能力评估指标体系。研究首次提出了工会应急协同能力及表征,即基础应急协同能力、应急处置协同能力和事后恢复协同能力,并通过实例验证了该模型的合理性。据此,在社会多主体治理框架下提出了提升工会应急协同能力的基本策略。     

《劳动合同法》主要问题的经济研究评介

《劳动合同法》是继《劳动法》之后,关于改善劳动关系的重要法律文本。随着经济增长趋于平缓,关于《劳动合同法》的修订和废止问题再次引起理论界的深入讨论。文本从经济理论研究的角度对《劳动合同法》执行中关于灵活用工问题、劳动力成本和劳动生产率三个主要经济争论进行梳理和分析。研究发现,我国劳动力成本增长低于劳动生产率的提高,《劳动合同法》的实施并不会对员工工资产生显著影响,也不会显著影响劳动生产率。     

《劳动合同法》实施后的变化与对策

《劳动合同法》颁布实施之后,企业内部发生了很多变化,劳动者权益有了法律保证。但是,企业侵犯劳动者权益的现象在一定范围内依然存在。工会应当加强源头参与,加强对职工队伍的教育培训,同时还应加强工会自身建设,更好地维护职工合法权益。     

Labor radicalism and the local politics of Chinese exclusion: Mayor Jacob Weisbach and the Tacoma Chinese expulsion of 1885

ABSTRACT

The 1885 Chinese expulsion from Tacoma, Washington Territory highlights the importance of local political economy in shaping how a wider anti-Chinese movement played out in a particular community. Tacoma was a newly emerging city where white residents felt the threat of corporate domination in the form of the Northern Pacific Railroad. In this context, the city’s German immigrant mayor, Jacob Weisbach, could draw upon his longstanding labor radicalism to mobilize a broad anti-Chinese coalition that blurred the divide between white workers and the local business class. The result was the forceful removal of Chinese residents following a year-long campaign that culminated in mob action and became known as the ‘Tacoma Method’. This local violence in turn fed into ongoing national efforts to secure Chinese exclusion. Tacoma’s Chinese expulsion illustrates how radical labor traditions could be turned, under particular conditions, to the politics of racial repression even as the proponents of expulsion framed their efforts in terms of an egalitarian and democratic agenda. The participation of the Knights of Labor and other labor radicals in a politics exemplified by the Tacoma Method was accordingly tied to the larger racialized American state-building project as it unfolded in the late 19th Century.     

The Seattle Teamsters and the procedural state, 1935–1942

The Teamsters Union often clashed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Seattle between 1935 and 1942. At times the Seattle Teamsters resisted the NLRB, yet in other cases the union worked within the agency's procedures to expand. In the years after the Wagner Act, the Teamsters exploited the NLRB to block employees from choosing their own union. This article uses archival records to explore cases where the Seattle Teamsters successfully adapted to federal regulation of collective bargaining between 1935 and 1942. Seattle workers opposed to the Teamsters bravely fought to protect their right to organize, yet these employees faced a union skilled at working with the procedural state. These cases show the increasing ability of the Seattle Teamsters to enroll workers wary of the union by complying with NLRB rules.     

Divergent fates: company unions and employee involvement committees under the railway labor and national labor relations acts

Well known is that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA, 1935) in the United States places a largely per se ban on nonunion employee representation (ER) groups which deal with employers over a term or condition of employment. Much less well known is that America’s other labor law, the Railway Labor Act (RLA, 1926), takes a different approach and permits employers to operate such councils and committees as long as they do not perform a collective bargaining function or interfere with workers’ free choice of a bargaining agent. Thus, under the RLA Delta Air Lines is able to operate what is today the closest living approximation to a 1920s-style ER plan while hundreds of other companies (e.g. Polaroid) under the jurisdiction of the NLRA have been forced over the years to disband similar groups on grounds they are a proscribed company union. No study to date has explored the history behind the RLA and NLRA’s divergent treatment of nonunion ER groups so this article takes a first look. The main part of the story covers the 1920–1935 period and examines the events, people, and experiences associated with company unions and ER in, respectively, the rail and manufacturing industries and why the legislative outcome in the former was a permissive stance on nonunion committees but prohibitive in the latter. The last part of the paper fast-forwards the RLA-NLRA story from the 1930s to contemporary law and practice in order to demonstrate how “history matters” when it comes to what employers can and cannot do with nonunion representation groups, such as works councils, participation and involvement committees, and dispute resolution forums.