The course outlines and reading lists (very extensive!) for the two-term sequence “Trade Unionism and Collective Bargaining” and “Public Policy and Labor” taught by John Dunlop at Harvard in 1947-48 have been posted earlier along with figures for the respective course enrollments. Following the memorial minute from Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences next, the transcriptions of the final examination questions for each of these courses from the Harvard University Archives will be found.
_____________________________
At a Meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences May 18, 2004, the following Minute was placed upon the records.
John Thomas Dunlop
John Dunlop was an extraordinary labor economist, dean, colleague, and mentor to students and practitioners in the world of labor. He was extraordinary because he was more than an economist, and because he was driven by a moral vision of what economists and academics should do to make the world better.
John saw the world through his own eyes and experience. You might think that all good social scientists see the world in that way, but in fact economics provides a particular set of glasses that exaggerates some parts of reality and hides others. Some of us need these glasses to see. John did not put on those glasses. John could see without them.
He looked at data and made his own judgment. In doing so, he helped set a foundation stone of labor economics which is deeply empirical. John’s first major academic publication on real wages over the business cycle forced Keynes to admit that the General Theory was wrong on its assessment of this issue: Real wages fall in recessions not in booms, contrary to simple marginal productivity analysis.
Throughout his career, Dunlop followed his own vision. His book Wage Determination Under Trade Unions modeled unions as optimizing organizations. He engaged in a famous debate with Arthur Ross about treating unions as economic or political organizations. Later, John decided that the optimizing model was not a useful path to follow, and reversed direction. His book Industrial Relations Systems sought to develop a broader perspective on how labor relations fit into economics. In the 1980s, Dunlop carped at economists for failing to see what he could see in the labor market. Much of the economics profession might be marching off to “natural rate of unemployment” or to firm-specific human capital, but not John. More often than not, he was right.
Dunlop approached his work – from advising presidents and cabinet officials, to telling academics about the real world and telling practitioners about academic theory and testing of propositions – with one goal: to help solve problems. A classic example was John’s response to a 1978 request from Murray Finley, President of the Mens Garment Workers Union, to explore what might be done to increase the productivity of American apparel workers. John visited dozens of plants, investigated automation, and met with all the practitioners: academic design engineers, industry production experts, suit manufacturers, textile firms, a chemical firm, the Union, the apparel retailers, and the Federal Department of Commerce. His vast knowledge and curiosity, combined with his ability to convince people that it was in their best interest to work together, led to the formation of the non-profit firm [TC]2, designed to help the U.S. apparel industry survive, and later to the formation of the Harvard Center for Textile and Apparel Research. This was just one of John’s many extra-curricular activities that enriched both the University and the world.
His legacy in the University is immense. His legacy to labor economics is immense, both for his ideas and for his being the intellectual “father” and “grandfather” of many labor economists. His legacy in the world is immense. The moral principle that guided him – that academics should use their knowledge and skill to help solve problems faced by real people, by workers and firms, and governments – represents Harvard at its best in dealing with the world outside of academia. His legacy in labor economics and economics more broadly – to look at the world with your own eyes and experience, with direct knowledge of the institutions and practitioners – represents social science at its best in interpreting and analyzing the world.
Those of us who were close to John miss his curmudgeonly criticisms and vast knowledge. We will keep alive his legacy of applying our knowledge to the world to help understand and solve social problems. This is the greatest memorial the University can give to him.
Respectfully submitted,
Frederick Abernathy
Caroline M. Hoxby
Lawrence Katz
Richard B. Freeman, Chair
Source: Harvard Gazette, September 16, 2004.
_____________________________
Final Examination
Trade Unionism and Collective Bargaining
Associate Professor John Dunlop
1947-48
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 81a
- Develop what you consider to be the differences, if any, in the functions and role of trade unions in capitalist, socialist, and communist societies.
- The Webbs, in their “Industrial Democracy,” stated that “to competition between overlapping unions is to be attributed nine-tenths of the ineffectiveness of the trade union world.”
A recent writer in the American Economic Review states:
“Leadership rivalry is the lifeblood of unionism in the United States. After all, the American trade union is pragmatic to the core. It is neutral in ideology and weak in political purpose. In the absence of competition for the allegiance of workers, there would be little else to ensure its militance and guarantee its role as an agency of protest. Moreover, rivalry has been the most effective stimulus to organize the unorganized. Let the reader ask himself if the labor movement would be as far along as it is today, in terms of total membership, had there not occurred the split between the A.F.L. and the C.I.O. in the 1930’s.”
In the light of your reading of trade union history, which of these statements do you consider more accurate? - “From the point of view of the whole economy, monopoly, in business or in labor, will always result in a misallocation of resources and will usually result also in an under-utilization of resources. Business monopolies do not raise the ‘general’ rate of profits and labor monopolies do not raise the ‘general’ rate of wages. Both raise the incomes of minorities, reducing the income of the rest by more than they themselves can gain through their ‘restrictive policies’.”-Professor Fritz Machlup.
Does this statement constitute an accurate appraisal of the impact of a trade union on the labor market? - The policies developed by the parties in collective bargaining in regard to (a) seniority in layoffs and (b) methods of wage payment have been significantly shaped by the economic environment. Illustrate this generalization by reference to specific industries.
- Case Background:
The Committeeman in Zone 1 of the Hyatt Bearings Division several times requested that additional time studies of particular operations be made following failure to adjust certain disputes. He further requested that he be permitted to be present at such studies on the ground that Paragraph 79 of the Agreement should permit him this privilege.Paragraph 79:
“When a dispute arises regarding standards established or changed by the Management, the complaint should be taken up with the foreman. If the dispute is not settled by the foreman, the committeeman for that district may, upon reporting to the foreman of the department involved, examine the job and the foreman or the time study man will furnish him with all the facts of the case. If there is still a dispute after the committeeman has completed his examination, the foreman or the time study man will then reexamine the operations in detail with the committeeman on the job. If the matter is not adjusted at this stage, it may be further appealed as provided in the Grievance Procedure.
Position of the Union:
While the Union did not cite a specific instance of failure of Management to abide by Paragraph 79, it was indicated that the grievance had been filed following a disagreement on an actual case. The Union claimed that Management has often refused to make additional time studies on disputed operations, and has not permitted the committeeman to be present in instances when studies have been made as part of a re-examination of a job following a dispute. The Union states that it has appealed this case to the Umpire in order to “get the correct interpretation of Paragraph 79.”Position of the Company:
Management takes the position that Paragraph 79 of the Agreement permits the committeeman to “re-examine the operations” or to be present with the foreman or the time study man “to review the operations.” Management maintains that nothing in Paragraph 79 can be construed as giving the committeeman the right to be present when actual time studies are being made.- Does the contract require the Company to permit a representative of the Union to be present when time studies are made?
- Would the Company be wise, as a matter of policy, to ask the Union to have a representative present?
Final. January, 1948.
Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Final examinations, 1853-2001. HUC 7000.28, Box 15 of 284. Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations: History, History of Religions,…Economics,…Military Science, Naval Science. January, 1948.
_____________________________
Final Examination
Public Policy and Labor
Associate Professor John Dunlop
1947-48
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 81b
- In Alternative to Serfdom Professor John Maurice Clark develops the problems of a modern community in terms of the conflict between competition and monopoly and between progress and security.
- What are the principal aspects of this conflict?
- What resolution of these problems does Professor Clark suggest?
- How do you appraise his position?
- Discuss the economic implications of a chronic state of “over full employment”, i.e., a situation in which the demand for labor exceeds the supply of labor, in terms of the probably effects upon
- the absolute and relative money wage rates
- the allocation of the labor force
- the size and composition of the labor force
- Contrast the National Labor Relations Act with the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, with respect to the following
- the right of the employer to speak to employees in favor of or against a labor organization
- the right of employees to go out on strike
- the rights of non-union employees.
- The following case arose under the unemployment compensation system:
“The claimant, 72 years old and a union carpenter for 27 years, was referred to a non-union job. He refused to take the job because it would violate the rules of his union. Union rules provided for a fine for working on a non-union job. The Ohio statute disqualifies an individual who ‘has refused to accept an offer of work for which he is reasonably fitted’ and further provides that ‘…no individual otherwise qualified to receive benefits shall lose the right to benefits by reason of a refusal to accept new work if: as a condition of being so employed he would be required to join a company union, or to resign from or refrain from joining any bona fide labor organization, or would be denied the right to retain any membership in and observe the lawful rules of any such organization’,”- State concisely the issue involved in this case.
- How would you decide the case, indicating the basis for your decision?
- In the provision for old age in the community, what are your views concerning the relative roles of a federal program a unilateral company pension system, a system of pensions negotiated in collective bargaining, and individual savings?
Final. May, 1948.
Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Final examinations, 1853-2001. HUC 7000.28, Box 15 of 284. Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Examinations. Papers Printed for Final Examinations in History, History of Religions, … , Economics, … , Military Science, Naval Science. May, 1948.
Image Source: Museum of the City of New York, Cigar Box Label “Union Workers”.