In the U.S., there was a much weaker challenge to democratic government after the Civil War and a much stronger offensive by employers in response to labor militancy during the 1870s and 1880s. With American labor and its version of republicanism politically marginalized, government policies and laws turned against unions and offered little protection against employer attacks. Labor historians will probably not share Friedman's view that these influences have hitherto been overlooked. Having described the constraints imposed on labor movements by states and employers, Friedman turns to the residual role of union activism. He presents a formidable array of data on strikes and unionization.
Strikes take center stage.
For example, he marshals district-level data on voting and unionization to document the continuing importance of republican electoral coalitions for French labor relations, in contrast to the limited political clout of American unionists. He invokes industry-specific strike data to suggest the diminishing importance of working conditions, as against union politics, in shaping strikes and labor organization. Most importantly, Friedman uses numbers to bolster his claim that syndicalist union tactics worked . Militant strike action and inclusive organization were well adapted to French political and industrial opportunities, and they were more effective than business unionism at recruiting wage earners into unions and winning concessions from capital. 3 Historians may be disappointed that Friedman's study leaves so little room for meaning or contingency.