relations literature of the 1960s and 1970s would have provided more perspective. In his preference for cultural, rather than material, explanations of car workers’ behaviour, Saunders also neglects key findings of the classic account by H.A. Turner, Garfield Clack and Geoffrey Roberts, Labour Relations in theMotor Industry (London, 1967, 331–2). For example, because ofmany car workers’ irregularity of employment (fluctuating between lay-offs and overtime working, leading to ‘very considerable instability of earnings’), opportunities to exact concessions were likely to be exploited, which their ‘unusually high’ general pay level made easier to do. Further, ‘high strike incidence’ represented ‘the industry’s substitute for formally-agreed means of dealing with recurrent labour surplus’, with managers particularly ‘less keen to settle disputes quickly’ during slumps in output. Factoring in such considerations, as well as recognizing that some work groups and some factories held a more strategic position than others in a highly integrated industry, and acknowledging the sometimes-negative effect of multi-unionism on shop-floor unity, would not have detracted from, but enriched, Saunders’s celebration of workers’ agency.

中文翻译：

---

冲突中的同志：劳工、工会和 1969 年的《In Place of Strife》

1960 年代和 1970 年代的关系文学会提供更多视角。桑德斯偏爱对汽车工人行为的文化而非物质解释，因此他也忽略了 HA Turner、Garfield Clack 和 Geoffrey Roberts 的经典著作中的关键发现，《汽车工业中的劳资关系》（伦敦，1967 年，331-2） . 例如，由于许多汽车工人的就业不规范（在裁员和加班之间波动，导致“收入非常不稳定”），他们很可能会利用获得让步的机会，而他们的一般工资“异常高”水平更容易做到。此外，“高罢工发生率”代表“该行业替代了正式商定的处理经常性劳动力过剩的手段”，在产出下滑期间，管理人员尤其“不太热衷于迅速解决争端”。考虑到这些因素，并认识到某些工作组和某些工厂在高度集成的行业中比其他工作组和其他工厂具有更重要的战略地位，并承认多工会有时会对车间团结产生负面影响，不会有损来自但丰富了桑德斯对工人代理的庆祝。