ss. If that were so, it was a consequence of the government trying to make its beneficiaries feel guilty about the government supporting them (Cohen, 271). Wages from the federally-provided jobs were kept low purposefully in order to discourage dependency on the government (Cohen, 279). The federal government trying to dissuade people from becoming permanent dependents might not seem noble, but the Democrats of the 1930s obviously had some insight on what future problems could be caused by a welfare state. Their attempts to make the welfare state short-lived were futile, however. The Great Depression and the NRA did not cause workers to rebel against the government. Indeed, the opposite occurred. One legacy of the 1930s is that workers, and many other social classes, expected the welfare state to remain even after the Great Depression ended.The better organization, new unity, and new expectations of workers overall, not just ethnic workers, gave unions a much better standing in politics during the 1940s. At least one in three Chicago manufacturers was a member of some union (Cohen, 292). Union leadership knew how to and did thwart the divide-and-conquer tactics of businesses. Legislation was more pro-worker, and striking became easier. Workers, no longer getting major benefits from their community, made greater demands from their employers in order to complement those benefits provided by the government. They were getting much of what they sought with relative ease after 1942. A legal pattern for addressing grievances had been set for the workers of today.Cohen adequately shows why ethnic workers should not be avoided in the study of labor history. She assiduously takes the workers of the 1920s and 30s out of their working environment and also examines them in a social setting. Using that method, Cohen proves that the ethnicity of certain workers is just as important as other traditional factors in studying labor history. Her work, cons...
