Eichar takes a new conceptual and empirical approach to the question of class consciousness. Drawing on recent work in industrial psychology, as well as organization and management theory, he assesses the impact of occupation on working class consciousness and political orientation in terms of the content of work experience. He uses job characteristic theory to clarify the relationship between occupation and class to test whether certain job characteristics influence the class consciousness and political orientation of workers. Eichar begins by establishing theoretical distinctions relating to occupation and class. He next looks at basic job characteristics and examines occupational self-direction and its relation to class consciousness. From a review of recent literature, the author develops a set of hypotheses relating to the impact of occupational self-direction and alienation on class consciousness. He tests these hypotheses empirically using job information from respondents and descriptions of job characteristics. Interpreting his findings, Eichar points out significant differences in the impact of alienation and occupational self-direction depending on the level of class consciousness. Offering solid empirical analysis and careful review of the new class theories, as well as more traditional views of the relationship between work and political attitudes, this study will be of interest in political sociology, Marxist studies, industrial psychology, management theory, and related fields.

Corporate social responsibility was one of the most consequential business trends of the twentieth century. Having spent decades burnishing reputations as both great places to work and generous philanthropists, large corporations suddenly abandoned their commitment to their communities and employees during the 1980s and 1990s, indicated by declining job security, health insurance, and corporate giving. Douglas M. Eichar argues that for most of the twentieth century, the benevolence of large corporations functioned to stave off government regulations and unions, as corporations voluntarily adopted more progressive workplace practices or made philanthropic contributions. Eichar contends that as governmental and union threats to managerial prerogatives withered toward the century's end, so did corporate social responsibility. Today, with shareholder value as their beacon, large corporations have shred their social contract with their employees, decimated unions, avoided taxes, and engaged in all manner of risky practices and corrupt politics. This book is the first to cover the entire history of twentieth-century corporate social responsibility. It provides a valuable perspective from which to revisit the debate concerning the public purpose of large corporations. It also offers new ideas that may transform the public debate about regulating larger corporations.

Corporate social responsibility was one of the most consequential business trends of the twentieth century. Having spent decades burnishing reputations as both great places to work and generous philanthropists, large corporations suddenly abandoned their commitment to their communities and employees during the 1980s and 1990s, indicated by declining job security, health insurance, and corporate giving. Douglas M. Eichar argues that for most of the twentieth century, the benevolence of large corporations functioned to stave off government regulations and unions, as corporations voluntarily adopted more progressive workplace practices or made philanthropic contributions. Eichar contends that as governmental and union threats to managerial prerogatives withered toward the century's end, so did corporate social responsibility. Today, with shareholder value as their beacon, large corporations have shred their social contract with their employees, decimated unions, avoided taxes, and engaged in all manner of risky practices and corrupt politics. This book is the first to cover the entire history of twentieth-century corporate social responsibility. It provides a valuable perspective from which to revisit the debate concerning the public purpose of large corporations. It also offers new ideas that may transform the public debate about regulating larger corporations.