At present, I'm working on a project I'm calling Speaking to the State, which analyzes who testified at Congressional hearings between roughly 1877 and the present—i.e., who engaged in this most accessible form of lobbying. Of course, as a labor historian, I'm particularly interested in the patterns of lobbying/testimony by employer groups versus labor organizations, though the larger project also aims to analyze the representation of women's groups before and after suffrage and witnesses at hearings about the environment around 1970. I've presented versions of this at different fora: the American Historical Association meeting in 2017, the North American Labor History Conference 2018, and Current Research in Digital History in 2019 – as well as DH2019 this summer. The latter two required papers; links below.

I've also done some other computationally oriented work, some of which is ongoing. A while back I wrote a paper (presented at LaTeCH 2016 and published in the ACL anthology) experimenting with using sentence structure analysis (subjects and objects) as a kind of a proxy for seeing who is accorded "agency" in research articles about labor (thanks, JSTOR Data for Research!) More recently, working with people at the University of Turku who have found a reasonably efficient way of detecting reprints (see their paper), I've been trying to uncover employer-produced or employer-distributed stories in the Chronicling America newspaper collection. Increasingly, though, I'm thinking not just in terms of "planted" stories (aka fake news) but more broadly in terms of a "news diet" – what kind of a world did the small-town newspapers that were the staple of most ordinary Americans' news consumption serve up? In particular, of course, I'm interested in what they reported (and did not report) about labor unions. I haven't gotten around to writing up all this properly yet, but here's a conference paper I presented at the LAWCHA 2019 conference.

My first book, provisionally entitled Government by the Bosses: Employer Opposition to Union Power Before the New Deal is under advance contract with the University of Illinois Press and will hopefully be out soon. It examines how it came to be that labor unions are routinely accused of being bad for workers; it does so by focusing on employer, reformer, and union views of the closed or union shop in the period from roughly 1880 to 1930. As such, it argues for deep continuities in American debates about labor relations that stretch across the New Deal divide. It also argues that debates over who was to govern at the workplace have crucially shaped American ideas about governance, democratic participation, and the relationship between individual rights and collective action.