AbstractRecent scholarship demonstrates the enduring richness of labor historiography, but its overall popularity has declined in recent years compared to other areas of study. Part one of this two‐part study describes the industrial relations origins of labor historiography in the Progressive Era, the ways New Left scholars in the '60s, '70s, and '80s broadened its meaning to include the study of working class people both in and outside of workplaces, and the several controversies over how labor historians have, or have not, incorporated gender and race into their studies from the '80s to roughly the present. It demonstrated that labor historians remained committed to intersectional examinations of the past while deepening our understanding of workers' experiences in a variety of different settings, including factories, mines, service sector jobs, and homes. Moreover, part one illustrates that some of the most innovative approaches to the past—“history from the bottom up,” instances of militant rank‐and‐file activism, gendered divisions of labor, the challenges, failures, and successes of interracial unionism, and “whiteness” studies—were developed by labor historians. Part two examines important scholarly developments and political controversies since the late 1980s. It points out that some one‐time labor historians have shifted slightly to the right politically. Many have explicitly distanced themselves from the New Left generation's style of writing labor history. However, many continue to demonstrate enormous creativity, releasing studies focusing on public sector employees, unfree workers, sexuality, environmentalism, religion, race, international and comparative studies, and precarious labor. Given the escalating levels of poverty, widening inequality, and the insidious nature of exploitation in our society, labor historians continue to have a critical role to play in helping students make sense of the roots of many of society's most far‐reaching problems.