But it also angered voters in regions where unions were not heavily represented – such as outside the industrial heartland and in the northeast. An estimated 14% of all workers participated in post-war strikes, making the wave of labour unrest virtually universal. Taft-Hartley also made the Wagner Act the quid pro quo requirement that employers bargain in «good faith» with unions that bargain with employers. This amendment also made bargaining by a bona fide union a defence to the allegation that an employer had failed to bargain in good faith. [34] The law restricted the practice of «feather litter,» which requires more workers than was actually needed, by prohibiting the payment of surplus workers when no work is done. [35] A law amending the National Industrial Relations Act, creating additional possibilities for mediation of labour disputes affecting trade, approximating the legal responsibilities of workers` organizations and employers, and for other purposes. The Taft-Hartley Act changed the rules for union elections. These changes excluded supervisors from tariff groups and gave special treatment to certain professionals. A U.S. federal law that restricts the activities and power of unions.
It is also known as the Labor Management Relations Act and was an amendment to the Wagner Act of 1935. Legislators had previously tried to serve both workers and employers, but due to the political climate, a number of legislators felt it necessary to make further changes (which perhaps did not have workers` best interests in mind). In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt and his Democratic Party passed the Wagner Act as part of the New Deal program of social democratic economic planning, which Democrats advanced to counter the Great Depression. The law strengthened the bargaining power of unions by prohibiting management interference in unionization, legally protecting strikers and strike action, and forcing employers to negotiate with certified workers` representatives. [6] The amendments protected workers` rights under section 7 against restriction or coercion by unions and provided that unions cannot induce an employer to discriminate against an employee in the exercise of section 7 rights. They declared the closed factory illegal, but provided that employers could sign a union agreement under which workers could be forced to join the union from the 30th day of employment. After Taft-Hartley went into effect, many states also introduced «right to work» laws, meaning that people could work in a particular establishment without having to join a union – a worker would not be «forced» to join a union or pay dues (which is already illegal at the federal level). However, it is important to note that «right to work» laws do not really mean that everyone has the right to work, nor that workers cannot form a union. Supported by a strong party machine and a favorable political climate, Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in the 1946 midterm elections. Republicans won 55 seats in the House of Representatives, giving them a total of 246 seats,[17] a number the party would not reach until the 2014 midterm elections. [18] Republicans also took control of all 12 seats in the US Senate. [19] The Labour Party responded by targeting Senator Taft, who ran for re-election in the 1950 mid-term elections.
[53] The CIO-PAC of the Congress of Industrial Organizations turned the Ohio Senate election into a referendum on what Big Labor called the «forced labor law» and strongly supported its Democratic opponent, State Comptroller Joseph Ferguson. But Taft aggressively defended his eponymous labor law, backed by polls that showed «no fundamental demand for the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act» and public resentment over the massive disruption and economic costs of social unrest. Taft was re-elected in a landslide, increasing his majority by more than 400,000 votes since his election in 1944. [54] Under the Wagner Act, employers engaged in unfair labour practice in «disrupting, restraining or coercing» workers to exercise their collective bargaining rights, including the right to form a union. [40] The Taft-Hartley Act stated that «the expression of views, arguments or opinions shall not constitute evidence of unfair labour practice without the threat of reprisal or the promise of benefits.» [41] Everyone thinks I`m pro-worker, and that`s me – but they [union leaders] have gone too far in many ways. I am convinced that Taft-Hartley is a very good piece of legislation. I did a count on the hill, and I know that if I veto it, my veto will be overturned. So, despite my veto, we will have a pretty good law on the books, and if I oppose it, I will have the support of the workers in next year`s election. The NLRB and the Supreme Court spent much of the 1940s hesitating over whether the union authority granted to production workers also applied to their superiors. By 1947, they had established that the Wagner Act allowed supervisory unions; Employers argued that these unions created conflicts of interest among supervisors responsible for enforcing employer policies. Taft-Hartley expelled superiors from unionization.
[38] The Taft-Hartley Act made substantial changes to the Wagner Act. Although section 7 has been retained in the revised Act, new language has been added to provide that workers have the right not to participate in trade union or auxiliary activities unless they are required to become members of a trade union as a condition of employment. The original Wagner Act did not allow the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which he created, to hold unions accountable for unfair labor practices. The Taft-Hartley Act outlined a number of union practices that would be prohibited as unfair labour practices, including coercion of workers,[29] failure to negotiate a collective agreement in good faith,[30] forcing employers to pay for work that is not done in most circumstances,[31] and engaging in «secondary boycotts» to force «neutral» external employers. no longer do business with an employer in the context of a labour dispute. [32] The law also held unions liable for damages caused by an illegal strike. Several important changes have been made for representative elections. Supervisors were excluded from collective bargaining units and the board was required to give special treatment to professionals, craftsmen and facility workers when determining collective bargaining units. To understand the Taft-Hartley Act, it helps to start with the previously enacted federal labor law, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act. The Wagner Act was the first major piece of U.S.
labor law and was known at the time as the Declaration of Labor Rights. The Wagner Act gave workers the right to organize, join unions, bargain collectively through representatives of their choice, and strike. Under the Wagner Act, «closed» and «union» companies were allowed by law. The Act also established the National Labour Relations Board. For more information on other country-specific laws, please visit our Employment Responses page. In the 1946 midterm elections, Republicans took control of the Senate and House of Representatives for the first time since 1931. At that time, the fear of communist infiltration of the unions was growing. This, coupled with the growth of union membership and power and several large-scale strikes, has led to an increasingly anti-union climate. In 1947, Congress passed the Labor Management Relations Act, also known as the Taft-Hartley Act, against a veto by President Harry S. Truman. The Taft-Hartley Act repealed important provisions of the Wagner Act.
The «shop floor» provisions, which required newly hired workers to join unions and pay dues throughout their employment, remained legal, but unions had to win an NLRB-sanctioned election upholding the provisions. In addition, Article 14(b) expressly authorized states and territories to enact «right to work» laws prohibiting the operating regulations of trade unions. [44] Perhaps the most important unfair labour practice of the unions banned by Taft-Hartley is the practice of «secondary boycott» or «secondary strikes.» A secondary boycott is «secondary» because it targets a company that is not directly involved in a labour dispute.