Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiRepeal the Taft-Hartley Act
This August marks the 60th anniversary of the Taft-Hartley Act, one of the great blows to American democracy, going into effect.
The Act, which was drafted by employers, fundamentally infringed on workers' human rights.
Legally, Taft-Hartley: impeded employees' right to join together in labor unions; undermined the power of unions to represent workers' interests effectively; and authorized an array of anti-union activities by employers.
Among its key provisions, Taft-Hartley:
Authorized states to enact so-called right-to-work laws. These laws undermine the ability to build effective unions by creating a free-rider problem -- workers can enjoy the benefits of union membership in a workplace without actually joining the union or paying union dues. Right-to-work laws thus increase employer leverage to resist unions by undermining individual workers' incentives to join a union; and thereby vastly decrease union membership, thus dramatically diminishing unions' bargaining power.
Outlawed the closed shop, which required that persons join the union before being eligible for employment with the unionized employer. (Still permitted are provisions that require any member of a bargaining unit to pay a portion of dues to that union, though not to join the union.)
Defined "employee" for purposes of the Act as excluding supervisors and independent contractors. This diminished the pool of workers eligible to be unionized, and has become an increasingly serious problem as courts and the National Labor Relations Board have authorized ever-expanding employer definitions of what constitutes a supervisor. The exclusion of supervisors from union organizing activity meant they would be used as management's "front line" in anti-organizing efforts.
Permitted employers to petition for a union certification election, thus undermining the ability of workers and unions to control the timing of an election during the sensitive organizing stage, forcing an election before the union is ready.
Required that the employer be able to demand hearings on key matters of dispute -- such as what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit -- before a union recognition election, thus delaying the election. Delay generally benefits management, giving the employer time to coerce workers.
Established the "right" of management to campaign against a union organizing drive, thereby scuttling the principle of employer neutrality.
Prohibited secondary boycotts -- boycotts directed to encourage neutral employers to pressure the employer with which the union has a dispute. Prior to 1947, secondary boycotts had been one of organized labor's most potent tools, for organizing, negotiating and dispute settlement.
The political damage of Taft-Hartley was just as severe. In addition to starting an era of red-baiting with the American labor movement which led to harmful internal division (a now-invalidated provision of Taft-Hartley required union leaders to sign anti-communist affidavits), the Act sent a message to employers: It was OK to bust unions and deny workers their rights to collectively bargain.
In short, Taft-Hartley entrenched significant executive tyranny in the workplace, with ramifications that are more severe today than ever. Union membership is at historic 60-year lows, with only 8 percent of the private economy's workforce unionized. Employer violations of labor rights are routine, and illegal firings of union supporters in labor organizing drives are at epidemic levels.
Major unions in the United States have rallied around the Employee Free Choice Act, which would begin to repair some of the damage caused by Taft-Hartley and the anti-union culture it engendered. They should also speak out for abolition of Taft-Hartley, and not concede this monumental employer usurpation, during this period of giant multinational corporate power.
Once again, neither the AFL-CIO nor other major unions have denounced what they believe to be the most anti-labor law ever enacted by the federal government. Such chronic resignation would never be the case within the business community were there a similar law on the books stifling their organizational powers for so many years.
It is past time for the repeal of Taft-Hartley. That would be one important step in restoring workers right to organize into unions, achieve a living wage in the Wal-Marts, McDonald's and other workplaces, and in revitalizing American democracy.
Will any members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus introduce long overdue repeal legislation?
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.
28 Comments so far
Show AllAs a proud member of the United Steel Workers Union, I feel that without my membersip I would not be making what I make. I have never had a job that pays so well, or a sense of brotherhood/sisterhood for any other company I have worked for. I am grateful to be a union worker. Without it, I'd be making minimum wage, have no protection, have lousy benefits, and no chance of being able to make that upward climb.
I am tired of the left and the right, down the middle is what im looking for. As a union member I am very grateful for what they do for me, paul r has no clue what he's talking about but the problem is our jobs leaving the country the way they are, and the unions seem powerless to it. Repealing the Taft-Hartley Act is good idea but they have to do something with nafta to enable the unions to be strong once again.
Ralph, stop beating a dead horse and use your brain for good. Why, after all these years in Washington, you haven't figured out your ideas aren't for the common good but the common good as you see it.
why in the heck would anyone who respects individuals want to join a totalitarian movement like that?
laddy,
Nader didn't elect Bush, the supreme court did. Take a step back and look at what Nader has done for this country. I can't believe that people still take the whole "Ralph Nader is the reason Gore wasn't elected, and if Gore were president things would be all better" pill so easily. There has been scores of research and facts that prove the contrary, but if you want to believe that Democrats always right, and Republicans always wrong, and there is no middle ground, or god forbid, a third choice, you can. You'd be wrong, but you can still believe that. Bush hasn't taken that right away from you yet.
Dear dcb,
Forget about the frame:(Right/Left), there is only Us. We may have differences of opinion; but, we shouldn't allow the manipulators divide us into two separate herds.
Ralph Nadar, as soon as I saw your name on the article, i quit reading. I used to have deep respect for you until you helped the idiot, GWBush into the presidency of all things. Helping him into a bar is one thing but to help him get selected as president, i have no respect for you nor do i have respect for the 8,000 Democrats who voted for the jerk. Look what you've done to our beloved country. You've helped make every US citizen a criminal, that is until they can prove otherwise. So to me, you have no integrity, your words mean nothing to me and all the years you spent trying to build yourself a reputation by helping your fellow man and consumer, are gone to the wayside. Just like Colin Powell. He spent over 30 yrs building an honest reputation, one of respect, integrity and honesty, blew it in one day, when he threw it all away to become a crooked politician,which is what i see him as today. He lied, made excuses and bowed and vowed to a nut case and knew he was a nut case but still came aboard a disfunctional administration. So my respect for him went out the window, as did Nadars. They sure don't make'em like they used to.
Powell/Nader 08 please. Colin Powell would be able to reign in the military and Ralph, you are quite simply, the most trustworthy man in America.
cruxpuppy,
why is it that every time Ralph writes an article about water safety or something not about the war, people get on and say "Ralph we need to stop the war first." People forget that Ralph Nader has used reams of paper to protest the war, George Bush, and the Patriot Act. The Taft-Hartly act is just one of the thousands of things that Ralph would change if he ruled the world, that's all.
restore the bill of rights and violate it all in the same paragraph? This is why 'restoring the Constitution as law of the land' will not happen...it would obstruct your goals. In fact, those of both parties.
The first order of business is to retore the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Repeal the Patriot Act. Repeal the Military Commissions Act. Restore the balance of power and the Bill of Rights. Tell George Bush and every succeeding president they can't ignore the laws of the land. Create transparency in government, eliminate black budgets. Make the bastards accountable! Reform the electoral system so that votes are counted fairly. Eliminate the electoral college. Mandate that every media outlet using the public airways make available FREE PRIME TIME for candidates running for office.
The Taft Hartley Act is the least of our problems, which is not to say that it is not a problem. Repealing it is not going to save our Republic. Let's focus on saving the republic first, Ralph.
Anyone promoting Union activity may as well be promoting the flat-earth theory. Unions DO NOT raise wages of workers, and they did not raise the wages of US workers in the 19th-20th centuries. That was done by US industrial leadership, and lack of global competition (remember WWI and WWII?) and rapid increases in productivity. Outside of productivity increases, there is NO other way to increase wages. Unions simply create a local monopoly that benefits those who are members to the detriment of anyone outside the union. Otherwise everyone from the Acient Egyptians to the Soviet Union would have got it right. Those who favor unions are simply wed to a romantic fantasy from the 19th century.
We have a two-party system in this country.
In November of 2008, we will still have a two-party system.
Any third or fourth party candidates will draw their own constituency, of course, but they will also draw votes from one or both of the two parties.
In the past are several instances of third parties, especially, making a critical difference in the election results.
None of our third or fourth party candidates can be elected; therefore, they will not be able to carry out our wishes.
The only other thing they can do is express our anger, dismay, outrage, etc.
Is that enough?
FDR made the great depression even worse, tried to get massive state cartels implemented which were struck down, and saddled us with a Ponzi scheme in which each generation of workers picks the pockets of it's subsequent generations by design.
Is he really someone you want to emulate?
RALPH, INCORPORATE WE THE PEOPLE!!!
If the right-wing can study and recreate Nazi propaganda tactcs . . . .
Why shouldn't the left reintroduce and adapt FDR's appeals to labor and the nation as capitalism and its elite once more abandoned the workers in the Great Depression -- ???
"Authorized states to enact so-called right-to-work laws. These laws undermine the ability to build effective unions by creating a free-rider problem — workers can enjoy the benefits of union membership in a workplace without actually joining the union or paying union dues."
Since unions are fully aware of this at the outset and they should have no right to compel people to join them, they can deal with the 'free rider' problem like anyone else in a free society...decide what their efforts are worth to them and to bear the problems that come with not being able to compel others.
"Right-to-work laws thus increase employer leverage to resist unions by undermining individual workers' incentives to join a union; and thereby vastly decrease union membership, thus dramatically diminishing unions' bargaining power."
So they have less power when they cannot use the threat of jails and fines and denial of employment to people? No kidding.
I'm sorry, seeking power to take other people's rights on the basis that it's inconvenient for your own goals is just something that people who respect other people's rights need to learn to deal with.
"Defined "employee" for purposes of the Act as excluding supervisors and independent contractors."
I agree this is an unwarranted use of State power. Labor unions should own the full right to decide what they consider employees and use that formulation in their goals, contracts, and negotiations.
"Permitted employers to petition for a union certification election, thus undermining the ability of workers and unions to control the timing of an election during the sensitive organizing stage, forcing an election before the union is ready."
Also an unwarranted intrusion. Employers should not have the right to determine when an association of free individuals has a private election process.
"Established the "right" of management to campaign against a union organizing drive, thereby scuttling the principle of employer neutrality."
A necessary part of the right to free speech, free action, and free negotiation. Any employer should be able to say anything that is true (within liable laws for example) at any time and organise against unions. Since it is and must be legal for one organization to organize against another, the converse must also be the case.
"Prohibited secondary boycotts — boycotts directed to encourage neutral employers to pressure the employer with which the union has a dispute. Prior to 1947, secondary boycotts had been one of organized labor's most potent tools, for organizing, negotiating and dispute settlement."
Agree with Ralph, another unwarranted State intrusion into the speech, actions, and organization of free and private individuals.
Amen to repeal of the Taft-Hartly Act and Ralph running because it is looking more and more like Dennis will become a"good German" if he loses the nomination just--like in 04.
If you want to hear a presidential candidate go after management's dirty tricks give a listen to FDR in 1936 go after the moneyed class in a campaign speech at Madison Square Garden less tha a week before the election--talk about an October surprise!
Listen especially to the clarity of his appeal to the exploited working class and the roars of the crowd to such appeals. Also note how much of what FDR raises is still relevant today. With not much change in wording this would make a dandy campaign speech for someone with the heart to give it (and that is the rub--except for Kucinich or Nader who would dare be able to deliver such thoughts covincingly)
You can hear the speech at:
http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/digitalarchive/speechDetail/24
How much of the public is even aware of the restrictions of Taft-Hartley on labor? How often is this discussed in MSM . . . ?
Business is MSM's topic -- not labor.
NY Times' "business" pages would be more accurately called the national "crime" report.
Americans have to demand attention to labor and a more negative focus on capitalism/business.
The highest unionization ever got to in America was 39% -- we are now at 8% and the rug has pretty much been pulled out from under ALL labor at this point.
After seeing some to the unions recently endorse Hillary Clinton its hard to believe that we could expect them to call for repeal of Taft-Hartley.
A call for the repeal of Taft-Hartley is long, long overdue. You would have thought "organized" labor would promote such a demand. Awaken, was that a joke about Fred Thompson or are you just waking up?
Awaken - ditto on your comment. We have enough arm chair activists here at Common Dreams. Ralph is smarter and better informed than the vast majority of us, but what we really need are public intellectuals who are willing to step into the muddy waters of public office. Politics is a nasty, necessary business. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But if Schwarzenegger and Reagan can be there for the right, why can't Moyers, Nader, Hightower, Goodman, et al be there for us on the left?
Ralph, you repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. When are you going to announce your candidacy?
We're waiting. The time is right. Fred Thompson just doesn't cut it.
Dennis Kucinich has pledged to go after Taft-Hartley. This fact is from an interview from the aeronautical union--on video.
Poet...you should read what you wrote. You make quite a good "waffler" on D.K.
For all the trolls and FDR haters ouit there my p[urpose in citing his campaign speech is to show an example of someone who had the moxie to stand up and declare himself and dare others to do the ssame. What we have today is a lot of people running for high office who sound like Blinky the dog in This Modern world with thier "Would oo be my fwend' appeals.
Love him or hate him, FDR was a splendid political tactician and not afraid to fight those who oppossed him as that speech I cited above shows--iF YOU HAVEN'T LISTENED TO IT YET GO AND DO SO AND SEE IF THIS ISN'T THE KIND OF DETERMINED FIGHTER WE NEED TO LEAD THE PROGRESSIVE THRONGS IN 2006.
JUst go back to my previous post and go to the link and listen.
PaulR -- I've read somewhere that worker productivity has gone up something like 20% over the past couple of decades, but nearly none this added value has been given to workers as wages; rather it has been given directly to the wealthy via dividends and rises in stock value. This explains why the rich have seen yearly 20% growth in their incomes while incomes for middle and lower income people have remained stagnant. Sorry, I don't have resources to point to. But it makes intuitive sense to me, given the economic stress I see around me.
Without unions we'd have a lot more nepotism and discrimination in the work place. I've worked as a union member for 18 years, and I am grateful for the protections it affords me. I'd rather have a 1000 people backing me up at the bargaining table, than just me and the boss mano a mano. I have no doubt that without my union I'd be making 40% less in salary.
BTW, this horseshit about "supervisors": they're now even trying to include teachers and nurses among those who cannot be in a union because we've got nurse aides and teacher aides working with us now, and we have to evaluate them. At least in the case of teachers, the final sign off is mgmt., so we have been allowed, presently, to continue union membership.
Poet -- thank you very much for the FDR link. I am downloading that 30 MB speech from Madison Square Garden. I look forward to checking out his other speeches. FDR is the kind of progressive leader we need right now, even if he had a brother on the Federal Reserve Board! :-)
FDR wasn't a progressive, he was in his own words, "the best friend the profit system ever had." FDR was a rich white man far more concerned with stabilizing the capitalist system than helping workers. He gave us a few *meager* reforms because he needed the working class vote to get elected--and because he and other Democrats were afraid of the power of the labor movement. In the 1930's a massive strike wave involving millions of workers was responsible for winning progessive victories, not FDR.
Granted, it would be nice to hear politicians talking like FDR--but make no mistake, our ability to win reforms is not linked to electing an FDR-like persona to office, but in *organizing* and *fighting* for our demands.
Mtn Goat -- are you thinking of joining the Green Party? Have all the Atlases shrugged?