U.S. Labor Laws
U.S. Labor Laws
Introduction
With regard to the U.S. Labor Laws covered in the following paragraphs, this essay describes the provisions of each Act, the impact they had on the organizations involved or affected, and effects they had on union-management relationships.
The Railway Labor Act (1926)
An article “The Railway Labor Act Simplified” (n.d.) published by the Pennsylvania Federation Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division – International Brotherhood of Teamsters (BMWED-IBT), described this important Act. BMWED-IBT is a nationally-organized union representing those workers building and maintaining the American railroads, including the tracks, buildings, bridges and any other structures.
The article reported that the Act came into being in May 1926 following many years of major labor unrest in the railroad industry, often having led to strikes where federal troops were brought in. President Coolidge urged employers and unions to combine to draft the measures that would result in better labor relations in the industry. This they did, resulting in the Railway Labor Act – “the first federal law guaranteeing the right of workers to organize and join unions and elect representatives without employer coercion or interference.” The principle behind the Act is the duty of employers and employees to make every effort to settle disputes on a voluntary basis. The Act embraced five fundamental aims:
Regarding the impact of the Act on the two “sides” involved (the employers and the labor unions) Wilner (1991) provided some highly relevant information in his book The Railway Labor Act & the Dilemma of Labor Relations. In his expressed opinion, the passing of the Act prevented almost inevitable total control of the industry by the unions, had their wish for it to be nationalized been realized. He also suggested that the reason the Act (with some amendment) still survives today is because it was not radical, and incorporated what were the most acceptable measures included in earlier legislation.
Wilner disputed arguments like the Act causing higher wage rates, and instead claimed that for all its faults it did and does provide a framework for negotiation, though he recognized improvements are needed.
The Norris-La Guardia Act (1932)
Before this Act became part of U.S. labor legislation, if a federal judge could be convinced that a strike or other industrial might lead to breaking the law, he could stop the action by issuing an injunction (Bernstein, n.d.), but the Act prevented that occurrence and other actions that were considered irregular, and introduced the following measures:
- Made employment contracts that included an employee promise not to take up union membership unenforceable in the U.S.;
- Removed the power of federal courts to issue injunctions preventing peaceful union action associated with a strike or other industrial dispute;
- Made the definition of “labor dispute” broader to cover controversies regarding matters such as “terms and conditions of employment.”;
- Ensured that courts had to follow closely defined procedures if injunctions were issued in respect of labor disputes, beginning with “a prior hearing under oath in open court with cross examination.”
The Act served its intended purpose, and was intended to so for an extended future. Despite various changes of government policy over time, it still remains part of current law, and has thereby prevented a continuation of those processes that previously had harmed union-employer relations.
The Wagner Act (1935)
As described in an article entitled “National Labor Relations Act” (n.d.), it is often informally called the Wagner Act, after New York senator Robert Wagner who sponsored it. In addition to creating a body called the National Labor Relations Board (nlrb), it established the rights of workers to engage in “collective bargaining”. The Act came about in part due to massive strikes in the 1934 summer, which spurred Congress to seek a solution. The Act’s purposes were:
According to the referenced article, this Act indirectly helped Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Democrats achieve significant victories in the elections of 1936. On the other hand, the effects of the Wagner Act for the labor movement were mixed. The nlrb treated the unions merely as workers’ agents instead of recognizing their actual legal status.
The Taft-Hartley Act (1947)
An article entitled “Taft-Hartley Act (1947)” (n.d.) described the purpose of the Act as to give both employers and employees their legitimate rights in terms of labor disputes and in other matters, including the right of employees to not be union members. The Act also allowed individual states to pass their own laws in this area, including prohibiting making membership of a union an employment condition. The Act also required all parties to a labor contract to “bargain in good faith.” Although the article noted that the Act was subsequently amended on a number of occasions, it also reported that it nonetheless “remains a powerful tool for labor-management relations” and has brought about a reduction of both “the severity and frequency of such strikes.”
The Landrum-Griffin Act (1959)
Benson (2011) published an article in New Politics about this Act, whose official name is “the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA).” According to the article, the Act provided “a measure of protection in federal law for union democracy.” The article reported that it had transformed the prevailing atmosphere in the union movement and ultimately brought respectability to the labor unions. Interestingly, the article also reported that many union leaders were hostile to the Act, explicitly because it gave federal protection to union members in terms of their democratic rights.
Summarizing, Benson considered that although the Act had its faults, many questionable or even illegal practices and rules within the union movement that had existed previously were outlawed by it, an event that Benson said “gave vent to legitimate pent up dissatisfaction in some unions and triggered an explosion of organized opposition to corruption and of demands for democracy.”
He also noted that more and more union members are learning to use the democratic rights given them by the Act, although he feels that the law still needs strengthening and needs to be enforced more effectively.
.
References
Bernstein, Neil, N. “Norris-Laguardia Act (1932).” (n.d.). Major Acts of Congress. Ed. Brian K. Landsberg. Vol. 3. Gale Cengage, 2004. eNotes.com. Retrieved from http://www.enotes.com/norris-laguardia-act-reference/norris-laguardia-act-1932
“National Labor Relations Act.” (n.d.). History.com. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/national-labor-relations-act
“Taft-Hartley Act (1947).” (n.d.). Major Acts of Congress. Ed. Brian K. Landsberg. Vol. 3. Gale Cengage, 2004. eNotes.com. Retrieved from http://www.enotes.com/taft-hartley-act-1947-reference/taft-hartley-act-1947
“The Railway Labor Act Simplified.” (n.d.). Pennsylvania Federation. Retrieved from http://www.pennfedbmwe.org/Docs/reference/RLA_Simplified.pdf
Wilner, Frank, N. The Railway Labor Act & the Dilemma of Labor Relations. Review by William D. McLean. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1992/10/reg15n4r.html
