Impact of Wagner and Taft Hartley Acts on labour in the US
Impact of Wagner and Taft Hartley acts on labour in the US
The counter active effects of the Wagner and the Taft Hartley acts have had remarkable effects on the workers in the United States and the general relationship between employees and employers. Wagner Act was essentially in support of the formation of unions that could champion the rights of the employees. It made possible situations where employees could easily challenge the excesses of the employers and provided for a framework for investigation and prosecution of such cases (McCartin 2008).
In response to this act, employers and businesses felt that employees had been given a lee way to challenge the authority of employers and this reaction led to the birth of Taft Hartley act which made clear a few contentious areas of the Wagner Act. The employers for example, argued that as it were, an employer could be prosecuted for firing an employee out of a legitimate reason that clearly warranted for dismissal from labour. Employers won big when the act became law.
Both of these laws brought great confusion especially among the human resource departments in that it required an employer to comply with both the regular requirements of their firm as well as the controversial Wagner Act both of which were at most times antagonistic. In effect, an employer was at the mercies of the national labour and relations board that was born of the act. Pressure on the human resource manager eased when, through the Taft Hartley act, some prohibitions were imposed on sections of the Wagner Act that were deemed as likely to hinder free flow of commerce and/or impact the requirements of the employing organisation of their employees such as closed shops and donations of money or any support to federal politicians (LeRoy & Johnson IV 2001).
Other than straight institutional seniority, there indeed does exist better models of choosing who to lay off when there is such a need. One of the most effective rationales is the identification of a firm's strategic objectives and then measuring the contribution of the various employees to the goals set. The factors to consider in this exercise are among others; the ease of retraining the person, the possession of multiple skills which means in times of staff constraints, a person can be deployed into a different department and perform just as fine, and their overall discipline and adherence to set by-laws within the organisation. This rationale fits the ethics and humane considerations in that at the time of employment, all employees shall sign to abide by the set rules.
As such, deviation from the procedures can be deemed a deliberate act to hinder achievement of the firm’s goals. However, in order to comply with the legal requirements, prior to expulsion from the firm, the employee shall have a chance to defend themselves as to why they do not deserve the layoff. The procedure shall be such that for employees who tie in fitness for the position, other job requirements sets them apart such as previous recognitions for outstanding performances.
In a hospital situation, adoption of such a model would greatly enhance employees’ desire to perform and keep to the requirements of the hospital that they work for. The model, by involving rewards for high performing employees and having that as a tie-breaker in times of identifying candidates for layoffs, shall encourage exemplary performance and minimize laxity at work.
References
McCartin, J. A. (2008). “A Wagner Act for Public Employees”: Labor's Deferred Dream and the Rise of Conservatism, 1970–1976. The Journal of American History, 95(1), 123-148.
LeRoy, M. H., & Johnson IV, J. H. (2001). Death by Lethal Injunction: National Emergency Strikes Under the Taft-Hartley Act and the Moribund Right to Strike. Ariz. L. Rev., 43, 63.
