July 28, 2010
Abandoning the Manufacturing Sector
Taft-Hartley Revisited
By DAVID MACARAY
"The most effective anti-poverty program ever invented was the labor union."
George Meany
There are three important things that need to be remembered about the 1947
Labor-Management Relations Actcommonly known as the "Taft-Hartley Act,"
after its congressional sponsors, GOP Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, and House
GOP Representative Fred Hartley of New Jersey.
First, even though political pundits and social commentators continue to
talk60-odd years after the factabout how Taft-Hartley was a necessary
corrective, an antidote to runaway union excesses, a move that had to made
to preserve the economic health of the nation, the legislation was far more
toxic and insidious than these "reasonable response" accounts make it out to
be.
Taft-Hartley was the naked attempt to neutralize America's unions by
revoking key provisions of the landmark 1935 National Labor Relations Act
(commonly known as the "Wagner Act," after its sponsor, New York Senator
Robert Wagner), the act that legitimized a union's right to strike, engage
in collective bargaining, and serve as the workers' sole representative.
Make no mistake, the vitality of the post-World War II labor movement was
staggeringso staggering, in fact, that the federal government and America's
leading corporations were in a state of panic. It's no exaggeration to say
that never in our history had organized labor come so close to becoming an
equal partner in the national economy than in the years directly following
the war.
Not only were unions full of confidence and buoyed by the support of a
sympathetic public, they were fearless. In 1946, the year before
Taft-Hartley became law, five million people had taken part in strikes.
Five million people had put down their tools or shut off their machines to
hit the bricks, to protest the fortunes made by war profiteers, to protest
the picayune wages being offered union members.
However, even though the working class was clearly on the ascendancy and the
road ahead appeared wide-open, there were storm clouds gathering on the
horizon. The realization that working men and women were now wielding
genuine powerpower that translated into independent political and economic
cloutwas scaring the wits out of the Establishment. It was that fear that
precipitated the legislation.
Second, the Taft-Hartley Act did precisely what it set out to do. It
crippled the labor movement. Among other things, it outlawed wildcat
strikes, jurisdictional strikes, solidarity strikes, secondary boycotts and
secondary picketing; and, in an odd footnote, it required union leaders to
take an oath that they weren¹t Communists (as if anyone who sided with the
working class was a suspected Commie).
Taft-Hartley prolonged the union certification process; it gave the federal
government the right to issue strike injunctions; it expressly excluded
supervisors from union membership and collective bargaining; and it severely
weakened the union security clause (language under which joining a union was
a condition of employment). By lengthening the certification process,
management could now stall; with injunction power, the feds could now
squelch any large-scale strike; by excluding supervision, bosses could now
reclassify workers as "supervisors," thereby exempting them from union
membership; and by de-fanging the security clause, 22 states now have
right-to-work lawsfive of which (Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Kansas and
Florida) are embedded in state constitutions.
The third thing to remember about Taft-Hartley is that, while it became the
law of the land despite the veto of President Harry Truman, it was
congressional Democrats who assured its passage. Liberals and progressives
like to place the blame on anti-union Republicans, but it was the Democrats
themselves who pushed it across the finish line.
Fact: A majority of the Democrats in congress voted to override Truman's
veto. While many were Southerners ("Dixiecrats"), many were not. Had the
Democrats simply supported their presidenthad they provided working people
with the economic equivalent of the same privileges guaranteed to citizens
under the Bill of RightsTaft-Hartley would not have become law.
All of which raises a question: If American voters were given the choice,
how would they choose to be governed? Would they prefer that Big
Businesswith the blessings of a corporate-oriented governmentdictated our
domestic and foreign affairs? Or would they prefer giving working men and
women an equal voice in determining policy?
We can argue all we like about the practicality of regular citizens making
national policy, but one thing can't be disputed: If regular citizens had
been running the show, they never would have abandoned our manufacturing
base. They never would have agreed to enrich international oligarchies at
the expense of the American economy.
Taking the greatest manufacturing power in the history of the world and
dismantling itrelegating it to the role of industrial "spectator"is
something that working people would never allow to happen. Never. Only the
U.S. Congress would see the wisdom in pissing away something that took 150
years to build.
David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright, is the author of "It's Never Been
Easy: Essays on Modern Labor
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0982531427/counterpunchmaga>". He
served 9 terms as president of AWPPW Local 672. He can be reached at
[email protected]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
