General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: FDR Democrats, check in here! [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Before Norris-LaGuardia, the federal courts weren't issuing injunctions to prevent the Walmarts of that era from firing union organizers and members. Firing union organizers and members was perfectly legal until FDR signed the Wagner Act. The injunctions that were actually being issued were against labor unions, ordering strikers to go back to work and thus taking away labor's principal bargaining tool against management.
That Walmart, today, gets away with so much anti-union activity is because the Wagner Act isn't being enforced fully. If that law were repealed, as you seem to desire, many more corporations would be empowered to adopt aggressively anti-union practices.
What if the repeal of the Wagner Act also included the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act? First, let's just note, in the context of a thread about FDR, that Taft-Hartley (also called the Labor-Management Relations Act, or LMRA) was enacted in 1948 and was not FDR's fault. As for the substance, repeal of Taft-Hartley would leave unions completely free to bargain for closed shop or union shop contracts. Yay! Except that, if the Wagner Act were repealed, the unions would be so defanged that they'd almost never have the bargaining power to win such a contract.
ETA: As to your sample target video, you complain that it's perfectly legal. The Wagner Act limits the kind of anti-union propaganda that employers may use. If the Wagner Act were repealed (with or without the repeal of Taft-Hartley), it would be legal for employers to do much worse than this.