Taft-Hartley Revisited

There are three important things that need to be remembered about the 1947 Labor-Management Relations Act—commonly known as the “Taft-Hartley Act,” after its congressional sponsors, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, and House Representative Fred Hartley of New Jersey.

First, even though political pundits and social commentators continue to talk—60-odd years after the fact—about 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.

http://www.counterpunch.org/macaray07282010.html

Even though my dad was a union member, I grew up knowing very little about the role they played - rethuglican family throughout. I have been educating myself on this very important political component.

I need to learn more too, though I always knew unions were about empowering the powerless, and sharing fairly. But I have no idea where I came to that as my dad was a Republican too.

Taft-Hartley was an unmitigated disaster.
It is an unjust law.
Founded on unjust grounds.
To serve unjust ends.

There was nothing reasonable about it.
This law saw a corporate reaction to the power and grievances of unions.
A reaction to child labor laws, enacted at last.
A reaction to sympathy striking.
If there is ever another labor rights movement in this country, it must address Taft-Hartley like the Civil Rights movement addressed segregation.