During the 80th Congress, from 1947-1949, for one two-year period in the postwar era, the Republicans enjoyed a majority in both the House (246 R to 188 D) and the Senate (51 R to 45 D). The GOP seized its moment, passing over President Truman’s veto on this day in 1947 the Labor-Management Relations Act, better known as the Taft-Hartley Act.
Taft-Hartley gave back to management and also to the government much of what the Wagner Act of 1935 had taken away.1 Where the Wagner Act sought to limit the size and power of government by giving unions the power to bargain legally for workers’ compensation—“[W]e intend to rely upon democratic self-help by industry and labor instead of courting the pitfalls of an arbitrary or totalitarian state,” Wagner explained—the Taft-Hartley Act increased the power of the state to regulate unions.
It was easy to find the reason for Taft-Hartley’s popularity. In 1946, hours of labor lost to strikes reached a record high. Two steel strikes, two coal strikes, and a railroad strike that year all threatened to shut down of the national economy.
The reason for the strikes was equally easy to find: the war had ended and with it the no-strike pledge. Pent-up demand for increased wages, of which a generation had been deprived by depression and war, suddenly sprang loose. Not all such demands met with understanding from management. And so the strikes came.
On January 6, 1947, in his State of the Union address, Truman asked Congress for “the early enactment of legislation to prevent certain unjustifiable practices.” Despite the submission of some dozens of bills to Congress, the lawmakers reached a decision relatively quickly, and once Truman vetoed their law on June 20, they re-passed it over his objections almost immediately.
Where the Wagner Act had left much basic state law in place, Taft-Hartley increased the scope of federal control. The new law created a provision for “national emergency,” which let the president shut down strikes. It banned the closed shop and permitted states to ban union shops. It offered a list of forbidden kinds of strikes. And it went on and on; as one analyst noted, “It is a long law, covering twenty-nine pages of eight-point type….”2 But the basic point was pretty clear: to give the federal government new powers to curb unions.
Now, it turned out the 80th Congress was not very popular. In 1948, despite a Dixiecrat challenge, the Democrats kept the presidency and won back both houses of Congress. The Democratic platform included a paragraph advocating repeal of Taft-Hartley. Despite the victories the repeal didn’t come. Perhaps it is because some of the equalization provisions of the law seem to provide a needed, equitable treatment, applying the same restrictions to unions as to management. Perhaps it is because lawmakers like the government’s increased power over labor-management relations, preferring a bigger government to Wagner’s vision of a nation in which the increased power of unions prevented an increase of power to the state. Perhaps it is because the Dixiecrat challenge revealed how beholden the Democrats still were to their southern wing which, among other things, was not particularly pro-union, and a shift in Democratic policy on unions would have to wait—even longer than the shift in Democratic policy on civil rights.
1More excellent material about the Wagner Act here.
2Sumner H. Schlichter, “The Taft-Hartley Act,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 63, no. 1 (February 1949): 1-31, quotation on 8.
The title is a paraphrase from Harry Millis and Emily Clark Brown, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley.
10 comments
June 23, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Yorick
Isn’t it called The Hartley-Taft Act now?
June 23, 2008 at 5:39 pm
PorJ
The Republicans won the 1946 elections with the most pithy & effective campaign slogan in American history: “Had Enough?”
Once in power they over-reached more than on labor alone; they attacked virtually every regulatory body (especially the FCC). They were so desperate to undo the New Deal it did them in. Also, the economic dislocation associated with “reconversion” from a wartime economy made the citizenry a bit anxious, and I think many of the votes in that off-year election were simply cast in fear (1946 is also when anti-Communism starts to reverberate widely at the ballot box; McCarthy’s win in Wisconsin is a bit of a surprise…)
“Had Enough?” remains a great slogan. I agree with Newt Gingrich that it would be very useful for the Dems in 2008.
June 24, 2008 at 12:45 am
Brad
They were so desperate to undo the New Deal it did them in
Wild. The Republican party’s platform in ~1990 was the same as it was 50+ years earlier.
Does anyone have a recommendation for a good history of labor in the US? I would appreciate suggestions.
June 24, 2008 at 1:12 am
andrew
Relatedly, why has labor history declined so much as a subfield? I’m not sure I’ve seen a satisfying explanation (or if I have, I don’t remember it).
On the post topic: did anti-communism play a role in the lack of Taft-Hartley repeal?
June 24, 2008 at 4:36 am
jhm
If it weren’t for Mr. Nader, I would likely not have heard of Taft-Hartley, nor heard calls for its repeal. Not even Libertarians speak of it (as far as I know, and I admit to a great ignorance of their platform).
June 24, 2008 at 5:30 am
ari
Brad, do you want a survey of labor history? Or a history of a particular period?
June 24, 2008 at 6:54 am
PorJ
why has labor history declined so much as a subfield?
My totally anecdotal and completely unreliable take on this would be that the height of the labor movement (1935-1955) spawned a bunch of middle-class labor families that produced a bunch of middle-class labor kids, who went to college and grad school and produced much excellent labor history (all research is ME-search, remember). The decline of the labor movement in general + the over-supply of PhDs and bad job prospects for labor historians then conspired to close up the pipeline around 1990…
Also, so much of labor history can now be classified under gender, race, or cultural studies that the borders of labor history have become blurred to a large extent. You’ll find good labor history where you might not expect it – in that well-reviewed history of Motown/Detroit in the 60s, for instance, or Elizabeth Cohen’s work on consumer citizenship…
June 26, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Brad
Only a couple days later, I will answer ari’s question.
A survey of the history of US labor for someone who has not had any formal history courses since high school. Ie., a pretty good book for an undergrad would be fine. I am just looking to fill what I feel like is a huge gap in my knowledge.
Thanks
June 26, 2008 at 5:57 pm
ari
Well, there are a couple of choices, though I don’t know of anything perfect. David Montgomery’s Fall of the House of Labor is interesting and worthwhile, though a hard slog. Were I looking for an introduction to labor history, I think I’d get a used copy of Who Built America, which is actually a survey text but with a labor slant. It’s easy reading, the latest edition is up to date, and the authors are some of the best labor historians in the field.
June 27, 2008 at 6:42 am
eric
Yes, I think you want to start with Who Built America—Fall of the House of Labor can wait.