In the aftermath of World War II, the United States experienced a surge in labor strikes and union activities. Demanding better working conditions and higher pay, more than five million Americans participated in the strike wave of 1945–46—the nation’s largest and longest labor dispute. In January 1946 alone, over one million workers in the electric, meatpacking, and steel manufacturing industries were on strike.
This disruption in commerce and the economy turned public opinion against labor unions. Many business leaders and legislators believed that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, favored unions too heavily.
In response, the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 was enacted on June 23. More commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act, it reigned in these perceived union excesses and protected the rights of employers and employees who did not wish to participate in union activities.
Key Provisions
Curbing Union Power in Negotiations
To balance the power dynamics between labor unions and employers, the Taft-Hartley Act identified and prohibited unions from the following practices.
Secondary Boycotts
Imagine a union representing workers at a manufacturing company, ABC Corp, is on strike due to a labor dispute over wages. To increase pressure on ABC Corp, the union started targeting 123 Inc., a neutral supplier that provides raw materials to ABC Corp. The union encourages its members and supporters to boycott 123 Inc.’s products or disrupt its business operations, even though 123 Inc. is not involved in the labor dispute.
This is known as a secondary boycott. Under the Taft-Hartley Act (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947), this is illegal as unions cannot pressure one employer by targeting another employer.
Jurisdictional Strikes
Let’s say a construction site has two unions: Union A (representing carpenters) and Union B (representing electricians). Both unions claim that installing wooden framing for electrical panels is their job. Union A goes on strike to pressure the construction company to assign this task exclusively to its members, even though Union B believes it’s their responsibility.
The Act prohibits jurisdictional strikes—that is, striking with the goal of having an employer choose one union’s workers over another for specific tasks. Disputes between unions over job assignments rather than a direct labor issue with the employer cannot be solved by striking.
Featherbedding
In this example, Union X negotiates a contract that requires a railway company to keep employing firemen (workers responsible for tending coal in steam engines), even though modern trains are fully diesel-powered and no longer need firemen. Although this role has become obsolete, the company continues to pay them their wages in accordance with the union agreement.
This practice of requiring an employer to pay for unneeded or unperformed work, known as featherbedding, is prohibited under the Taft-Hartley Act.
Establishing Right-to-Work Laws
The Act granted states the authority to pass right-to-work laws, which fundamentally altered the relationship between unions and employees. Under these laws, employees in unionized workplaces are not required to join the union or pay union dues as a condition of employment. This gives workers the choice to opt out of union membership while still receiving the benefits of union negotiations, such as wage increases and improved working conditions.
Prior to right-to-work laws, many unions and employers had union security agreements. This required all employees in a unionized workplace to either join the union or pay dues to support the collective bargaining efforts that benefited all workers.
Outlawing Closed Shops
The Taft-Hartley Act also tackled the practice of closed shops, which had been a common arrangement in labor relations prior to its passage. A closed shop is a type of agreement in which an employer can only hire workers who are already members of a union. This system gave unions considerable power over who could work in certain industries, as individuals were required to join the union prior to employment.
Although closed shops were banned under Taft-Hartley, union shops—in which employees are required to join the union within a certain time frame after being hired—were still allowed unless prohibited by state law. In a union shop, employees have the option to decide whether or not to join the union after they begin employment, giving them more time to evaluate the union’s role and services.
Impact and Significance: From 1947 to Today
The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 remains a cornerstone in U.S. labor law, significantly influencing the relationship between unions, employers, and employees.
Critics argue that the Taft-Hartley Act weakened the labor movement, undermined workers’ rights to organize, and favored corporate interests. Supporters contend that it was necessary to prevent union abuses, protect individual workers’ freedom of association, and maintain economic stability.
No matter where you stand on these amendments to the 1935 NLRA, many of the Taft-Hartley Act’s provisions still actively influence union activities, employer rights, and the broader labor market.
Right-to-Work Laws Expansion
One of the most lasting impacts of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 is the spread of right-to-work laws across the U.S. As of today, 26 states and Guam have enacted right-to-work laws, largely concentrated in the South and Midwest. The continued push for and adoption of right-to-work laws at the state level shows the ongoing influence of Taft-Hartley.
Limitations on Union Activities
The restrictions on secondary boycotts, jurisdictional strikes, and featherbedding established by the Act are still enforced. Unions are prohibited from engaging in strikes or actions that target neutral third parties (secondary boycotts) or engage in disputes over job assignments (jurisdictional strikes). These provisions have created a more regulated framework for union activities and collective bargaining.
Decline in Union Membership
In 1983, 20.1% of American workers were union members; 2023 saw a record-low of 10.0%. By prohibiting closed shops, the Act allowed workers to enter unionized workplaces without mandatory union membership, reducing the automatic influx of union members. Combined with economic shifts towards a more service-oriented economy and the rise of right-to-work laws, these factors have collectively contributed to the erosion of union membership.
Major Changes or Revisions
While the core provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act remain largely intact, there have been some challenges and calls for reform over the years.
The PRO Act
The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, proposed in recent years, represents a significant challenge to the legacy of the Taft-Hartley Act. The PRO Act seeks to reverse some of Taft-Hartley’s restrictions on unions, such as by:
- Repealing right-to-work laws.
- Reintroducing the ability for unions to engage in secondary boycotts.
- Strengthening penalties for employers that violate workers’ rights to unionize.
While the PRO Act has passed in the House of Representatives, it faces significant opposition in the Senate and has yet to become law. However, its introduction signals growing support for shifting the balance of power back toward unions in the modern labor landscape.
Public Sector Unions
Taft-Hartley primarily governs the private sector, but public-sector unions have seen different legal frameworks develop around them. For instance, public sector workers were largely unaffected by right-to-work laws until the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision in 2018. This ruling prohibited mandatory union fees for public employees, even in states that allowed such practices, echoing some of Taft-Hartley’s impact on private-sector unions.
Final Thoughts
While the Labor Management Relations Act remains a foundational piece of U.S. labor law, its relevance is continuously tested. The ongoing debates about right-to-work laws, the PRO Act, and the role of unions in the modern workforce show that the Act’s impact continues to evolve more than 70 years after its passage.
As union-employer labor relations continue to evolve, Indeavor’s workforce management solution helps industrial organizations navigate and adhere to union contracts at the point of scheduling. By automating the tracking of union agreements, such as overtime regulations, seniority preferences, and shift allocations, Indeavor ensures compliance while streamlining operations. This adaptability is especially crucial as labor laws and union contracts evolve, allowing businesses to remain compliant without manual oversight or risk of errors.
