Some manufacturers and retailers are urging President Joe Biden to invoke the 1947 law as a way to suspend a strike by 45,000 dock workers that has led to… Closing 36 American ports From Maine to Texas.
At issue is Section 206 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act. The law allows the president to request a court order for an 80-day cooling-off period for companies and unions to try to resolve their differences.
But Biden said he would not interfere in the strike.
The Taft-Hartley Act was intended to limit the power of unions
The law was introduced by two Republicans – Senator Robert Taft of Ohio and Representative Fred Hartley Jr. of New Jersey – in the wake of World War II. This followed a series of strikes in 1945 and 1946 by workers demanding better wages and working conditions after wartime deprivation.
President Harry Truman opposed Taft-Hartley, but his veto was overridden by Congress.
In addition to allowing the president to intervene in strikes, the law prohibited “closed shops,” requiring employers to employ only unionized workers. The ban allowed workers to refuse to join unions.
Taft-Hartley also banned “secondary boycotts,” making it illegal for unions to pressure neutral companies to stop doing business with an employer that was targeted in a strike.
It also requires union leaders to sign affidavits declaring that they do not support the Communist Party.
Bosses could target strike that could ‘jeopardize national health and safety’
The president can appoint a board of inquiry to review and write a report on the labor dispute — and then direct the attorney general to ask a federal court to suspend a workers’ strike or lockout by management.
If the court issues an injunction, an 80-day cooling-off period will begin. During this period, management and unions must “make every effort to control and settle their differences.”
However, the law cannot force union members to accept a contract offer.
Bosses have called out Taft-Hartley 37 times in labor disputes
According to the Congressional Research Service, about half the time presidents invoked Section 206 of the Taft-Hartley Act, the parties settled their differences. But nine times, according to the research service, workers went on strike.
President George W. Bush activated the Taft-Hartley system in 2002 after 29 West Coast ports blocked members of the International Longshore Ports and Warehouse Association in a standoff. (The matter ended in reaching an agreement between the two sides.)
Biden said he would not use Taft-Hartley to intervene
Despite pressure from the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation, the president emphasized that he had no plans to try to suspend a dock workers’ strike against ports on the East and Gulf coasts.
On Wednesday, before leaving Joint Base Andrews for an air tour of North Carolina to see the devastation left by Hurricane Helen, Biden said the port strike was hampering efforts to provide emergency materials for relief efforts.
“This natural disaster has incredibly serious consequences,” the president said. “The last thing we need on top of that is a man-made disaster – what’s happening in the ports.”
Biden pointed out that the companies that control the ports of the East Coast and the Gulf have made huge profits since the outbreak of the pandemic.
“It’s time for them to come to the table and make this strike,” he said.
Although many ports are publicly owned, private companies often manage cargo loading and unloading operations.
William Brocher, a labor relations expert at Rutgers University, notes that the Taft-Hartley orders are “widely hated, if not universally despised, by labor unions in the United States.”
Vice President Kamala Harris is counting on the support of organized labor in her presidential campaign against Donald Trump.
If the longshoremen’s strike lasts long enough and causes shortages that alienate American consumers, pressure could mount on Biden to change course and intervene. But experts like Brocher point out that most voters have already made up their minds and that the election outcome “really comes down to turnout” now.
Which means, Brocher said, “Democrats can’t really afford to alienate organized labor.”
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.