Mon, Sep 6, 2010 Hello ! | Sign Out | Account Settings |  HELP
Categories
Business
Latest Entries
Loading...
Search:
Business
Knowledge that pertains to specific areas/concepts of the organization (e.g., marketing, business planning, strategic planning).
Taft Hartley VS NLRA
Posted by: Kevin Conley on May 1, 2008 at 8:20AM EST

I am looking for the one or two key differentiators between the two acts.  Not really clear on this.

 

Send This | Categories:
(4) Comments
Posted by: Dawn Schaller on May 3, 2008 2:08AM EST
The Taft-Hartley (T-H) Act (1947) is actually an amended version of NLRA (1935). (The NLRA is also called the Wagner Act, and was considered the "Labor Bill of Rights".) Originally, the NLRA prohibited unfair labor practices by employers and management only. The T-H Act made an amendment to include prohibiting unfair practices by unions, including various kinds of strikes (wildcat, jurisdictional, political, etc), boycotts, closed stops, etc. Prior to 1947, business could strike for any reason and for as long as they wanted. After the passage of T-H, limits were set on a labor union's ability to strike.
In addition, if a strike were threatening the nation's health or safety, the NLRA granted an injunction to get the parties to resolve issues within 60 days. The T-H Act added an additional 20 days, creating an 80-day "cooling-off" period during which the law would prohibit a "national emergency strike". The extra days also allowed a majority of disputes to be settled.
There are other amendments to the NLRA and how they are explained. I just touched on a few.

Posted by: Sandra Evans on June 14, 2008 8:44AM EST
Many people believed that the Taft-Hartley amendment was pro government and employers compared to the NLRA which was pro union, because of the restrictive components of the Act.

Posted by: Darrell Johnson on July 7, 2008 1:49PM EST
I think Dawn covers it well.

Posted by: Darrell Johnson on July 7, 2008 1:50PM EST
I think Dawn covers it well.

Loading...