The Wagner Act of 1935: Labor's Bill of Rights

[Hawk1981]

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 was designed to guarantee workers "the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection."

Also known as the Wagner Act for New York Senator Robert F Wagner who introduced the bill, the National Labor Relations Act consisted of 5 provisions, all of which were written to increase worker rights:

1. The prohibition of management, or any other, to interfere, restrain or coerce employees in their rights of freedom of association, mutual aid or protection, self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively for wages and working conditions through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other protected concerted activities with or without a union.

2. "Dominating" or interfering with the formation or administration of any labor organization.

3. Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts of support for a labor organization.

4. Discriminating against employees who file charges or testify.

5. Refusing to bargain collectively with the representative of the employer's employees.

The Wagner Act of 1935 was designed to correct the problems associated with previous attempts at Labor relations, specifically the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933. Drafted as an attempt to quell the effects of the Great Depression, the major component of the NIRA was the suspension of anti-trust laws and a support of the alliance of industries. Companies were required to establish industry wide "codes of fair competition" that fixed prices, wages and established quotas on the production of goods. In addition, employees were given collective bargaining rights and could not be required to abstain from joining a labor organization.

Besides correcting the issues that were found to be unconstitutional in the prior law, the Wagner Act added needed enforcement with the creation of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB was designed to address a number of issues. It was widely believed that the federal court system was too overwhelmed, and had little experience, dealing with labor issues. It was also believed that the court system would not be a strong advocate for the enforcement of Labor rights. Congress noted that many issues involving labor policies could not be agreed upon by those currently in the government. For that reason it was believed that an administrative body, designed solely to deal with labor issues, would be the best way to deal with developing policy.

 

[Hawk1981]

The Wagner Act was bitterly opposed by business groups and by the Republican Party. These groups engaged in a campaign of opposition in order to repeal the law. This included encouraging employers to refuse to comply with the NLRB and supporting the nationwide filing of injunctions to keep the NLRB from functioning. The Supreme Court determined that the Wagner Act was constitutional in 1937.

Some labor groups also expressed reservations. The American Federation of Labor (AFL) thought the NLRB often favored the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), particularly when determining whether to hold union elections in plant-wide, or wall-to-wall, units, which the CIO usually sought, or to hold separate elections in separate craft units, which the craft unions in the AFL favored. Compromise legislation was eventually passed by Congress to allow craft unions to seek separate representation of smaller groups of workers at the same time that another union was seeking a wall-to-wall unit.

 

[Hawk1981]

Over the years the Wagner Act was tempered with various amendments, and most notably by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, that outlaw a number of union practices such as closed shops, secondary boycotts, jurisdictional strikes, mass picketing, strikes in violation of contractual no-strike clauses, pension and health and welfare plans sponsored by unions and multi-employer bargaining.

The Wagner Act is arguably the most important piece of legislation to date protecting workers’ and unions’ rights. It involved the federal government in this protection and in arbitrating employer-employee disputes, a key step in preventing unjust treatment of workers. Before the law, employers had liberty to spy upon, question, punish, blacklist, and fire union members. A number of work stoppages in 1933 and 1934 included citywide general strikes and factory occupations by workers and led to hostile skirmishes between workers bent on organizing unions, and the police and hired security squads backing the interests of factory owners. Some historians maintain that Congress enacted the NLRA primarily to help stave off even more serious, and potentially revolutionary, labor unrest.

 

[whitehall]

The "right" to form labor organizations doesn't extend to forcing workers to pay dues if they refuse to join. Municipal unions can bankrupt small cities (and often do) while union leaders award themselves golden parachutes.

 

[Hawk1981]

In a decision handed down regarding National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, on April 12, 1937, the US Supreme Court decided 5 to 4 that the national government has power under the Commerce Clause to regulate labor relations.

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the majority opinion stating that companies cannot discriminate against employees for exercising their fundamental right to unionize. The Court upheld the Wagner Act of 1935, reasoning that it was narrowly constructed so as to regulate industrial activities which had the potential to restrict interstate commerce. The majority stated that any significant effect (direct or indirect) on interstate commerce allows Congress to regulate an activity under the Commerce Clause.

While the manufacturing process or relationships between labor and management may not have a direct impact on the flow of goods, they have an aggregate impact on commerce. In this case, the potential secession of manufacturing activity due to conflicts between management and labor could potentially impede interstate commerce.

 

[whitehall]

A 5-4 decision by a stacked supreme court isn't very impressive. A 6-3 supreme court decision in 1944 justified the incarceration of Japanese American citizens without due process.