National Labor Relations Act, Research Paper Example

The Wagner Act as the Magna Carta of American Labor

National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which is widely known as The Wagner Act, was enacted by Congress in 1935 and signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the 5^th of July[1] [2]. The main goal of this Act was to prevent workers from unfair labor practices and give legislative support to unions. The historical background before and after the Act enactment differs greatly; current paper explores it in order to prove that for America in 1930s it was very important to create such labor law.

Before 1935, the worker’s situation was horrible. They had virtually no rights when it came to organizing, joining unions, collective bargaining, bargaining of their wages, striking, boycotting, etc.[3] [4]

First, the workers’ rights to strike were severely limited. As Carl Swidorski from The College of Saint Rose claimed, it was state courts that dealt with picketing cases before 1930s[5], and they usually considered that forms of protest illegal.

During last ten-twenty years the situation of workers got worst. On the hearing of the NLRA there were two sides – proponents and opponents of the act. Of course, workers were pro and their stories of the discrimination sometimes were horrible. For example, Sefcovic described the excerpt of the Act Hearings[6] where the story of elevator operator is told. In summary, it tells about the man in his forties who had to provide a family consisting of a wife and six children. His income was extremely low (namely $60 per month); his family received food relief and wore clothes that were provided by charitable organizations. One Christmas evening he went to drink a cup of coffee and spoke to the union organizer. After this he even did not reach his home – he was fired for having conversation with union member.

Does this story seem outrageous? Of course, yes. There were many narratives told that day about worker’s misery; they were spied on, discriminated, and fired for nothing. There were workers among testifiers who were beaten by the company’s men for their activity[7]. People were scared, they were afraid of spies in the streets, of the sudden dismissal or any other form of victimization.

The wave of labor unrest swept the country in the beginning of 1930. Though the strikes could have been dealt with respect to workers by means of negotiations and diplomacy, employers did not do it that way. In fact, there existed a bunch of strategies that allowed dealing with strikes; all of them were in the interests of employers. “Violent suppression using the police forces of the state and private security forces has been the classic American response”[8]. Union leaders were usually fired in order to scare other workers. Such conditions were common sight.

Actually, before the NLRA came into operation workers would not sue their employers even if the behavior of latter was outrageous and offending.

Consequently, the Wagner Act was “passed in a cultural climate hospitable to social change”[9] In fact the worker class suffering and civil revolts was not the only reason for this Act creation. Also, a fear of spreading Communist or Nazi ideology took place, as well as persuasiveness of President Roosevelt who prepared the Americans and Senate to the enactment of this document.

Some proponents of this act[10] claimed that employees’ strikes would keep on if the Wagner Act was defeated. In fact, the country was on the verge of some kind of war between suppressed employees and unscrupulous employers.

From the Sefcovic paper one gets an understanding that on the hearing of the NLRA workers were described as peaceful people who want to get decent wages and need unions to coordinate their bargaining. Opponents claimed that union leaders were criminals and sought money and chaos. But in fact union dues were collected to enable unions operate freely in courts and protect workers’ rights. Also, opponents predicted that the Act may expand workers’ rights to an unconstitutional extent thus allowing them to interfere with production process and business.

Luckily, opponent’s stories did not impress opponents and the Act came into force, though with some amendments[11]. The main improvements that were made by the act were the next. Employers were prohibited to interfere with workers’ organizations, to dismiss them for actions under the Act; “to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees”[12]; to discriminate workers by means encouraging or discouraging them from membership in any labor organization[13]; and some other practices mentioned in section 8 of the NLRA. It also regulated striking and boycotting for employees.

The Wagner Act also governed the creation of National Labor Relations Board that had certain authorities. The main authority of the board was “from time to time to make, amend, and rescind, in the manner prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act, such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act”[14].

The Section 7 gave employees the right to form labor unions that could to bargain with a very powerful manufacturing sector. Employees also gained the right “to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations …and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining …, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities …” [15]. “Labor leaders hailed Section 7(a) as a ‘Magna Carta’ for workers”[16].

There are several Supreme Court cases that illustrate vividly the change of the situation in unfair labor practices. Carl Swidorski described them in his article[17]. First of them is Senn v. Tile Layers’ Protective Union an employer (Senn) recognized the union but wanted to work along with his two workers. The union picketed him; and the Court decided that only employees could lay tiles. It seems ridiculous and negligible, but before the NLRA came into force it would have been impossible.

The second case[18] is about African Americans who picketed a grocery store that did not want to hire them. The owner wanted a Court injunction, but the Court protected the employees. The most notable case, Thornhill v. Alabama[19] marked introduction of the First amendment into the industrial picketing laws. Picketing was seen by the judge as an indivisible part of democratic society. He also insisted that though labor “disputes may result in economic coercion, this was not justification for preventing the dissemination of information about [them]”[20]. Though employees’ rights improved dramatically, the main target of the labor legislation was to improve economic stability and support manufacture.

Michael Oswalt in his article devoted to the Wagner Act discusses one of the cases that took place in Los Angeles. (It happened after 1930s, and author does not mention exact year.) There the Justice for Janitors (J for J) campaign took place; it was a living example of social movement unionism[21]. J for J gained public support and showed collective activism that had not taken place since the 1930s. In two years this organization helped 90 percent of Los Angeles’s high-rise janitors to benefit from collectively bargained agreement by increasing wages. Many janitors then participated in the movement and showed great activity and militancy.

Obviously, new liberties and rights of employees did disturb their employers. What actually happened was a transfer of guardianship over workers from the employers to federal government. Of course, employers still wanted their employees to trust them and not lawyers or other officials. They thought that only employers could look after their interests properly. In fact employers were afraid that liberated workers would drive their business to bankruptcy or interfere with production. But it is very hard to trust people who encourage you by clubs and bullets[22] and believe that they are capable of objective judgment.

All authors (Swidorski, Oswalt, Sefcovic) in their works mention that in the course of history the Wagner Act was amended, improved by other acts or ignored. Many lengthy publications now are devoted to obsoleteness of the Wagner Act. There were also weak points considering direct governing of strikes, boycotts, pickets, etc. These weak points left crucial decisions upon Court’s mercy. In the long run all loopholes were found and state laws regulated labor relationships rather strictly.

But despite all that deficiencies the National Labor Relations Act did a lot for American workers. In the moment when nothing but war could result from the unrest of workers, it eased the situation and made one of the first steps towards democracy and legitimacy of labor relations. Though the First Amendment was the first document that proclaimed human democratic rights, the Wagner Act proclaimed that of employees.

By establishing conditions of effective bargaining with corporate powers, by providing legal support to the unions, by specifying rights to associate and protest, the Wagner Act “set the stage for that period in American history when ‘Big Labor’ was recognized as one of a triumvirate of powerful social forces, along with Big Government and Big Business”[23] throughout the middle of the twentieth century. During the period of 1930s-1960s, union contracts helped to form the high standard of living for working class. The working class was no longer poor class; it gradually became middle class. Nowadays we can claim that employed people in the United States of America enjoy the consequences of the Wagner Act work.

[1] “National Labor Relations Act”. National Labor  Relations Board. 21 Oct. 2009. < http://www.nlrb.gov/about_us/overview/national_labor_relations_act.aspx>

[2] Enid M.I Sefcovic, and Celeste M. Condit, “Narrative and Social Change: A Case Study of the Wagner Act of 1935,” Communication Studies 52.4 (2001), par. 21, Questia, 21 Oct. 2009 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000948460>.

[3] Sefcovic, par. 28.

[4] Swidorski, Carl. “From the Wagner Act to the Human Rights Watch Report: Labor and Freedom of Expression and Association, 1935–2000”. New Political Science.25.1 (2003), p.1.

[5] Swidorski, p.68.

[6] Sefcovic, par. 28.

[7] Sefcovic, par. 29.

[8] Sefcovic, par. 15.

[9] Sefcovic, par. 11.

[10] Sefcovic, par. 34.

[11] Sefcovic, par. 21.

[12] NLRA, sec. 8(5)

[13] NLRA, Sec. 8(3)

[14] NLRA, Sec.6.

[15] NLRA, Sec. 7

[16] Sefcovic, par. 12.

[17] Swidorski, p. 68.

[18] Swidorski, p. 68.

[19] Swidorski, p. 68-9.

[20] Swidorski, p. 69.

[21] Michael M. Oswalt, “The Grand Bargain: Revitalizing Labor through NLRA Reform and Radical Workplace Relations,” Duke Law Journal 57.3 (2007), par. 30, Questia, 22 Oct. 2009 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5025124549>

[22] Sefcovic, par. 63.

[23] Sefcovic, par. 3.