These laws and initiatives were part of the forces that produced the corruption that plagues organized labor. The unions that survived had to be corrupt, not just to feed the union officials but to keep the employers happy. It's easier to deal with a Jimmy Hoffa.
> The latter measure, passed after an
> investigation of labor racketeering, included a "Bill of Rights" to
> protect union members from their leaders. Without denying the
> prevalence of corruption, which Fitch demonstrates, can anyone in
> good conscience say that the business interests behind Congress
> sought "union democracy" and improved working conditions? Or was it
> merely union-busting that they were after?
The L-G act was not just an anti-corruption effort but an attempt to get more government control over unions, which in the end means more employer control. But it's important to remember that Congress doesn't serve the collective interests of the capitalist class (as moderated a little by opposing forces at some times) as much as the combine individual interests of capitalists. There are a lot of conflicting reasons behinds something like L-G. For example, people like RFK had to prove themselves to be anti-corruption. -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles