Charles
^^^^^ Shane Taylor Marv Gandall wrote:
> I can't agree that the reason why why there is no repeat of CIO
> organization is because of Hart-Taftley and other anti-union
> legislation.
Tom Geoghegan, a sharp labor lawyer, makes the case in _which Side Are You On?_. He emphasizes not only the Wagner Act, but the now overlooked Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932, which he viewed as essential to backing the federal courts out of labor disputes (now long since undermined, by judicial fiat as well as by the legislature). Among the list of now crippled means he lists secondary strikes at "neutral" employers, mass picketings, as well as those sit-down strikes.
Admittedly, Geoghegan concern is with successful organization, not just general militancy. What's so great about the latter if it is crushed and forgotten in a few years?
We should never overplay structural differences in the economy to the exclusion of the ease of firing union-inclined workers. The low cost to the employer of firing such workers is central to this story.
The defensive crouch is deeply ideological. For nearly two generations, labor's freedom has been invoked to gut the means of its exercise. Little wonder that Ron Paul is mistaken as a solution rather than a sociopath.
Shane