Why the Taft-Hartley Act Should Be Overturned
Rawls’ Justice Theory is a system of decision-making for the purpose of insuring rights for the people affected. It calls for two basic things: the guarantee of an adequate blueprint of basic liberties, and equality of opportunity despite any economic and social inequalities.
The guarantee of a system outlining the basic equalities for the people doesn’t necessarily advocate total social equity. Instead, it sets a minimum standard that holds a higher value than any other additional standards that are applied elsewhere. So if the minimum standard of rights is life, another standard cannot be added to a higher class that allows for murder. However, they could be granted any other rights so long as they don’t conflict with the previously established basic set.
Decisions that create inequalities are perfectly acceptable so long as they satisfy the following two conditions: Economic and social inequalities must benefit the least privileged members of society, and all public and private positions and offices must remain open and accessible to all members of society. Examples of social and economic inequalities that this philosophy would allow for would be a progressive tax system, but not a regressive system, and affirmative action for people who’ve had less access to opportunities in the past than most people. Additionally, inequalities against the lower classes that benefit them are acceptable. Basically, every decision must be made with the goal in mind of raising the social status of the least privileged members of society. Or even more simply put, officials are to make every decision as if they have yet to be born into society yet, and do not know where they might end up in the social hierarchy.
The Taft-Hartley Act fundamentally conflicts with this philosophy. It not only harms the lower classes, but it does so by giving both the employer and employee additional rights.
The maximization of rights seems like a good idea, but Rawls would disagree.
First off, he would say that the rights of the employer conflict with those of the employee. For instance, employers are no longer required to negotiate with unions. So where union workers once had the right to be heard on important issues, they no longer have that guarantee.
He would then say that by giving the employees freedom of association, like the right to work provisions did, you are allowing them to choose to hurt themselves. These provisions allowed for states to ban unions from requiring new employees to join.
The problem with this is that new employees see no need to join the union or pay dues, as they will receive the benefits either way. So the union as a whole is harmed and thus has less bargaining power in future negotiations. Certain states legally banned closed shops, which are businesses where the union can force management to fire employees that are expelled from the union, or deemed unsuitable for employment. Now the union, which consists of the working class, has no say in who gets hired. New employees get the benefits of having a union without the responsibility of sustaining it. So unions take on an unfair burden, in which payment for their services is optional. In other words, union members are forced to pay for non-union workers if they want to make changes in the company policies that adversely affect them personally.
Rawls would find closed shops to be morally acceptable because, though they take away the freedom of association, they insure that the union remains healthy. Healthy unions are more effective when it comes to collective bargaining than weak unions because the threat of a total walkout is much more substantial than that of a partial one. Therefore those who are forced to join will benefit more than they would if they kept their autonomy.
The Taft-Hartley Act in general weakened unions. It set up numerous unreasonable laws that union members and union leaders had to abide by. The basic provisions are as such: Jurisdictional strikes are now outlawed. These are walkouts protesting the takeover of union jobs by non-union workers. Secondary boycotts are also illegal, so unions cannot order a strike because the company is doing business with a non-union entity. Common situs picketing is no longer allowed. So if union workers are working alongside non-union workers and decide to strike, they cannot picket on the jobsite where the non-union workers are working. Closed shops were no longer legal in some states, meaning no one could be denied a job for refusal to join the union. Monetary donations from unions to federal political campaigns were made illegal. Additionally, there were heavy restrictions placed on union shops, and states were granted the right to pass “right to work” laws, effectively outlawing closed shops within those states. Lastly, the Federal government could obtain legal strikebreaking injunctions in certain cases regarding public safety. The provisions of this act are designed to weaken unions for the sake of a stable economy. Unions, like most businesses, require money to survive. Considering their only real source of revenue is union dues, it is difficult for them to stay in the black when union dues become optional.
Unfortunately, this means the workingmen and women of this country cannot receive fair wages or benefits as easily, nor will they be guaranteed the right to a safe working environment. This has been demonstrated by the Sago tragedy. On January 2nd, 2006, twelve non-union coal miners in Sago West Virginia died from what was an easily preventable accident. An accident that quite possibly would not have happened if the Sago mine had the same safety record as the union mines in the area. Because they were without a union, these coal miners were unable to gain access to basic equipment that should have been available to save their lives. Safety standards vary depending on who sets them; all around the country in virtually every industry, the standards are being set by the people whose job it is to keep costs down. These are the wrong people to entrust this duty to. However, the right people are not able to do that job. Normally a union could be easily organized when such a need arose, but now that membership is an option, not enough workers choose to partake in supporting the union financially to make it a worthy endeavor on the part of the union leaders. Thus it becomes increasingly difficult for working men and women to make positive changes in the workplace.
There are five major provisions introduced by the LMRA that adversely affect the ability of unions to fulfill their Dharma. Some only apply to the right to work states, but most apply to all fifty.
Jurisdictional strikes are now outlawed. Before this happened, unions could fight employers that were trying to slowly phase them out, or save money at the expense of union members. It’s potentially dangerous in some industries for employers to do this. For instance, non union workers typically receive less training than union workers. This is a violation of the rights of the union members working along side the non-union workers because the lack of training on the part of the new workers is a liability. Considering the workers are put at risk while their employers are not, an obvious unbeneficial inequality exists. Rawls would not approve because the health of the lower class has been put at risk for the sake of the higher class. The best solution would be for the employers to give adequate training to the new workers. This sometimes happens, but not often enough. One must only look to the safety record of the coal-mining industry to see a demonstration of this. It has taken severe legislative action to force employers to provide windows of adequate strength for the bulldozers. These windows are necessary to protect the driver in the event of a surge pile collapse.
This leads in to common situs picketing. In the event that striking workers share a workspace with non-union workers, they aren’t permitted to ask those workers to join them in striking, join or organize a union or take any part whatsoever. These were once tactics that could shorten a strike so that everyone can get back to work under better conditions quicker.
Twenty-two states have right to work laws. These laws basically state that unions are not allowed to negotiate a union security clause in their contracts. So, though all employees operate under the same contract, union membership is only an option. This effectively outlaws closed shops in half the US, which has a significant effect on the strength of unions. Though the consequences spread nationwide, a more significant effect is felt locally. “The average worker in Idaho earns about $5,655 less a year than workers in other states”, according to The Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Dept of Commerce 2003 Workers in these states are measurably worse off than they would be had the LMRA not passed.
Lastly, monetary donations from unions to federal political campaigns were made illegal. So any hope of overturning this law was crushed. This was a non-beneficial inequality that Rawls would not agree with. By barring unions from having any say in how this country is run, yet granting that permission to the elites, this provision is promoting a widening of the gap between the classes.
Under the Taft-Hartley Act, the president has the authority to intervene in strikes or potential strikes that potentially create a national emergency. On October 8th, 2002, President Bush used this to stop a lockout. The court order forced union dockworkers to operate without a contract. The workers were willing to work during the negotiations, anyway, but were locked out by the employer in an attempt to weaken the union during negotiations. This worked out in favor of the employer as work was getting done while the union continued to weaken. “The Bush administration’s move today is nothing short of an attack on American workers’ freedom to be able to go to the negotiating table on an equal footing with America’s employers, and if every employer thinks the federal government will step in, why should they negotiate and let the natural bargaining process work? In fact, this administration has routinely abused its power to force federal intervention-first in the airlines, then in railroads and now in the private sector.” AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka. It’s not like the demands of the union were unreasonable, “With five fatalities in the last six months at various West Coast ports – a high number for a comparatively small workforce – federal data show dock work is second only to mining in fatal danger to workers” This provision is too easily abused for the sake of the rich at the expense of the working class; the safety of these workers is taking a back seat to the profits of these companies, which is unjust under Rawls’ model. The government should be taking the side of the union, as that’s who’s supporting the disadvantaged.
If our government values the rights of the working class, it will overturn Taft-Hartley in its entirety. There is no benefit to anyone but those who run the major corporations in this country. They could be plenty successful while working with unions to insure the safety, and wellbeing of working men and women everywhere. John Rawls did not support the erosion of the rights of the working class, and that’s exactly what this is: the systematic dissimilation of the rights of working class America.
