Jump to content

Talk:Taft–Hartley Act/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Feb 2006 message

Maybe the Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Taft-Hartley_Act info should be merged into the Taft-Hartley Act article, making the Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Taft-Hartley_Act article smaller? Travb 04:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge? vote here

Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Taft-Hartley_Act merged into Taft-Hartley Act. Travb (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Labor Unions Pension fund investing

I'm not familiar enough with the Act, but isn't there a restriction about pensions being invested in the stocks of corporations in order to have an influence on the Board of Directors? Chadlupkes 18:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible use Dec 2006

The government is consitering using this act to break the current (Dec 2006) goodyear strike due to the use of the tires on humvees deployed in Iraq. Enigmar 21:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard quote too long...

The criticism section is essentially one long quote from Murray Rothbard. I know the Rothbard-ite's love to come out in force on Wikipedia, but this is ridiculous, especially considering the guys almost non-importance in labor relations and labor history. I'm going to cut out the quote and leave the link up. SiberioS 00:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Pledge Against Communism

The Act required union members to sign a pledge against communism, and this effectively removed the communist party members and also socialist and sympathizers from the unions and their bureacracy. The organizing talent was removed in this one move that is largely ignored, and not mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.198.232 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the entertainment industry, the act and provision was more geared toward breaking up the studio system, the Randolph Hearsts, and the Bolshevik-ideological monopoly of the industry. "Labor's Struggles, 1945-1950: A Participant's View", Irving Richter, David Montgomery. Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN 0521533260, 9780521533263. p. 118. Truman fought to prevent it, but failed. In the end, the only casualty really was the studio system which liberated actors from their monotheistic careers. Many legitimate talents the waiver sought to help would continue to be oppressed as the concentration of the industry remained in the same ideological hands producing and distributing the films. Scientists can go wherever for zenithical professional primism, talent must go to Los Angeles or New York and hope they're liked to get their waiver from the director and producer hired by the studio. In the end it just became a quick backdoor for the ideologues to wheel in their choice talent.
The real thrust of removing the Bolshevik ideological component for a period came from McCarthyism and government oversight as Bolsheviks signed the pledge and still carried on. You may say this is where Hollywood first developed their cleverness as far as masking their agenda in entertainment, although Shakespeare was the respected father.
Petey Parrot (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Embellished on Historical Context

Added a paragraph in the Effects paragraph. It's been argued, and rather self-apparent, that the Act was a response to the WWII labor upsurge as well as an early component of the Second Red Scare. Also reworded some stuff (added reference to Truman's use of the Act) and created anti-communism section. Tried to cite as much as possible. Cheers! Njfuller (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove the word Republican

Mid west states that lean republican? Can we get rid of this now? 38.98.197.94 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NPV radicalism

on 6/27/2011 I removed "As a response to rising union radicalism and Cold..." and changed it to "As a response to the rising union movement and Cold..." Because the word radicalism does not reflect neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bret Klapper (talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyphen in title

It should be the Taft-Hartley Act, not the Taft–Hartley Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.102 (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Comparing Taft-Hartley to NLRA

The National Labor Relations Act has a U.S. Legislation infobox while this act has a Labor infobox. Are there any objections to removing the Labor infobox in favor of the U.S. Legislation infobox? Or should both be used? Biccat (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Could someone more savvy than than I remove the current infobox and replace it with a legislative infobox to the NLRA's template (with long name, nickname, enactment date, date of effect, citations codifications legislative history, major amendments and significant Supreme Court cases relative to the act.)? 68.193.126.139 (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Swigert and Bill Authorship

The introduction states: The principal author of the Taft–Hartley Act was J. Mack Swigert [5] of the Cincinnati law firm Taft, Stettinius & Hollister.

Citation 5, a link which contains an interview of Swigert himself, provides a more accurate description. this. "[Taft] asked Mr. Swigert for advice...Several weeks later, [Swigert] had produced three pages of suggested amendments to the Wagner Act. Included were the right of workers to stay out of unions and the government's ability to end strikes in the name of national security.. But he insists that he did not write the Taft-Hartley bill, noting that only Mr. Taft had the political muscle to push the bill through. 

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/09/04/fin_local_lawyer_had.html

Since the core bill's spirit was suggested by Swigert, and supposedly much of the letter (and it would be interesting if someone found documentation of Swigerts suggestions, followed by drafts of the TH act, and compared it to the bill in its final form to make this evaluation) it may not be a far stretch to call him principal author or the principal author, but that begs the question what does authorship entail? 68.193.126.139 (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taft–Hartley_Act/Archive_1&oldid=864722087"