I was reading a book by a very progressive leaning author who made no apologies in arguing that the passing of Taf-Hartley signified the end of worker's representation that was just reaching a powerful point in American Politics. He went on to argue that it should be repealed and would help bring back an age of worker's centric politics in America.
However I was reading in the Oxford Companion to US Government that the bill was passed because unions were in fact exercising more than understandable power in situations that weren't even necessary. It basically implied that unions were perceived as abusing their power and that this was why the bill was prompted.
I don't have an idea either way and was hoping if some US politic-oriented historians here could give me a bit of insight into what this bill changed for America as a whole, and if it has as much to do with worker exploitation today as the author claimed?
Thanks!
Was your book Reviving The Strike? http://www.revivingthestrike.org/ because that is essentially the premise of Joe Burns, that the numerous restrictions of strikes placed the power of labor in the hands of NLRB arbitrators. Now, to be fair, strike action had terrified public leaders since WWI http://www.dancarlin.com/hhredir.php?show=Show-40---(BLITZ)-Radical-Thoughts Dan Carlin lays out his line of thinking about the effects of the General Strikes of Seattle 1919 and Oakland 1948, where the red scare got rolled into a desire to reduce union power.
I would argue the progressive era of the US was killed by the desire to manage the power of labor, in direct response to the socialist and communist revolutions in Russia, and consolidated in cold war era conditions which essentially made a loyalty oath to capitalism trump growth of worker rights. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/once_again_--_death_of_the_liberal_class_20121112 Criss Hedges argues that liberal institutions like unions have been systematically dismantled starting with the the war powers granted during WWI to present day.
If there are labor historians out there with better citations I'd love to ask what they think of the above sited sources.