The Labor-Management Act of 1947, best known as the Taft-Hartley Act because of its primary sponsors, Robert Taft (R, OH) in the Senate and Fred Hartley (R, NJ) in the House, severely hampered organized labor's ability to establish new unions in non-unionized economic sectors, perhaps especially in the least unionized parts of the country. Building on the anti-union amendments fashioned by the Southern Democrats, NAM, and the AFL in 1939, the Taft-Hartley Act put its greatest emphasis on adding new rights for corporate executives in relation to labor, which in effect gave management more latitude to pressure workers. For one thing, the Taft-Hartley amendments included new language that downgraded the importance of collective bargaining in the name of free speech for both employers and workers. In practice, this meant employers could refuse to bargain and more readily propagandize workers through pamphlets, flyers, and speeches at meetings workers had to attend. Veiled threats to move the plants elsewhere were often made and companies did increase their efforts to move factories to the South whenever possible. In addition, the softening of provisions against unfair management practices aided in the defense and extension of company unions (Jacoby 1997, pp. 183-191, 200-203).
The board majority replaced long-time staff members in regional offices with conservatives, and by December 1954, it had reversed most of the precedents developed by Democratic boards between 1937 and 1952. At the same time the new NLRB majority ignored the dubious and questionable practices used by the increasing number of firms that aided corporations in defeating unionization drives and in developing ways to bring about the decertification of already established unions. Their methods included the use of psychological tests to screen out potential employees with leadership abilities and of seemingly neutral discussion groups to identify employees who might be sympathetic to unions (Smith 2003, Chapter 4).
Indeed the article is about a method that can help all of us in a time when desperate helplessness and barbaric chaos rules.
There is a group of people, or a nation that on the merit of their unique predecessors possesses a special practical method that can change an instinctive, self-destructive “humanoid” to a real Human Being capable of acting above instincts, capable of researching and attaining the reality we exist in in order to adapt to it seamlessly.
The application of the method is not exclusive, each and every human being needs to join in it in practice for the ideal mutually complementing collaboration – built on “love others as yourself” – to work optimally.
But those who possess the method and know how to show positive example through it, know how to “market and publish it” are obliged to do so first of all.
However, Young may have misunderstood Roosevelt's perspective on labor issues. As Roosevelt wrote to one of his most trusted advisors, Harvard Law School Professor Felix Frankfurter, in August 1934, his long-term goal was to salvage the National Industrial Recovery Act's provisions for "(1) minimum wage, (2) maximum hours, (3) collective bargaining and (4) child labor," which would require legislation that could pass muster with a Supreme Court dominated by eight former corporate lawyers (four ultraconservatives, two moderate conservatives who provided the swing votes, and two liberals); Frankfurter then passed this information along to Justice Louis Brandeis, one of the two liberals, in a handwritten note (Davis 1986, p. 517).
This is not True.. go research about the Talmud and Kabala.. their God is not our creator their false god is Baal and they have sects like Freemason , Bohemian Grove and they had 420 skull and bones.. and Abraham wasnt a Jew wtf this PHD perverted jew who is trying to fool ? people that have read the bible and Quran knows very well that Jews were Dammed by God for the ETERNITY for workinship Baal and they keep doing it.. they kidnap children, rape them and sacrifice them in their Jew Blood Rituals..
THIS ARTICLE HAS ALOT OF LIES! AND JEWS WERE EXPELLED FROM 109 Locations since AD 250 .. YOU CAN RESEARCH IT .. and WHY? Because they practice satanic rituals, they torture animals , they promote homosexual-transexual and peadofile agenda.. why? because in their Talmud book its normal for them sexualy asault 3yos.. JEWS ARE WORST THAN ANIMALS THATS WHY THEY WERE CALLED SUBHUMAN AND THEY ALWAYS BE SUBHUMAN
Due to the strong corporate support for the Republican challenger, Roosevelt was outspent $8.8 million to $5.1 million, and most major newspapers endorsed his opponent. But he won 62.5% of the two-party vote, documenting once again that those with the biggest war chest don't always win and that the influence of the mass media can be overstated. The ultraconservatives' appeal to traditional values, their claims that the constitution was being shredded, and their insistence that the New Deal was socialism in liberal clothing (sound familiar?) fell on deaf ears. Organized labor's efforts seemed to make the difference in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, including "crucial local elections in the steel and coal towns of Pennsylvania and Ohio" (Dubofsky 2000, p. 157). The Democrats increased their already overwhelming margins in both the Senate and House, and also elected New Deal Democrats to the governorships in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The new version of Wagner's National Labor Relations Act, which is rightly called the "Wagner Act" for his solidness, tenacity, and courage, established the National Labor Relations Board as a "Supreme Court" that would focus on the enforcement of rights, not on mediation. It would have the right to enforce its decisions concerning the appropriate bargaining unit for each case, the use of unfair labor practices by employers, and the appropriate remedies for workers who had been fired for union activities. The proposed legislation also drew upon precedents set by earlier quasi-judicial government regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, which had been upheld by federal courts (e.g., Bernstein 1969, pp. 323-324). However, there was one aspect of the 1934 version that remained unchanged. Agricultural and domestic labor was excluded with the same language that the Committee on Education and Labor introduced in 1934. And once again, there were no questions raised about this exclusion in the floor debates (Farhang and Katznelson 2005, p. 13). And companies did have the right to appeal the board's decisions in courts of law, which proved to be one key factor in its eventual undoing.
If it were only a matter of Lewis and Hillman in coal and garments, perhaps the corporate moderates might have conceded the point on majority rule, although the du Ponts and other ultraconservatives would have objected mightily. However, there was an even more serious issue: the growing unity and militancy among both craft and industrial workers, especially in steel, rubber, autos, and other heavy industries. The moderate conservatives did not want to see most workers organized into industrial unions, especially unions supported by national laws. The idea of collective bargaining was acceptable if it was voluntary and involved craft workers, but not if it was mandatory and contained the potential for uniting all workers. There is also a little bit of evidence that some business leaders, usually in highly competitive sectors with many small companies, could see the benefits of unions in helping to limit competition among businesses by means of making wage reductions. However, even the historian who presses this point the furthest concludes that in the final analysis almost all business owners rejected unions as a threat to the right to manage their enterprises exactly as they pleased (Gordon 1994, p. 238). At the most general level, then, as one historical institutionalist concluded in a rare nod to the importance of class conflict, a large part of the problem boiled down to the fact that virtually no corporate leaders wanted the government to have the power to help create a fully organized working class (Skocpol 1980, p. 181).
Recently much exposure has been given in the media about anti Semitism in the Labour Party. These accusations seem to have been fomented after a remark from Ken Livingston. Livingston claimed that the Nazi party made a treaty with the Zionist party. For this comment Livingston was instantly demonised as anti Semite! Yet Livingston was simply stating a fact. The haavara agreement was signed in 1933 to facilitate movement of Jews from Germany to Palestine. I only researched this historically interesting item after becoming puzzled by the rather anxious attempts by the media to prove that religious intolerance is an integral part of socialist philosophy. Surely The Jewish Chronicle would have been aware of this treaty ,yet there does not seem to have been any attempt from Jewish sources to verify the accuracy of Livingston`s remark. Has he been censored for simply speaking the truth?