Talk:National Labor Relations Act of 1935

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WaltzingwithWeasleys.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

very good

Suggestion

The article seems a little heavy on the legal framework and history of the legislation. It provides little detail on how the act actually works in practice. I recommend adding this component to it.

Duly noted--we have added satellite articles on procedural issues. At some later point I'll try to give a rough outline of the practical impact of the law relating to unfair labor practices, to the extent that they are not covered under particular headings such as secondary boycott, but any summary will have to be once over lightly, given the complexity of the law in this area. -- Italo Svevo 22:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Winner-Take-All Politics" by Hacker and Pierson notes that adherence to NLRA declined rapidly since the 70s while the number of reported violations went up. Not only has the number of union members gone down since then but of the few remaining, less than a fifth received recognition via the NLRA process. In: Hacker, Jacob S.; Pierson, Paul (2010): Winner-Take-All Politics. How Washington Made the Rich Richer—and Turned its Back on the Middle Class. New York: Simon & Schustser. It certainly needs more research but the allegedly weak current status of the NLRA is worth mentioning in this article. Juda loeb (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Reverting the addition of Flint Michigan

Two problems: the Flint Sit-Down Strike was not a general strike and, more importantly, it took place more than a year after passage of the Act. The laws of physics prevent it from having any causative effect on something that happened a year earlier. -- Italo Svevo 22:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

You would be absolutely correct if we were to assume that the reference you use was the same one that I used,

However......

The reason for inclusion was .. Attempts had been made to fight the auto moguls early in the depression. In July 1930 a communist-led union struck Fisher Body No. 1 and marched into downtown Flint with banners flying: "In 1776 we fought for Liberty. Today we fight for bread." The workers at Fisher Body in Flint struck and closed their plant for a week.

In 1933, the Trade Union Unity League (TUUL), a left-led organizing group, created the Auto Workers Union along industrial lines. It conducted strikes which eventually involved tens of thousands and which were met with ferocious brutality, especially at the Briggs Auto Works in Flint.

In 1934, President Roosevelt ignored GM’s refusal to negotiate-a violation of the NRA collective bargaining Section 7a, He proposed a compromise: proportional representation of all union groups in a plant, including the company unions! chance0

Thanks for the clarification. I still don't think that justifies including Flint in the list. The 1930 strike, for all its daring, fizzled, and organizing in Flint was pretty dead in 1934; the real action was in Toledo and Cleveland and slowly but surely Detroit. The Briggs strike was centered in Highland Park and Detroit, if I'm not mistaken; Briggs produced mostly for Ford, not GM. And the FDR/GM anecdote doesn't say anything about Flint per se or serve as evidence of the upsurge in strikes,

All of this could go into the United Auto Workers article, however, which could use a lot more depth of detail. I've been meaning to do that for the last year and a half; maybe you'll ge there first.

Principles of Wagnerism

I have edited the material below because the original was incorrect as to the NLRA. The main principles may be found in section 1, the policies and findings of the NLRA, being careful to identify those parts that were added in later amendments.Emunah Emet (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There should be a link to the NLRA itself. http://www.nlrb.gov/about_us/overview/national_labor_relations_act.aspx

Wagnerism makes the following employer unfair labor practices:

• Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in their rights under Section 7. These rights include freedom of association, mutual aid or protection, self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively for wages and working conditions through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other protected concerted activities with or without a union. Section 8(a)(1)

• Assisting or dominating a labor organization. Section 8(a)(2)

• Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts support of a labor organization. 8(a)(3)

• Discriminating against employees who file charges or testify. 8(a)(4)

• Refusing to bargain collectively with the representative of the employer's employees. 8(a)(5)

The key principles of Wagnerism are embodied in its concluding paragraph of section 1 including:

encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.

The key principles also include:

• Protecting a wide range of activities, whether a union is involved or not in order to promote organization and collective bargaining.

• Protecting employees as a class and expressly not on the basis of a relationship with an employer. Section 2(5) and 2(9). link: Ellen Dannin, Not a Limited, Confined, or Private Matter: Who is an Employee under the National Labor Relations Act

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1115434

• There can be only one exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of employees.

• Promotion of the practice and procedure of collective bargaining.

• Employers have a duty to bargain with the representative of its employees.

I will add a few citation links http://www.nlrb.gov/Workplace_Rights/i_am_new_to_this_website/what_is_the_national_labor_relations_act.aspx

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Labor Relations Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150323170654/http://www.nlrb.gov/About_Us/locating_our_offices/ to http://www.nlrb.gov/About_Us/locating_our_offices/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Longshoremen v. Allied Int'l, Inc

Perhaps Longshoremen v. Allied Int'l, Inc. should be added to the infobox?--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Racism

I believe the quote at the end of the "Exclusions" section is misleading and irrelevant. This page is about the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, and the quote at the end of "Exclusions" is referring to the Social Security Act of 1935 - so it is irrelevant. Moreover, the reference from which the quote is sourced concludes that the Social Security Act was NOT motivated by racism ("The author concludes that the racial-bias thesis is both conceptually flawed and unsupported by the existing empirical evidence."), so I think the quote is misleading.

I have read that the exclusions of the NLRA of 1935 WERE motivated by racist considerations (the NY Times recently stated this point-blank in an article about the United Farmworkers Union). I was looking for evidence of this and stumbled on this page, which doesn't clear up the issue, for reasons mentioned. NYZack (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)