Trace the evolution of the legal status of American unions. What activities were restricted by laws and courts? Did constraints increase or decline with time?
The American Unions had a very hard time gaining a legal status. Collective actions that were pursued personal interests were considered as a breach of public interest and termed as criminal conspiracies. Case in point, the courts had the legal power to stop boycotts and strikes with injunctions, denying the workers any chances of expressing their interests. Despite the above challenges, workers still conducted collective action. Later, the Clayton Act (1914), served to remove unions from the restrictive Sherman Antitrust Act. Nevertheless, the courts still considered any form of mass action by unions as illegal restraints to trade activities (Cohen, 2017). Later The National War Labor Board was formed with the intent of reducing the number of workers' strikes. It was then that the workers' rights to organize actions and carry out collective bargaining were recognized. There was further radical shifting in public policies directed towards unions in the 1930s. Part of The National Industrial Recovery Act Of 1933 ruled organizing rights as illegal, but these were re-secured by the Wagner Act 1935. Moreover, the Wagner Act established the legality of exclusive agency representation in the relationship that existed between the employers and the union (Gray, Clark & Whitehead, 2016). Consequently, many argued against the constitutionality of the Wagner Act but in 1937, the Supreme Court made a ruling declaring the Act constitutional according to the Commerce Clause. The restrictions reduced with the time given the introduction of the Wagner Act and the fact that the Supreme Court finally ruled in its favor.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
What were the major contributing causes to the failure of uplift unionism?
Uplift unionism was aimed at the betterment of the educational and economic outcomes of the labor unions. Moreover, it was directed towards the establishment of effective labor management systems for the employees. The first attempt to uplift unionism was The National Labor Union that was founded in 1866. However, the union came to a quick demise owing to bad leadership that failed to focus on the goals of the union. It was also unsuccessful because it failed to pay attention to the worker problems. Afterward , the Knights of Labor was formed in 1869, and it showed more willingness than the National Labor Union did to recognize the short-term lawfulness of capitalism; this made it more successful than the former (Cohen, 2017). Moreover, the leaders in the Knights of Labor allowed the use of arbitration instead of strikes and this gave the body short-term success. However, it failed to focus on the day-to-day grievances that were raised by workers. Still, Knights of Labor showed inconsistency with the short-term satisfaction sought by its new members. Instead, it tended to focus on the long-term success making many members seek help elsewhere. The Knights of Labor members joined unions such as American Federation of Labor that focused more on the immediate results that they offered to members. Based on this, it is conclusive to state that the uplift unionism failed because of poor management that failed to address the immediate needs of the members. Moreover, management tended to pursue their mission without listening to the laborers' needs and preferences.
Who were the leading personalities in labor relations? Which ones contributed to the definition of labor relations in the United States?
Big Bill Haywood was also active as a union leader as he organized the Western Federation of Miners. Haywood, alongside other leading socialists like Debs and Eugene, formed Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in 1905. IWW was radical, but it failed because it made demands that were not radical. Its main goal was the abolition of the wage system, but this faced violent resistance from the employers, making the union not work (Gray, Clark & Whitehead, 2016). The union also lost popularity during the World War 1 as it stated that people who were its members would not fight for either side, as only the capitalists would gain. This made many members withdraw and caused new members to resist joining the union (Cohen, 2017).
There were several labor reformist among them William Silvis who led the National Labor Union that was formed in 1866. The goals of the organization were categorized as reformist and political more than they were economic or immediate; thus, they failed. The method William Silvis used was not effective, and this led to the demise of the union. On the other hand, Terrence Powderly and Uriah Stephens led the Knights of Labor, favoring the use of arbitration over strikes as was earlier mentioned. These two failed to be effective since they laid more focus on the long-term achievements of the union than the immediate problems. Consequently, they lost their members to other unions.
Samuel Gompers also pioneered the presidency of the American Federation Union, and his approach differed from that of other unions. He had a pragmatic approach whereby he preferred bargaining to legislation. This made his union have high membership in his reign from 1886 to 1925. He was the most effective as his method and strategies are largely responsible for the business orientation of the present day unions.
Who were the most effective union leaders during the 1930s and 1940s? What are your criteria for effectiveness? Would these same leaders be effective now?
One of the most effective leaders was John Lewis who belonged to the United Mine Workers, which was a union belonging to AFL. He was actively in the forefront of a drive aimed at objecting the crafts union. Lewis decided to push for industrial re-organization when he realized that the United Mine Workers membership was quickly declining. Moreover, he noticed that the industry was declining at a fast pace. However, Lewis was faced with unyielding opposition from AFL. Not relenting, Lewis together with Philip Murray, and other leaders, formed another organization called Committee for an industrial organization that came against AFL's opposition (Cohen, 2017). Later these same leaders organized the steel workers and those who worked with the autoworkers. The success was evident as by 1938 they has a membership of 300, 000 workers which exceeded that of AFL.
My criteria for effectiveness used in choosing Lewis and his co-workers were their determination and consistency. They faced stiff opposition from AFL, but they went on and finally formed a union that exceeded the latter in membership. Moreover, they were committed to the end until there was a success in the crafts union. Besides that, these leaders considered the worker's needs and listened to the problems that the employees faced. Consequently, they managed to raise their membership to a high number.
The leaders would still be effective today as long as they use the right leadership skills. However, the market has changed from blue-collar to white-collar jobs, meaning that they would have to use methods that are more sophisticated. Moreover, there are now more services jobs than the primary manufacturing jobs that existed in the 1930s. Consequently, Lewis and his counterparts would have to change their method of doing business.
References
Cohen, B. (2017). A Generation of Hope, Pain, and Heartbreak: The Worcester Molder's Union, 1904-1921. Historical Journal of Massachusetts , 45 (1), 135-153.
Gray, L, S., Clark, P, F., & Whitehead, P. (2016). Evolution of administrative practices in American unions: results from a 20-year study . Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/evolution-of-administrative-practices-in-american-unions.htm
McMorris, B. (2017). Union Republicans. National Review , 69 (6), 31-34.
