So, historically, general strikes are not a new thing- the practice stems from jurisdictional strikes, or secondary strikes occurring at other workplaces in support of an ongoing strike elsewhere. Increasingly as we see more strike efforts in the news, we may wonder why strikes only tackle one issue at a time- one union, one strike. Why not work together, strike together? We are all in the same boat, after all.
I've recently learned that this is because a historical precedent (in the USA) exists to limit any so-called general strike.
A law was passed in 1947 called the Taft-Hartley Act, enacted by a republican-controlled congress in spite of a presidential veto by Harry Truman. (He tried to repeal this law later as well, but was unsuccessful.) This act was passed following another law which was passed a decade earlier in 1935, the Wagner Act, that legalized union activity in the workplace.
The Taft-Hartley Act banned several union tactics, including jurisdictional strikes and wildcat strikes, which were strikes organized by workers without overhead organizing from union leads. (These were increasingly common during the strike wave of 1945-1946, following a trend of relaxed union bargaining throughout WW2 in favor of supporting the war effort in trade for poorer working conditions.)
Additionally, the Taft-Hartley Act also…
- enacted anti-political clauses that prevented labor unions from donating funds for (or against) any candidate
- contains an anti-communist clause that requires union members to sign that are are not part of, or affiliated with, the communist party. (This is the only aspect of the Taft-Hartley Act that has been since repealed)
- allows employers to fire management members or supervisors for engaging in union activity
- countered a provision in the earlier Wagner Act that required workplace neutrality on unions, allowing employers to deliver anti-union messaging in the workplace.
- outlawed 'closed shops', or contracts that required employers to only hire union employees.
- (States were also allowed to create “Right-to-Work” laws as part of the Taft-Hartley Act, bypassing prior union security measures altogether)
- created new strike policies that limited what types of strikes could be carried out and when; unions are now required to give 80 days notice before a strike action, and some types of workers (such as federal workers) are not permitted to go on strike at all.
- gave the National Labor Relations Board the power to file injunctions against employers and unions who violated clauses of the Taft-Hartley Act. This also gives the federal government power to enforce agreements made during collective bargaining.
Statistics of the time are hard to track down, but around 33% of the workforce was in a union during the 1950s, which was the peak of union activity in the United States. Today, total union membership hovers here at around 10.8%, and laws like the Taft-Hartley Act work to severely limit union activity- alongside a growing culture of anti-union ideals across the board. (A mindset which is, I believe, furthered by these rules that have been put in place specifically to limit both what a union is and how it must operate.) These unjust laws are not an impenetrable defense against the future of the labor movement, but I think that they are an important adversary to be aware of in the fight to a better future.
What are others' thoughts on the Taft-Hartley Act? I've only recently learned about it and find it all very interesting, as it's not something I've seen discussed much, while a general strike comes up often.