Harris, Taft-Hartley, and How Democrats Can Win Back the Blue Collar Vote
Why VP Harris Should Campaign on Repealing the Hated Taft-Hartley Act
Note: Continue to stay tuned for part 2 on “The State of Our Election” shortly.
Many would trace the decline of unions in America to 1981, the year newly-elected President Ronald Reagan fired more than 11,000 air traffic controllers to break up a strike.
They are right to do so. Reagan’s threats from the Rose Garden “flipped the narrative on strikebreaking,” and almost immediately set in motion a steep decline in strikemaking. With less striking, of course, came less bargaining power and less union members. That is why—even despite the current Administration’s strong pro-labor policy and its historic and successful support of the dockworkers’ strike—only about 10% of the people in this country are union members.
However, what if I told you that the most overlooked blow to the labor movement in America actually came three decades earlier?
Let me explain. You may remember that President Biden could have technically used a 1947 law called the Taft-Hartley Act to suspend the dockworkers’ strike. In fact, past presidents have used the Taft-Hartley Act 37 times to squash labor disputes (including President Bush, who coincidentally leveraged it against longshore workers).
Put another way, presidents have intervened in strikes using the Taft-Hartley Act approximately once every two years. That should concern anyone who supports the rights of workers to claim their place at the bargaining table. Yet that is only the most famous part of the Taft-Hartley Act.
It also allowed states to pass infamous right-to-work laws. Those laws prohibit unions from charging any fees to non-members who benefit from union organizing and dealmaking. That gives workers less reason to join a union, draining union finances and preventing unions from exercising their full bargaining power.
The Act then allowed bosses to hold mandatory anti-union “captive audience” meetings. It thus permits bosses to use their official capacities to intimidate and browbeat workers throughout an organizing campaign. All under the justification of protecting the employer’s so-called right to free speech.
Finally, the law prohibits workers from starting secondary boycotts. What is a secondary boycott? Well, don’t look to the Taft-Harley Act itself for the answer that question. Nobody really “bothered to define” it there. In practice, though, it means striking workers from one company are not able to put pressure on a third party to cut ties with that company. For example, say you work for a meat-packing corporation. If your union goes on strike, the Taft-Hartley Act basically forbids you and your fellow workers from pressuring the grocery store chains to stop selling your company’s products.
Hypocrisy much? Free speech for employers, no free speech or association for workers.
To be clear, there is so much more that is wrong with the Taft-Hartley Act. It is what Rich Yeselson has called “a notoriously terribly written law,” plagued with (often intentionally) vague definitions and a reactionary pro-corporate Republican anti-union posture (the Taft-Hartley Act passed after the Republican Congress overrode Democratic President Harry Truman’s veto).
President Biden recently said he “doesn’t believe” in Taft-Hartley. I don’t either, and nor should Vice-President Harris. In fact, the Vice-President should be campaigning on repealing it.
If she wants to stop blue-collar workers from moving to Trump, this is the way to do it. Inspire workers to think they could be part of something truly historic. Help workers truly understand her commitment to continue the Biden Administration’s strong record on labor. Give voters at large just another reason to see Harris as the true “change candidate” in the 2024 race.
Then the choice for workers will be clear. Because Vice-President Harris will have made perfectly clear which side she is on. Right as we head into the home stretch of this election.