Legislations That Shaped Labor Unions For centuries, the divide between laborers and their controllers have come with a high price. From wealthy farmers to corporate presidents, their subordinates have had to work hard to achieve their personal goals and that of employers. At times, employees have been exploited by working outrageous hours under horrible conditions for a measly pay. Such abuse was absorbed by the needy and continued for years, until the government stepped in and demanded labors to be implemented. Such laws gave the rights and freedom that many were looking for in order to work stable hours and for reasonable pay. Like many laws, it took time and effort but such laws came to fruition by legislations such as The Wagner Act, The Taft-Hartley Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Wagner Act, also known as The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, is the foundation for all unions that are now in existence in the United States. Prior to The Wagner Act, employees had no say as to whether or not they wanted to come together and agree on proposals for better and healthier work environments by being represented by unions. The Wagner Act gave employees the ability to work together, unionize and designate employee representatives that would be the voice of the employees when it came to collective bargaining (Department of Labor (DOL), 2014). This act specifically required employers to bargain in good faith over mandatory bargaining issues such as wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment (DeCenzo, Robbins & Verhulst, 2013). The Wagner Act was simultaneously incorporated into effect with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was set up to interpret The Wagner Act and conduct elections to determine union representation and preventing and/or correcting employer actions that can lead to unfair labor practice charges (Verhulst, 2013). Such unfair labor practices include hindering, stopping, or coercing employees from joining unions and their collective bargaining processes; dictating or interfering with the formation of labor organizations or discriminating against employees that chose to join in any union activity; dismiss or single out employees that may have filed or have given testimony under The Wagner Act; and the NLRB was implemented for preventing any employer to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives chosen by the employees (DOL, 2014 & Verhulst, 2013). The Wagner Act was the beginning of an uphill battle between management and union relationship. The Wagner Act focused employers on recognizing the fact that employee had rights and that unions were part of such rights. Unions were now seen as the voice of laborers who for years suffered under unfair labor laws. These unions protected the rights of employees but the disagreements between employers and unions continued, especially when it came to defining what ‘unfair union labor practices’ meant for employers. The Taft-Hartley Act balanced out The Wagner Act by not only putting restrictions on employers but also setting restriction on labor unions. The Taft-Hartley Act restrictions on unions consists of six different unfair union labor practices which are 1) manipulating employees into joining unions or pressuring employees into voting for certain employee representatives, 2) discriminate against an employee that has been denied a union membership or to cause an employer to discriminate against certain employees, 3) decline to baring collectively, 4) engage in illegal strikes and boycotts, 5) charge high fees or due under union shop contracts, and 6) gain compensation for services not executed or not to be performed (Verhulst, 2013). These restrictions set an even balance between employers and unions; one did not have more power than the other. The Taft-Hartley Act not only had these restrictions for unions, but it also made illegal the use of ‘closed shop’ unions because a ‘closed shop’, unions controlled everything from training to choosing which employees would go to work for a company. Once the work was done, the employee would return to the union and the process would continue over again. By making closed shops illegal, it gave employees the choice of either joining or not joining the unions. The Taft-Hartley Act also prohibited secondary boycotts where innocent employers were included in boycotts due to affiliations with other employers that were having issues with their union employees. This act gave the President of the United States the power to issue an eighty day ‘cooling-off’ period when disputes between management and laborers can affect national security. Lastly, The Taft-Hartley Act required unions to bargain in good faith just like the Wagner Act required employers to do the same (Verhulst, 2013). Without the Taft-Hartley Act, unions would have had too much control over union employees and employers. Nothing works well without balance. At one point, having only the Wagner Act could have been catastrophic to the economy, thus having the Taft-Hartley Act shared the power between management and unions. The third legislation that has been critical in defining the rights of management and unions is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unfortunately, discrimination has been part of history for many countries, including the United States. Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers were able to pick and chose new hires based on color, sex, age, etc., without knowing or caring who had the best qualifications for the job. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 stopped such practices from happening not only in the workforce but also in labor unions. Although unions were set up to protect the rights of employees, many would discriminate workers and deny them access to union benefits or any union work available even if the employee was trained and had job experience. This act stopped unions from any discriminatory practices and enforced unions into actively recruiting and giving preference to minority workers and union members. Yet, some labor unions believe that “they should not be held responsible for employment discrimination, because they are not responsible for hiring, nor for management policies and decisions that have historically restricted the upward mobility of minority groups and women in their industries (Hammerman & Rogoff, 1976).” Such thinking does not necessarily work well when it comes to fulfilling actions that can prevent unions from being found guilty of discrimination. The City of Boston Redevelopment Authority Department (BRA) works together with statewide labor unions. When a job is granted to a construction company, the BRA has compliance officers that are in charge of ensuring that unions are providing certain percentages of minority workers and that the companies are using such workers. For example, to work on a BRA project, unions and companies must provide work to 25% of minorities, 10% females and 50% of workers should be Boston residents. Such numbers must be met or at least try to meet them by requesting labor unions to provide more minority, female and Boston resident laborers to work on BRA projects (BRA, 2014). Evidence of such requests are to be made either by email or first class mail. Each request sent must also be copied and mailed to the BRA for proof. If true effort is made to make up the percentages asked by the BRA, then neither the unions nor the companies will have any discriminatory issues. If efforts are not put forth, both unions and the companies will be found guilty of discrimination. Although it seems that it could be a problem, unions and companies work well in order to comply with such numbers. This is only one example as to how the government, unions and companies are intertwined. There are many legislations that have had a great impact on unions and union laws. It all started with the Wagner Act and setting up laws that covered and made possible for unions to organize and represent the employee’s issues. The Taft-Hartly Act was able to balance the Wagner Act but setting up regulations to unions in order to keep the power struggle from balancing to only once side. Although many years past after these two acts, there were still many issues that unions could not solve such as discrimination problems that can still be seen around the country. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was able to aide some of these discriminatory issues by setting up laws for employers and unions in order to provide protection to those that fell under ‘minority’ and ‘female’ labels. Although some unions do not believe they should be responsible for discrimination matters, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a gateway for all to be responsible and tackle discrimination at all levels. In conclusion, unions have come a long way since they were first initiated in the workforce with the help of the Wagner Act. For many, unions have been a blessing by given them the help and the benefits they were not able to find on their own in the workforce. For others, such as companies and big corporations, unions can be a hassling matter to deal with due to all the regulations that must be met in order to get jobs done. Comparing the issues management and unions had decades ago to the problems that arise now, they cannot compare because now a day, the management-union relationship is stable and fruitful. At the end, being able to work out the differences is what makes the workforce and employers move forward with success.

References
Bernstein, I. (2014). Department of Labor. Americans in Depression and War. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/chapter5.htm
Boston Redevelopment Authority. (2014). Projects. Compliance. Retrieved from http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/projects/compliance/compliance
DeCenzo, D. , Robbins, S., Verhults, S. (2013). Fundamentals of Human Resource Management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Hammerman, H., & Rogoff, M. (1976). Unions and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Monthly Labor Review, 99(4), 34.