Manufacturers Urge Biden to Invoke Taft-Hartley for Strike \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Manufacturers and retailers urge President Biden to use the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act to intervene in a dockworkers’ strike affecting 36 ports. Despite growing pressure, Biden refuses, emphasizing corporate responsibility and ongoing emergency needs. The strike impacts efforts to supply disaster relief following Hurricane Helene.
Dockworkers’ Strike and the Taft-Hartley Act: Quick Looks
- Call for Presidential Action: Manufacturers are pushing Biden to invoke the Taft-Hartley Act to suspend the ongoing dockworkers’ strike affecting 36 U.S. ports.
- The Law Explained: Section 206 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, or Taft-Hartley, allows a president to seek a court-ordered 80-day cooling-off period during labor disputes.
- Biden’s Stance: Biden has refused to intervene, citing the need for companies to negotiate directly with workers rather than relying on government involvement.
- Historical Context: The Taft-Hartley Act was designed to limit union power following post-WWII strikes, authorizing presidential intervention in strikes that could impact national health and safety.
- Past Invocations: Taft-Hartley has been invoked 37 times by past presidents, including George W. Bush in 2002 during a similar West Coast port lockout.
- Ongoing Strike Impact: Biden mentioned the strike is complicating efforts to deliver emergency relief for Hurricane Helene, yet he remains committed to a non-intervention approach.
- Labor Relations Dynamics: Vice President Kamala Harris relies heavily on organized labor support in her campaign, making intervention in the strike politically risky for the administration.
Deep Look
Manufacturers and retailers are calling on President Joe Biden to invoke a 1947 law as a means of intervening in the ongoing strike by 45,000 dockworkers, which has led to the shutdown of 36 major U.S. ports stretching from Maine to Texas. At the heart of this request is Section 206 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, widely known as the Taft-Hartley Act. This law gives the president the authority to seek a court-ordered cooling-off period for labor disputes deemed to threaten national health or safety.
The Taft-Hartley Act, introduced by Republican lawmakers Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio and Rep. Fred Hartley Jr. of New Jersey, emerged in the wake of a surge of strikes following World War II. The strikes of 1945 and 1946 saw workers demanding better pay and improved working conditions after enduring years of wartime hardship. At that time, President Harry Truman opposed the legislation, but Congress overrode his veto, leading to the Act becoming law.
The legislation was part of an effort to curtail the power of labor unions in the United States, targeting practices that lawmakers viewed as excessive. It banned “closed shops,” which required employers to hire only union workers, and prohibited “secondary boycotts,” in which unions pressured neutral companies to stop doing business with an employer targeted in a strike. Additionally, Taft-Hartley required union leaders to sign affidavits stating they did not support the Communist Party—a reflection of the era’s political tensions.
The Taft-Hartley Act also permits the president to take direct action in labor disputes by appointing a board of inquiry to review the situation and write a report. If needed, the president can direct the attorney general to request a federal court to halt a strike by workers or a management lockout. If the court agrees to issue an injunction, an 80-day cooling-off period would begin, during which management and unions must make every effort to resolve their differences. However, the law cannot compel union members to accept contract offers; its aim is to create space for negotiation.
Over the years, U.S. presidents have invoked Taft-Hartley 37 times to intervene in labor disputes, according to the Congressional Research Service. In roughly half of those instances, the involved parties were able to resolve their differences. However, in nine instances, workers ultimately went on strike despite the cooling-off period. Most notably, President George W. Bush invoked Taft-Hartley in 2002 after a lockout at 29 West Coast ports during a standoff involving the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. Ultimately, both sides reached a contract agreement.
Despite pressure from major industry groups like the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation, Biden has firmly stated he has no plans to intervene in the current dockworkers’ strike at East and Gulf coast ports. On Wednesday, just before leaving Joint Base Andrews to assess the devastation in North Carolina caused by Hurricane Helene, Biden addressed the ongoing strike, noting that it was complicating efforts to provide emergency relief for the disaster.
“This natural disaster is incredibly consequential,” Biden remarked. “The last thing we need on top of that is a man-made disaster — what’s going on at the ports.”
He highlighted the significant profits made by the companies that control the ports since the onset of the pandemic. “It’s time for them to sit at the table and get this strike done,” Biden added, placing responsibility squarely on the companies and labor unions to find a resolution without federal intervention.
Though many ports in the U.S. are publicly owned, the actual operations of loading and unloading cargo are often managed by private companies. The interests of these companies and the unions representing dockworkers have collided, resulting in the current impasse. Dockworkers are seeking better pay and conditions, especially after seeing record profits made by these companies during and after the pandemic.
William Brucher, a labor relations expert at Rutgers University, has noted that the use of Taft-Hartley injunctions is “widely despised, if not universally despised, by labor unions in the United States.” Biden’s reluctance to intervene can partly be attributed to the strong political risks involved. Vice President Kamala Harris is running her own presidential campaign against Republican Donald Trump, and her support among organized labor remains a critical part of her political strategy. Alienating labor unions by invoking Taft-Hartley could risk weakening support among a key voter base for the Democrats.
If the dockworkers’ strike persists long enough to cause severe shortages, potentially antagonizing American consumers, pressure on Biden to reconsider his stance may grow. However, labor experts like Brucher suggest that, given the current political climate, most voters have likely already made up their minds about the upcoming presidential election. The outcome of the election is likely to hinge more on voter turnout than on any one particular issue, such as the port strike.
“The election is really more about turnout now,” Brucher said, emphasizing that the Democrats cannot afford to alienate organized labor at this critical juncture. In the meantime, the strike continues to disrupt supply chains across the country, creating additional challenges for a nation already dealing with the fallout from a major natural disaster.
Manufacturers Urge Manufacturers Urge Manufacturers Urge
You must Register or Login to post a comment.