Premium
The Impact of Taft‐Hartley Job Discrimination Victories
Author(s) -
SAMOFF BERNARD
Publication year - 1965
Publication title -
industrial relations: a journal of economy and society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.61
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 1468-232X
pISSN - 0019-8676
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-232x.1965.tb00432.x
Subject(s) - hostility , surrender , industrial relations , craft , enforcement , legislation , labour economics , cohesion (chemistry) , business , social psychology , psychology , political science , demographic economics , law , economics , history , chemistry , archaeology , organic chemistry
Summary. Neither industrial nor nonindustrial rehired workers were markedly aided by the decisions. Union officials and fellow workers both displayed open hostility to reinstated employees, particularly to those who had breached union‐fixed working rules. Furthermore, with the exception of the factionalists, rehired workers were unlikely to overcome union hostility. As one subject reported in graphic terms, “the NLRB case turned into a fight to the finish, and when I won the union did not surrender but just continued fighting me.” Given such conditions, discriminated workers could hardly be expected to re‐establish and reassert their membership rights. We need further study here, but it seems that among industrial subjects there was a correlation between unwilling union membership and discrimination. It appears more than mere chance that industrial workers who cared little for unions, tried to evade paying dues, subverted union rules, and were independent‐minded found themselves the victims of union‐caused discrimination. When rehired, they rarely changed their attitudes and conduct, and locals were unlikely to welcome them with open arms. By contrast, labor pool subjects in the main were staunch unionists before discrimination and after reinstatement. The data suggest that either certain types of workers enter craft occupations or the characteristics of the industries they work in tend to compel employees to behave in a certain manner within their unions. Since such workers looked to their unions for employment and the enforcement of standards and working rules, strong internal cohesion was not surprising. Two reservations should be noted to the above generalizations. Where the subjects suffered discrimination because they had been protecting group rights or supporting factions or rival unions, their reinstatement led them to even greater union participation. Where the local was dominated by a single, powerful leader, the reinstated worker's union activity tended to decrease.