Strike Action and the Law

Report Outline
Rash of National Emergency Disputes
Labor Unions, the Courts, and the Law
Proposed Changes in Federal Labor Laws

Rash of National Emergency Disputes

Protracted Strikes have caused serious economic hardship in numerous cities and in entire regions of the country in recent weeks. A longshoremen's walkout shut down ocean shipping in and out of Atlantic and Gulf ports for five weeks. Daily newspaper publication has been halted in New York City since early December and in Cleveland since the end of November. Labor troubles have suspended operation of one of Florida's mainline railroads. A strike in the vital aerospace industry is being held off only by a temporary court injunction. Other labor troubles loom in the months ahead. There is threat of a nationwide railroad strike over featherbedding next summer. And contract negotiations coming up this year in such industries as communications, electrical supply, oil, rubber and steel are likely to be difficult.

In the past, wages and the right to organize were the principal issues in labor disputes. Fringe benefits took on importance during World War II, when wage increases were restricted. Now, with the rapid advance of automation, job security is emerging as labor's major concern. But strikes tend only to aggravate the situation. Employers, intent on making up the costs of added labor benefits and losses from recurrent work stoppages, invest more heavily than before in automated equipment. Hence the problem facing management, labor and, increasingly, the federal government is how to keep strikes at a minimum and maintain a high level of employment. The recent work stoppages have given rise to unusual mediatory action, and they have brought demands for new legislation to protect the public against future shutdowns that would seriously affect the economy or endanger the security of the United States.

Problem of Safeguarding the Public Interest

President Kennedy has made no secret of his dissatisfaction with present machinery, provided by the Labor-Management Relations [Taft-Hartley] Act of 1947, for handling labor conflicts that threaten to cause a national emergency. While campaigning for the presidency in the autumn of 1960, Kennedy declared that it was “time to re-examine the applicable provisions of the Taft-Hartley law and to substitute fairer, more workable and more effective provisions for dealing with national emergency disputes.” Later, he said he thought that “The President should be given a variety of tools [to deal with emergency disputes] and use them effectively.” He added that the President should “not have the legal power to compel” a settlement.