Thursday, October 03, 2024

Biden Could Invoke a 1947 Law in the Dockworkers' Strike

Some manufacturers and retailers are urging President Joe Biden to invoke a 1947 law as a way to suspend a strike by 45,000 dockworkers that has shut down 36 U.S. ports from Maine to Texas.

Posted by LampLighter at 07:30 PM | 21 COMMENTS | permalink

More

Comments

More from the article...

... At issue is Section 206 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, better known as the Taft-Hartley Act. The law authorizes a president to seek a court order for an 80-day cooling-off period for companies and unions to try to resolve their differences.

Biden has said, though, that he won't intervene in the strike.

Taft-Hartley was meant to curb the power of unions

The law was introduced by two Republicans " Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio and Rep. Fred Hartley Jr. of New Jersey " in the aftermath of World War II. It followed a series of strikes in 1945 and 1946 by workers who demanded better pay and working conditions after the privations of wartime.

President Harry Truman opposed Taft-Hartley, but his veto was overridden by Congress.

In addition to authorizing a president to intervene in strikes, the law banned "closed shops," which require employers to hire only union workers. The ban allowed workers to refuse to join a union.

Taft-Hartley also barred "secondary boycotts,'' thereby making it illegal for unions to pressure neutral companies to stop doing business with an employer that was targeted in a strike. ...


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-03 12:18 AM

" The ban allowed workers to refuse to join a union."

... while still being protected by that Union and all it's negotiated terms. IOW, freeloaders, who get all the benefits, without paying a dime.

And, from my experience, THE FIRST folks to demand every facet of the contract be enforced.

#2 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-10-03 12:30 AM

" Biden has said, though, that he won't intervene in the strike."

Absolutely stupid move, and one I hope he reconsiders.

80 days cooling-off would remove the obvious aspect of election interference.

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-10-03 12:32 AM

@#3 ... Absolutely stupid move, and one I hope he reconsiders. ...

I agree.

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-03 12:49 AM

Maybe he can fly in a bunch of Haitians ... ..

#5 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-03 01:35 AM

ILA is run by the mob. Joe will be lucky not to find himself in the back of a garbage truck at some point in the indeterminate future.

#6 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2024-10-03 08:55 AM

Joe will be lucky not to find himself in the back of a garbage truck at some point in the indeterminate future.

#6 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2024-10-03 08:55 AM | Reply | Flag

I believe you... Just look at what's happened to the Secret Service since Biden took over.... It's a travesty.

#7 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-10-03 04:15 PM

Biden could invoke Taft/Hartley but he's said he won't. He's getting played by a union because he knows hes going down in history looking an awful lot like Regan when he fired the air traffic controllers, if he forces them to work or fires them.

#8 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-10-03 04:19 PM

"...looking an awful lot like Regan when he fired the air traffic controllers, if he forces them to work or fires them.", - #8 | Posted by lfthndthrds

That was in August, 1981.

Three years later Reagan carried 49 of the 50 states in the 1984 election.

Is that what you're predicting for the Harris/Walz campaign?

#9 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-03 04:32 PM

But experts like Brucher suggest that most voters have already made up their minds and that the election outcome is "really more about turnout" now.

Which means, Brucher said, that "Democrats really can't afford to alienate organized labor."

Surprise......

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-03 04:40 PM

-Biden has said, though, that he won't intervene in the strike

I think the Dockworkers were counting on that. Might be the reason for the timing of this strike?

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-03 04:44 PM

Is that what you're predicting for the Harris/Walz campaign?

#9 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-03 04:32 PM | Reply | Flag

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I was talking about Biden and his legacy of being a union buster. Re read my post as many times as it takes. I'll be around.

#12 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-10-03 05:47 PM

I was talking about Biden and his legacy of being a union buster.

Biden's labor report card: Historian gives Union Joe' a higher grade than any president since FDR

Biden is the most pro-union president in modern history.

See you're polishing your moron reputation again, right Turds?

#13 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-03 08:00 PM

This is now all a moot point since the union has agreed to go back to work tomorrow.

OCU

#14 | Posted by OCUser at 2024-10-03 08:19 PM

Biden isn't pro union. He's pro union leadership. Big difference.

#15 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-04 11:12 AM

"Biden isn't pro union. He's pro union leadership. Big difference." - #15 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-04 11:12 AM

Oh, do tell us who elects union leadership.

MAGAts post and re-post 100% BS because they believe that everyone is as gullible and stupid as they are.

#16 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-04 11:21 AM

Biden isn't pro union. He's pro union leadership. Big difference.

#15 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Another day and another strawbringer lie.

Wrong again loser. Assigning false positions to the president isn't helping your reputation.

And it's not like a liar like you would know or really care about Biden's inner thoughts about Union workers.

Fact: Biden is the first president to ever walk a picket line in support of Union workers.

Fact: "You deserve what you've earned, and you've earned a hell of a lot more than you're getting paid now," President Joe Biden told Michigan autoworkers.

#17 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-10-04 11:47 AM

-Biden isn't pro union. He's pro union leadership. Big difference.

How so? Are you referring to the reality that union leadership consistently endorses democratic party members despite the fact that a large chuck, the majority sometimes, of the membership votes for republicans despite that endorsement?

#18 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-04 11:58 AM

-Biden isn't pro union.

Why do union members agree with you?

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-04 12:00 PM

The Strike is over I hear.

#20 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-10-04 12:09 PM

Too many in Union leadership have always been political hacks looking for kickbacks and handouts while America needs all Americans as strong. Every union elite needs term limits and union members protected.

#21 | Posted by Robson at 2024-10-05 07:35 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Trump Calls for Abolishing Debt Limit (30 comments)

Musk Suddenly Realizes He Has No Clue How to Govern (29 comments)

Trump's Coming House Headaches (20 comments)

Trump's Transition Is Happening over Private Emails (19 comments)

I should have Invaded Ukraine Earlier, Putin tells Russians in TV Marathon (17 comments)

Lousiana Bars Health Dept. from Promoting Vaccines (14 comments)

Clearance Thomas Received More Lavish Gifts from Harlan Crow (11 comments)

Musk Raises Alarms by Endorsing What's Known as 'German neo-Nazi party' (11 comments)

Murder Hornets Eradicated in the US (9 comments)

German Christmas Market Attack (8 comments)