In the wake of World War II, two Republican lawmakers, Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio and Rep. Fred Hartley Jr. of New Jersey, introduced the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act. This legislation was prompted by a series of strikes in 1945 and 1946, during which workers sought better pay and working conditions after enduring wartime hardships.
President Harry Truman opposed the Act, but Congress ultimately overrode his veto, leading to its enactment. Taft-Hartley aimed to limit union power by allowing the president to intervene in labor disputes and by imposing restrictions on union activities, such as banning “closed shops” and “secondary boycotts.”
Currently, President Joe Biden is facing pressure from manufacturers and retailers to invoke the Taft-Hartley Act in response to a strike by 45,000 dockworkers that has shut down 36 U.S. ports, from Maine to Texas. The specific provision being considered is Section 206 of the Act, which permits the president to seek a court order for an 80-day cooling-off period.
Biden Faces Pressure to Invoke Taft-Hartley Act Amid Ongoing Dockworkers’ Strike Disrupting U.S. Ports
This period would give companies and unions time to negotiate and resolve their differences without the threat of an ongoing strike. However, Biden has publicly stated that he will not intervene in this labor dispute, despite the significant impact it is having on supply chains and emergency relief efforts following natural disasters.
The Taft-Hartley Act grants the president the authority to appoint a board of inquiry to investigate labor disputes. If the board finds that a strike endangers national health and safety, the president can direct the attorney general to seek an injunction from a federal court to halt the strike temporarily.
This would initiate an 80-day cooling-off period during which both parties are expected to negotiate in good faith to reach an agreement. However, it is essential to note that the law does not compel union members to accept any particular contract offer, and its effectiveness in resolving disputes has been mixed.
Historically, presidents have invoked the Taft-Hartley Act in labor disputes 37 times, with varying outcomes. According to the Congressional Research Service, in approximately half of these cases, the involved parties managed to resolve their differences amicably.
Nonetheless, there have been instances where workers proceeded with their strikes despite the cooling-off periods, including a notable case in 2002 during a standoff involving West Coast ports under President George W. Bush. Although the law has been used to temporarily suspend strikes, its application remains contentious, particularly among labor unions that view it as an infringement on their rights.
As the dockworkers’ strike continues, the Biden administration faces a complex situation. While there is considerable pressure from industry groups to intervene, Biden has emphasized the need for the companies controlling the affected ports to negotiate fairly with the workers.
The ongoing strike has implications not only for supply chains but also for Biden’s political standing, especially as he relies on support from organized labor for future elections. Experts suggest that any decision to invoke Taft-Hartley could alienate this critical voter base.
Given the potential for public discontent due to supply shortages, the administration must carefully navigate this labor dispute to maintain support while addressing the pressing needs arising from the strike.
