This paper explores the legal and ethical dimensions of labor unions in America, tracing their development from the 19th century through the mid-20th century. It examines how federal legislation—particularly the Wagner Act of 1935 and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947—transformed union organizing and worker protections, while also considering the ethical and cultural factors that have shaped public perception of organized labor. The paper argues that labor unions have played a critical role in society, winning workplace gains like the weekend while also facing persistent American skepticism rooted in cultural values of individualism over solidarity.
In 1945, slightly more than one in three U.S. private-sector employees belonged to a union. By 1995, this ratio stood at slightly more than one in ten (Strauss, 1995). Over the course of the nineteenth century, as industry grew and workplaces became larger, employees' relationships with their employers became less personal, and individual workers lost power. There was not much that one worker could do to pressure a large industrial business to increase wages, shorten hours, or provide better working conditions; workers who became too demanding were likely to be fired and replaced by someone else desperate enough for a job to accept harsh treatment.
Frequent immigration throughout the period constantly replenished the supply of unskilled workers, making it hard for individuals to attain any leverage in negotiations with their employers. A ready supply of untrained workers meant employers could hire and fire virtually at will; a surplus meant they could keep wages low and factory conditions uncongenial. Thus, unions were formed for workers to gain back opinions and control of the workplace. The way to create solidarity and to deal with the employer as a united body was to organize and join workers into some kind of formal association. Organizing became the key union activity, and the term organized labor meant workers who had banded together in order to exert their power.
The federal laws broadly regulating unions and the amendments to those laws have dramatically changed the look and function of unions over time. The changing laws have been protecting employees from unfair labor practices and protecting employers from unfair union practices as unions' influence in the workplace has risen and fallen. The government has long served as a mediator where labor and management have fought for power. Court rulings and legislation have shaped how the contest was fought and who had the advantage at any given moment.
The major labor laws that Congress has passed have shown which group was predominant at a particular moment in history. Both sides have continually urged the mediator to tip the balance one way or the other, and the laws that the government has laid down have been a critical part of labor history. The laws protect the rights of employees to choose or reject union representation, and they both protect and limit union efforts to represent an employer's workers. For example, unions may campaign vigorously to win employees' support, but they may not force employers to cease doing business with an employer the union seeks to organize.
In the earliest days of the labor movement, there were few laws that addressed the new phenomenon of national unions. Employers labeled union activity, particularly strikes, as illegal conspiracies. In a case as early as 1806, a Massachusetts court said that it was illegal for employees to band together to raise wages. In an 1871 Massachusetts case, the court ruled that every worker had the freedom to enter into a contract with his employer and the right to be free from interference by a union. In the nineteenth century, the government almost always intervened in labor disputes on the side of employers, often using force to crush strikes. The lack of legal status made it difficult for unions to move forward with their goals.
The courts based their view on the idea that the purpose of a union was coercion. Individual liberty had been the ideal of the American Revolution, and the courts held onto that concept. They were protecting not only the property rights of the business owner but the freedom of the worker as well. Freedom of contract, a principle that undermined a union's collective purpose, would remain a distraction to labor organizing well into the twentieth century and remains a point of contention today.
As part of his New Deal, President Franklin Roosevelt introduced a series of laws that gave unions a significant advantage in their constant struggle with management. The most important of these was the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, known as the Wagner Act. Its sponsor, New York Senator Robert F. Wagner, was a strong supporter of unions. The Wagner Act gave unions the right to organize workers without being harassed or intimidated by employers. It established a National Labor Relations Board, which had the responsibility to assure that elections to determine if a union would represent workers were fair and to oversee the collective bargaining that took place between union representatives and management once a company was unionized. The effect of the Wagner Act was remarkable. Unions all over the country began to organize, and millions of new members joined, bringing more dues and more political power. By giving workers new rights, the act deflated what might have been an escalation of class conflict during the Depression, which could have rocked the entire society.
Relishing in their New Deal victories, organized labor grew complacent. In 1947, Republican lawmakers, reflecting the public perception that unions had grown too powerful, passed the Taft-Hartley Act over the veto of President Truman. While the New Deal Wagner Act had protected the rights of unions, Taft-Hartley gave new rights to businesses. As a diverse bill, the Taft-Hartley Act contained a number of laws and had numerous benefits for employers. It banned the closed shop, in which only union members could be hired. It allowed states to pass right-to-work laws that instituted open shops, where workers did not have to join a union if they chose not to.
The effect of Taft-Hartley was to tilt the playing field back toward employers, but not as far as workers feared or managers hoped. Taft-Hartley did play a role in the long decline of unions. Almost all the southern states passed right-to-work laws, hamstringing union organizing and providing a haven for businesses running from unionization. When Taft-Hartley was passed, labor leaders vowed to force its repeal. So far, all their attempts to overturn the law have failed. The Wagner Act and the Taft-Hartley Act stand as the two pillars which define labor movement history in recent times.
One major influence on the balance of labor-management power has been the way the general public and their code of ethics perceived the two sides. Public opinion affects how much support workers receive when they conduct strikes, and it influences the laws that regulate labor relations. Perhaps most importantly, it plays a role in workers' attitudes toward their own movement. If employees view labor unions with suspicion, the unions are unlikely to gain much traction.
With the basic ideas of unions and businessmen so fundamentally opposed, it should not be surprising that the history of American labor is a story full of conflict and frequent violence. At the most basic level, the struggle between labor and management is simply a difference of values; when they sit down at the negotiating table, the two sides bring with them very different perceptions about how the world should work.
Americans have always had a complicated relationship with organized labor. Some key freedoms that we take for granted today—such as the weekend—were won by labor union efforts, but we have always been apprehensive about the movement. Most Americans value individuality over solidarity. The idea of a bunch of people banding together to pursue a set of collective demands has always made most of us feel a bit uneasy. Unlike Europeans, American workers have generally not identified themselves as a working class and have never formed a labor party. Successful unions aspire to assume such a role in their members' lives—that is, to become one of their primary groups. The era of the company town is largely gone; most workers no longer live together in tight-knit communities (Klandermans, 1986).
This ambivalence was tied to a fundamental contradiction at the heart of American society: the basically antidemocratic workplace exists in the midst of a democratic society. You do not get to vote at work. Outside the workplace, we hold it self-evident that all men are created equal; inside the workplace, we usually accept that one person is the boss and another is the employee, and the relationship between the two is definitely not one of equality. This tension between democratic values and hierarchical workplace structures has underscored debates over union power throughout American history.
The ethical dimensions of this conflict are complex. On one hand, workers have legal protections to organize and collectively bargain. On the other hand, managers assert property rights and operational autonomy. Cultural values emphasizing individual achievement and contract freedom clash with collective action and union solidarity. These competing ethical frameworks—individual liberty versus collective welfare—have shaped both legislation and public opinion throughout labor history.
Despite its current weakness, organized labor has played a critical role in shaping our society—for good or evil, or both. At times unions have stood in the way of social and technological change; they have formed productive partnerships with management to allow profitable innovation. At times they have reflected the racism and sexism of the larger society; they have helped immigrants, blacks, and women gain access to the American Dream. At points they have impeded economic progress, crippling businesses by insisting upon rigid adherence to work rules; and they have won the wages and other benefits that enabled millions of workers to join the middle class.
You’re 96% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.