How the Taft-Hartley Act might be changed to improve collective bargaining
Doherty, Richard Paul
MetadataShow full item record
When the author began this study, he had a long, undergraduate term paper about the necessity of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and a vague idea of the value of collective bargaining. The purpose of this study was to investigate the ways, if any, that the Taft-Hartley Act could be changed to further collective bargaining. After intensive reading, the author feeds qualified to explain what collective bargaining is and why it is necessary; how the Taft-Hartley Act came into being and what it is; how the Taft-Hartley Act hinders collective bargaining and might be improved by legislation. The author attempted to follow this logical order in the paper; he hopes it is intelligible to the reader. The author readied his conclusions from the following premises: (1) he believes that socialism can come about if the workers do not protect themselves through their own unions and collective bargaining, because if they do not seek protection in this manner, they will probably seek it from toe government; (2) he believes that socialism is undesirable, because it hinders individual incentive and concentrates too much power in the hands of a few. Great power in toe hands of a few may be more easily abused, and when misused, is more destructive. The Taft-Hartley Act's emphasis on the protection of the individual rather than the protection of collective bargaining is dangerous, because the individual is often willing to sacrifice long-term protection through collective bargaining for short-term, individual, economic gain. Such are the judgments the author bases his conclusions upon. The whole study is concerned with further clarification of the reasons behind these conclusions.