Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
122660128
label
Memorandum, Reasons for Not Utilizing Taft-Hartley Procedures
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
122660128
contentType
document
title
Memorandum, Reasons for Not Utilizing Taft-Hartley Procedures
citationUrl
collections
David H. Stowe Papers
Subject Files
subjects
Labor disputes
Labor laws and legislation
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
122660128
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
logicalDate
1952-01-01
year
1952
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
photo
mediaId
795112272df2edff
ocrText
REASONS FOR NOT UTILIZING TAFT-HARTLEY PROCEDURES
1. It would be eminently unfair to the workers to compel them to remain at
work for an additional 80 days in view of their voluntary continuance at
work for a longer period than that provided by the Taft-Hartley Act.
2. The Selective Service Act may offer a more effective alternative proce-
dure. Justice Clark's concurring opinion points out in this connection:
Apparently the Government could have placed orders with
the steel companies for the various types of steel needed for
defense purposes, and instructed the steel companies to ship
the materiel directly to producers of planes, tanks, and
munitions. The act does not require that Government orders
cover the entire capacity of a producer's plant before the
President has power to seize. Our experience during World War
I demonstrates the speed with which the Government can invoke
the remedy of seizing plants which fail to fill compulsory
orders. The Federal Enameling & Stamping Co., of McKees Rocks,
(no companies
Pa., was served with a compulsory order on September 13, 1918,
and seized on the same day.
3. There is no certainty that the individual workers would return to work
in accordance with the provisions of the injunction. Even if the
workers return production would probably suffer by reason of resentment
and low morale because of the coercion involved in the use of the injunc-
tion.
Inasmuch as the procedure offers no long-term solution the country may
be faced with the same crisis at the end of the 80-day period.
5.
It is likely that the resentment which will be caused by the use of the
injunction will thwart any effective collective bargaining during the 80-
day period. As the President has already convincingly stated, resort to
the Taft-Hartley Act would prove futile and can only aggravate the
tensions rather than promote voluntary solution by collective bargaining.
6. The delay occasioned by utilization of the Taft-Hartley procedures might
tend to weaken the bargaining position of the union.
7. If the President believes the Taft-Hartley procedures would be ineffec-
tive, he could send a special message to the Congress requesting it to
provide adequate remedies since the Supreme Court indicated that it is
within the ambit of the Congress' jurisdiction to provide such.