Talk:Taft–Hartley Act

Feb 2006 message

Maybe the Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Taft-Hartley_Act info should be merged into the Taft-Hartley Act article, making the Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Taft-Hartley_Act article smaller? Travb 04:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge? vote here

Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Taft-Hartley_Act merged into Taft-Hartley Act. Travb (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Travb (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the T-H act is so central to the main story of unions that all readers of the Labor Union history need to know about it. Much more elaborate detail of course can be put in the T-H article. Rjensen 11:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Whatever information that is on the labor union article that is NOT on this page should be included. Chadlupkes 18:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Labor Unions Pension fund investing

I'm not familiar enough with the Act, but isn't there a restriction about pensions being invested in the stocks of corporations in order to have an influence on the Board of Directors? Chadlupkes 18:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible use Dec 2006

The government is consitering using this act to break the current (Dec 2006) goodyear strike due to the use of the tires on humvees deployed in Iraq. Enigmar 21:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard quote too long...

The criticism section is essentially one long quote from Murray Rothbard. I know the Rothbard-ite's love to come out in force on Wikipedia, but this is ridiculous, especially considering the guys almost non-importance in labor relations and labor history. I'm going to cut out the quote and leave the link up. SiberioS 00:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Pledge Against Communism

The Act required union members to sign a pledge against communism, and this effectively removed the communist party members and also socialist and sympathizers from the unions and their bureacracy. The organizing talent was removed in this one move that is largely ignored, and not mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.198.232 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the entertainment industry, the act and provision was more geared toward breaking up the studio system, the Randolph Hearsts, and the Bolshevik-ideological monopoly of the industry. "Labor's Struggles, 1945-1950: A Participant's View", Irving Richter, David Montgomery. Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN 0521533260, 9780521533263. p. 118. Truman fought to prevent it, but failed. In the end, the only casualty really was the studio system which liberated actors from their monotheistic careers. Many legitimate talents the waiver sought to help would continue to be oppressed as the concentration of the industry remained in the same ideological hands producing and distributing the films. Scientists can go wherever for zenithical professional primism, talent must go to Los Angeles or New York and hope they're liked to get their waiver from the director and producer hired by the studio. In the end it just became a quick backdoor for the ideologues to wheel in their choice talent.

The real thrust of removing the Bolshevik ideological component for a period came from McCarthyism and government oversight as Bolsheviks signed the pledge and still carried on. You may say this is where Hollywood first developed their cleverness as far as masking their agenda in entertainment, although Shakespeare was the respected father.

Petey Parrot (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Embellished on Historical Context

Added a paragraph in the Effects paragraph. It's been argued, and rather self-apparent, that the Act was a response to the WWII labor upsurge as well as an early component of the Second Red Scare. Also reworded some stuff (added reference to Truman's use of the Act) and created anti-communism section. Tried to cite as much as possible. Cheers! Njfuller (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove the word Republican

Mid west states that lean republican? Can we get rid of this now? 38.98.197.94 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NPV radicalism

on 6/27/2011 I removed "As a response to rising union radicalism and Cold..." and changed it to "As a response to the rising union movement and Cold..." Because the word radicalism does not reflect neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bret Klapper (talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)