Talk:Labor Management Relations Act of 1947

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comparing Taft-Hartley to NLRA[edit]

The National Labor Relations Act has a U.S. Legislation infobox while this act has a Labor infobox. Are there any objections to removing the Labor infobox in favor of the U.S. Legislation infobox? Or should both be used? Biccat (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Could someone more savvy than than I remove the current infobox and replace it with a legislative infobox to the NLRA's template (with long name, nickname, enactment date, date of effect, citations codifications legislative history, major amendments and significant Supreme Court cases relative to the act.)? (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Swigert and Bill Authorship[edit]

The introduction states: The principal author of the Taft–Hartley Act was J. Mack Swigert [5] of the Cincinnati law firm Taft, Stettinius & Hollister.

Citation 5, a link which contains an interview of Swigert himself, provides a more accurate description. this. "[Taft] asked Mr. Swigert for advice...Several weeks later, [Swigert] had produced three pages of suggested amendments to the Wagner Act. Included were the right of workers to stay out of unions and the government's ability to end strikes in the name of national security.. But he insists that he did not write the Taft-Hartley bill, noting that only Mr. Taft had the political muscle to push the bill through. 

Since the core bill's spirit was suggested by Swigert, and supposedly much of the letter (and it would be interesting if someone found documentation of Swigerts suggestions, followed by drafts of the TH act, and compared it to the bill in its final form to make this evaluation) it may not be a far stretch to call him principal author or the principal author, but that begs the question what does authorship entail? (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


"According to First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams, the Act "was the first law barring unions and corporations from making independent expenditures in support of or [in] opposition to federal candidates".[2] However, there is no language in Taft–Hartley that actually bars such contributions and, upon a careful reading of the cited article, it can be seen that Professor Abrams is merely hypothesizing about what could happen had the Supreme Court decided the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission differently."

The second sentence is saying that the first is irrelevant. This is silly. Why does this section even exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)