Saltar al contenido principal

ETHNOS_APP

Inicio • Búsqueda • Revistas • Lista 0

The Adequacy of Taft-Hartley in Public Emergency Disputes

Datos Bibliográficos

ID9752702
AutoresGeorge W Taylor (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, autor de correspondencia)
Año1961
Volumen333
Número1
Páginas76-84
Fecha de publicación1961-01-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaThe Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0002-7162 • E-ISSN: 1552-3349
EditorialSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/000271626133300107
OpenAlexW2149084517
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas1

The weakness of the Taft-Hartley emergency dispute provisions is that they do not operate until after a na tional emergency dispute has occurred. The point is that a satisfactory procedural substitute for a strike has yet to be found. The use of the injunction, thus far, has only added complexities to the dispute situation. Although no-strike, no lockout agreements succeeded during the war, wartime urgency is not a permanent feature of labor-management relations. Some sense of urgency to find an acceptable procedural substi tute for work-stoppage has been generated by the movement toward compulsory arbitration. In view of that movement, new approaches are being tried—in the longshore and meat- packing industries as well as between Kaiser Steel and the steel workers—to reconcile private decision-making with public in terest through exploring new possibilities in negotiation and developing means of voluntary arbitration. Two leading ques tions raised by the 1959 use of the Taft-Hartley injunction are: first, ought the disputing parties to be held accountable prior to the creation of an emergency for the manner in which they discharge their collective bargaining responsibilities; sec ond, is it wise to preclude a presidential or other board of in quiry from recommending a basis for settlement even though the parties are not close to agreement? The proposed Board of Public Accountability would provide a means of reconciling private decision-making with public interest. Certain possible shortcomings of such a board—such as its use by the disput ants for tactical purposes—would have to be gone into, but the board would represent one method for alleviating critical disputes that would be both effective and consonant with American standards.—Ed

Accountability · Arbitration · Business · Collective bargaining · Compulsory arbitration · Economics · Law and economics · Negotiation · Political science · Public interest · Settlement (finance · Work (physics · Corporate Insolvency and Governance · Corporate Law and Human Rights · Engineering · Finance · Labor Movements and Unions · Law · Public Administration

  • Emergency Strikes Revisited

    Open Access•Charles M Rehmus•Industrial and Labor Relations…•1990

Obras citantes distintas1
Citas por año0,03
Intervalo de citas1990 - 1990 (1)
Velocidad de citaciónhistorical
Altamente citadoNo
Tipos de citaNeutras: 1
Ethnos_APP • Proyecto Open Source • Licencia MIT • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacidad y Cookies • Documentación de la API: api.ethnos.app/docs • Código de la API: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Código del Frontend: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae