Hubbry Logo
National Labor Relations Act of 1935National Labor Relations Act of 1935Main
Open search
National Labor Relations Act of 1935
Community hub
National Labor Relations Act of 1935
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
National Labor Relations Act of 1935
National Labor Relations Act of 1935
National Labor Relations Act of 1935
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act)
Great Seal of the United States
Long titleAn act to diminish the causes of labor disputes burdening or obstructing interstate and foreign commerce, to create a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and for other purposes.
NicknamesWagner Act
Enacted bythe 74th United States Congress
EffectiveJuly 6, 1935
Citations
Public law74-198
Statutes at Large49 Stat. 449
Codification
Titles amended29 U.S.C: Labor
U.S.C. sections amended29 U.S.C. § 151–169
Legislative history
Major amendments
Labor Management Relations Act of 1947
Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959
United States Supreme Court cases
List

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, is a foundational statute of United States labor law that guarantees the right of private sector employees to organize into trade unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take collective action such as strikes. Central to the act was a ban on company unions.[1] The act was written by Senator Robert F. Wagner, passed by the 74th United States Congress, and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The National Labor Relations Act seeks to correct the "inequality of bargaining power" between employers and employees by promoting collective bargaining between trade unions and employers. The law established the National Labor Relations Board to prosecute violations of labor law and to oversee the process by which employees decide whether to be represented by a labor organization. It also established various rules concerning collective bargaining and defined a series of banned unfair labor practices, including interference with the formation or organization of labor unions by employers. The act does not apply to certain workers, including supervisors, agricultural employees, domestic workers, government employees, and independent contractors.

The NLRA was strongly opposed by conservatives and members of the Republican Party, but it was upheld in the Supreme Court case of NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., decided April 12, 1937. The 1947 Taft–Hartley Act amended the NLRA, establishing a series of labor practices for unions and granting states the power to pass right-to-work laws.

Background

[edit]
See also: History of labor law in the United States

The act's origins may be traced to the bloody Colorado Fuel and Iron Strike of 1914. Colorado Fuel was a subsidiary of Standard Oil, and John D. Rockefeller Jr. sought expert advice from the new field of public relations to prolong the settlement of the strike. He also recruited the former Canadian Labour Secretary (and future Prime Minister) MacKenzie King to the Rockefeller Foundation to broker a solution to the prolonged strike. The settlement resulted in the establishment of a Management-Labor conciliation board, which evolved into a company union and template for settling labor disputes. Although a step forward in labor relations, the company union was effectively a public relations ploy that had the opposite impact of thwarting the organization of trade unions in the great organizing drives of the period.[2]

President Franklin Roosevelt signed the legislation into law on July 5, 1935.[3]

It also has its roots in a variety of different labor acts previously enacted:[citation needed]

Content

[edit]
See also: Inequality of bargaining power

Under section 1 (29 U.S.C. § 151) of the Act, the key principles and policy findings on which the Act was based are explained. The Act aims to correct the "inequality of bargaining power between employees who, according to the Act's proponents, do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association". To achieve this, the central idea is the promotion of collective bargaining between independent trade unions, on behalf of the workforce, and the employer.[4]

encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.

Various definitions are explained in section 2, (29 U.S.C. § 152) including 2(5) defining "labor organization" and 2(9) defining "labor dispute". The Act aims to protect employees as a group, and so is not based on a formal or legal relationship between an employer and employee.[5]

Enforcement

[edit]
Main article: National Labor Relations Board

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which was established in NLRA 1935 sections 3 to 6 (29 U.S.C. § 153–156), is the primary enforcer of the Act. Employees and unions may act themselves in support of their rights, however because of collective action problems and the costs of litigation, the National Labor Relations Board is designed to assist and bear some of the costs. Under section 3, (29 U.S.C. § 153) the NLRB has two basic functions: overseeing the process by which employees decide whether to be represented by a labor organization and prosecuting violations. Those processes are initiated in the regional offices of the NLRB.[6] The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board give legal advice. Sections 4 (29 U.S.C. § 154) and 5 (29 U.S.C. § 155) set out provisions on the officers of the Board and their expenses. Section 6 (29 U.S.C. § 156) empowers the Board to issue rules interpreting the labor legislation. This will generally be binding, unless a court deems it to have acted outside its authority.

Under section 10 (29 U.S.C. § 160) the NLRB is empowered to prevent unfair labor practices, which may ultimately be reviewed by the courts. Under section 11 it can lead investigations, collect evidence, issue subpoenas, and require witnesses to give evidence. Under section 12 (29 U.S.C. § 162) it is an offense for people to unduly interfere with the Board's conduct.

In practice, the act was often ignored when it suited political powers, most notably by Walt Disney in 1940 who formed a company union in violation of the law in order to prevent the Cartoon Unionists Guild, a Trade Union, from gaining a foothold in Disney Studios.[7]

Collectively bargaining

[edit]
See also: Collective bargaining

Section 7 (29 U.S.C. § 157) sets out the general principle that employees have the right to join a trade union and engage in collective bargaining.

Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3).

Specific rules in support of collective bargaining are as follows.

  • There can be only one exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of employees.
  • Promotion of the practice and procedure of collective bargaining.
  • Employers are compelled to bargain with the representative of its employees.
  • Employees are allowed to discuss wages.[8][9][10]

Unfair labor practices

[edit]
Main article: Unfair labor practice

"Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158 (a)(3) of this title."

National Labor Relations Act of 1935 §7

Under section 8 (29 U.S.C. § 158) the law defines a set of prohibited actions by employers, employees, and unions, known as an unfair labor practice.[11] The first five unfair labor practices aimed at employers are in section 8(a). These are,

  • (a)(1) "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7". This includes freedom of association, mutual aid or protection, self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively for wages and working conditions through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other protected concerted activities with or without a union.
  • (a)(2) "to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it"
  • (a)(3) "by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization"
  • (a)(4) discriminating against employees who file charges or testify.
  • (a)(5) refusing to bargain collectively with the representative of the employer's employees.

In addition, added by the Taft–Hartley Act, there are seven unfair labor practices aimed at unions and employees.

Election of bargaining representatives

[edit]
Main article: NLRB election procedures

Under section 9 (29 U.S.C. § 159) the people elected by a majority of the workforce have the right to become the exclusive representatives of workers in collective bargaining with the employer.

Exclusions

[edit]
See also: Misclassification of employees as independent contractors

The NLRA 1935 does not cover two main groups of employees: those working for the government and in the railway or airline industries. Section 2(2) (29 USC §152(2)) states that the Act does not apply to employees of the "United States or any wholly owned Government corporation, or any Federal Reserve Bank, or any State or political subdivision thereof, or any person subject to the Railway Labor Act". Under section 19 (29 U.S.C. § 169), people who have religious convictions against joining a trade union are entitled to not associate or financially support it.

The NLRA 1935 also does not include additional measures to protect the rights of racial minorities in the workplace. At the time, unions like the American Federation of Labor did not grant membership to black laborers while other unions like the CIO engaged in internal discrimination, providing more preferable jobs and seniority to its white members.[12] Employers also engaged in discrimination against black union members by restricting their ability to organize and collectively bargain with white laborers. The NAACP urged Senator Robert Wagner to add a non-discrimination provision to the bill to protect against union and employee race discrimination.[13] Despite pushes from the NAACP and National Urban League to correct discriminatory practices, the law was written without the inclusion of an anti-discrimination clause.[13]

WPA Laborers building stairway at Golden Gardens, 1936

The act also excludes independent contractors,[14] domestic workers, and farm workers. In recent years, advocacy organizations like the National Domestic Workers' Alliance have worked on the state level to pass a Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights, to extend to domestic workers the protections granted under the NLRA.[15] Similar advocacy efforts are taking place on behalf of farm workers.[16]

Reactions

[edit]

"Nothing in this subchapter, except as specifically provided for herein, shall be construed so as either to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike, or to affect the limitations or qualifications on that right."

The act was bitterly opposed by the Republican Party and business groups. The American Liberty League viewed the act as a threat to freedom and engaged in a campaign of opposition in order to repeal these "socialist" efforts. This included encouraging employers to refuse to comply with the NLRB and supporting the nationwide filing of injunctions to keep the NLRB from functioning. This campaign continued until the NLRA was found constitutional by the Supreme Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937).

Labor groups, while overwhelmingly supportive, expressed a set of reservations. The American Federation of Labor and some employers accused the NLRB of favoring the Congress of Industrial Organizations, particularly when determining whether to hold union elections in plant-wide, or wall-to-wall, units, which the CIO usually sought, or to hold separate elections in separate craft units, which the craft unions in the AFL favored. While the NLRB initially favored plant-wide units, which tacitly favored the CIO's industrial unionism, it retreated to a compromise position several years later under pressure from Congress that allowed craft unions to seek separate representation of smaller groups of workers at the same time that another union was seeking a wall-to-wall unit.

Many accused the NLRB of a general pro-union and anti-employer bias, pointing to the Board's controversial decisions in such areas as employer free speech and "mixed motive" cases, in which the NLRB held that an employer violated the Act by using misconduct that ordinarily would not result in termination to fire an employee who was engaged in pro-union activity. In addition, employers campaigned over the years to outlaw a number of union practices such as closed shops, secondary boycotts, jurisdictional strikes, mass picketing, strikes in violation of contractual no-strike clauses, pension and health and welfare plans sponsored by unions and multi-employer bargaining.

Many of these criticisms included provisions that employers and their allies were unable to have included in the NLRA. Others developed in reaction to NLRB decisions. Over all, they wanted the NLRB to be neutral as to bargaining power, but the NLRA's policy section takes a decidedly pro-employee position:

It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.

Some of these changes were later achieved in the 1947 amendments.

Over time, the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually undone the efficacy of the NLRA by inhibiting the law from applying to shifting circumstances.[17]

Amendments

[edit]
Main article: Right-to-work law

Opponents of the Wagner Act introduced several hundred bills to amend or repeal the law in the decade after its passage. All of them failed or were vetoed until the passage of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, or the Taft–Hartley Act, in 1947.

More recent unsuccessful efforts included attempts in 1978 to permit triple backpay awards and union collective bargaining certification based on signed union authorization cards, a provision that is similar to one of the proposed amendments in the Employee Free Choice Act. Under the NLRA, unions can become the representative based on signed union authorization cards only if the employer voluntarily recognizes the union. If the employer refuses to recognize the union, the union can be certified through a secret-ballot election conducted by the NLRB.

In the 2010s, Democrats began seeking the narrowing of the Act's provisions allowing workers to be hired as independent contractors, thus bringing them under the jurisdiction of the Act.[18] Legislators have introduced a standard for independent contracting termed the "ABC test", after its three criteria A, B and C.[19][20]

To be hired as an independent contractor, the worker must:[21]

  1. Be free from the employer's control and direction in the performance of the current work;
  2. Perform work that is outside the usual course of the employer's business;
  3. Have an independently established business in the same kind of work as performed for the current employer.

Independent contractors and employers have objected to B, the limitation on working in the employer's usual business.[22][23][24] Objections are based on the inconveniences and costs of meeting the criterion. For instance, it prevents small venues from hiring performers, even for one-night stands, unless they are hired as employees.[25][26] As a result, in the California phase of the campaign, numerous occupations of independent contractors were exempted from the test in California Assembly Bill 5 (2019).[27]

Legacy

[edit]

The Little Wagner Act, written by Ida Klaus, is the New York City version of the Wagner Act.[28][29] The New York State Employment Relations Act was enacted in 1937.

Along with other factors, the act contributed to tremendous growth of membership in the labor unions, especially in the mass-production sector.[30] The total number of labor union members grew from three million in 1933 to eight million at the end of the 1930s, with the vast majority of union members living outside of the Southern United States.[31]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

National Labor Relations Act of 1935

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, is a federal statute that establishes the legal framework for private-sector by guaranteeing employees the right to form and join unions, engage in , and participate in strikes or other concerted activities for mutual aid and protection, while prohibiting employers from interfering with these rights or committing specified s such as discrimination against union supporters or establishing employer-dominated unions. Enacted on July 5, 1935, during the as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's , the Act created the independent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to investigate charges, conduct union representation elections, and certify bargaining representatives based on employee votes. The legislation marked a pivotal shift in , addressing widespread employer resistance to that had fueled strikes and economic disruptions in the early , by constitutionally extending federal oversight to intrastate labor activities affecting interstate commerce—a rationale upheld by the in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937). Following its passage, union membership surged from about 3 million in 1933 to over 9 million by 1939, enabling collective agreements that raised wages and improved working conditions in and other sectors, though agricultural and domestic workers were explicitly excluded from coverage. Despite its achievements in empowering workers amid economic crisis, the NLRA has faced enduring criticism for disproportionately favoring labor over management by omitting equivalent restrictions on union tactics like secondary boycotts or coercive organizing until amendments in the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which added protections against union unfair practices and allowed states to enact right-to-work laws. Economically, while it facilitated wage premiums of 10-20% in unionized firms during the 1940s, studies indicate it contributed to rigidities such as industry-wide bargaining that exacerbated postwar inflation and sectoral job losses, with union density declining to under 10% by the 2010s amid and regulatory shifts. These tensions underscore the Act's role as a foundational yet contested mechanism for balancing rights in against collective worker leverage, influencing ongoing debates over labor market efficiency and .

Historical Background

Economic Conditions of the Great Depression

The Great Depression began with the on October 29, 1929, when the fell sharply following a speculative bubble fueled by margin buying and overleveraged investments, though this event alone did not cause the prolonged contraction. Subsequent banking panics from 1930 to 1933 led to over 9,000 bank failures, wiping out deposits and contracting the money supply by about one-third as the failed to act as or expand liquidity, exacerbating deflationary pressures under the gold standard regime. declined by nearly 30 percent from 1929 to 1933, with industrial production halving and wholesale prices dropping 30 percent, creating a vicious cycle of where falling prices increased real debt burdens on households and firms. These dynamics stemmed from restrictive and inadequate fiscal response, as evidenced by empirical analyses showing that countries abandoning the gold standard earlier recovered faster, underscoring the role of international monetary constraints in propagating the downturn. Unemployment surged to 25 percent by , affecting approximately 13 million workers and leaving millions more underemployed, as factories idled and agricultural distress from dust bowl droughts compounded urban joblessness. Wages for those still employed fell by up to 40 percent in sectors, with employers imposing arbitrary cuts and longer hours amid surplus labor, severely eroding workers' individual and making difficult without legal protections. intensified hardship by raising the real value of fixed obligations like mortgages and rents, leading to widespread foreclosures—over 1,000 farms daily in —and evictions, while collapsed due to income loss and fear of further decline. Labor unrest escalated despite these conditions, with strikes doubling from 1929 levels by 1934, including major textile walkouts in the and maritime shutdowns on the West Coast, as desperate workers sought recognition amid employer resistance and sporadic violence. Hunger marches and riots, such as the 1932 protest in , highlighted social strains, with nearly 20,000 veterans demanding early payment of war bonuses amid destitution. By 1935, unemployment remained above 20 percent, sustaining weak labor market leverage and prompting demands for federal intervention to stabilize , as fragmented state laws proved insufficient against interstate economic forces.

Pre-NLRA Labor Legislation and Limitations

Prior to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, federal labor legislation in the United States provided limited protections for workers' organizing and bargaining rights, primarily addressing specific industries or procedural remedies rather than establishing comprehensive safeguards against employer interference in general private-sector employment. Early efforts focused on railroads, where strikes had disrupted national transportation; the Erdman Act of 1898 introduced and for railway disputes but was narrow in application and lacked enforcement teeth. This was superseded by the Railway Labor Act of May 20, 1926, which imposed a duty on carriers and employees to exert "every reasonable effort" to maintain agreements, settle disputes through conference, and utilize or boards under the National Mediation Board to avert strikes. The Act covered approximately 1.5 million railroad workers at the time but excluded , , and other major industries, leaving unions vulnerable to employer tactics like or refusal to recognize representatives outside . The Norris-LaGuardia Act, enacted on March 23, 1932, marked a significant procedural shift by prohibiting federal courts from issuing in nonviolent labor disputes without exhausting peaceful remedies, thereby curbing "government by injunction" that had previously enabled employers to halt strikes and through judicial orders. It also declared yellow-dog contracts—employer-employee agreements pledging not to join unions—unenforceable in federal courts, aiming to protect workers' associational freedoms amid rising union membership, which reached about 3 million by 1932. However, the Act's scope was confined to federal jurisdiction and did not apply to state courts, where many disputes were litigated, nor did it affirmatively mandate employer recognition of unions or prohibit practices such as discharging organizers or forming company-dominated unions. These laws' limitations stemmed from their piecemeal nature and absence of administrative enforcement; the Railway Labor Act's mediation processes often failed to compel bargaining in non-rail sectors, where employers freely opposed unions via lockouts or , contributing to violent clashes like the 1934 Minneapolis Teamsters strike. Norris-LaGuardia curbed judicial overreach but left substantive imbalances unaddressed, as courts could still uphold anti-union contracts under and employers evaded bargaining without penalty, fostering instability in an economy where union density hovered below 10% in . Without a federal agency to investigate unfair practices or certify representatives, workers in interstate commerce faced systemic barriers to , prompting calls for broader intervention as industrial unrest escalated during the .

Political Push for New Deal Reforms

The 1934 midterm elections bolstered Democratic control of Congress, with the party gaining nine seats in the and nine in the , resulting in majorities of 322-103-10 and 69-25-2, respectively. This rare midterm advance for the incumbent president's party—amid ongoing Depression-era discontent—provided President with enhanced legislative leverage to pursue the Second 's expansion of federal authority, including targeted labor reforms aimed at stabilizing and economic recovery. The push reflected a strategic shift from the First New Deal's focus on business-led recovery under the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) toward direct empowerment of workers to counter employer dominance and mitigate disruptions to interstate commerce. Widespread labor militancy in 1934 intensified political pressure for intervention, as strikes exposed the fragility of existing protections and the ineffectiveness of NIRA's Section 7(a), which nominally encouraged but permitted employer-formed "company unions" to undermine genuine organization. Notable actions included the Auto-Lite strike in , from April to June 1934, where workers demanding union recognition clashed with police and troops, resulting in two deaths and over a dozen injuries on May 24; the Minneapolis Teamsters strike from May to July 1934, involving violent confrontations and sympathy actions by 25,000 workers; and the West Coast longshoremen's strike from May to October 1934, culminating in "Bloody Thursday" on with two strikers killed by security forces, followed by a general strike. These events, often involving radical organizers and highlighting police bias toward employers, generated public and elite alarm over potential radicalization and economic sabotage, prompting calls for federal mechanisms to channel unrest into structured bargaining. Senator (D-NY) spearheaded the legislative response, introducing the initial National Labor Relations bill on March 1, 1934, to establish enforceable rights against employer interference, but it stalled amid opposition from interests and insufficient administration backing. The Supreme Court's invalidation of the NIRA on May 27, 1935, in the Schechter Poultry case removed even the tenuous Section 7(a) framework, accelerating reintroduction of Wagner's measure in February 1935 as a standalone bulwark for labor self-organization. Roosevelt, who had initially favored a conciliatory approach to avoid alienating , endorsed the bill to address the resultant vacuum, viewing protected as essential to equalizing , reducing strikes, and averting broader social upheaval that could threaten capitalist stability. This alignment of , labor advocates, and pragmatic New Dealers framed the Act not merely as pro-union advocacy but as a pragmatic tool for industrial peace amid Depression-induced volatility.

Enactment Process

Drafting by Senator Wagner and Congressional Debates

Senator Robert F. Wagner, a Democratic senator from New York, directed the drafting of the National Labor Relations Act in his office, drawing on the shortcomings of Section 7(a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which had promised but failed to secure effective collective bargaining rights for workers. His legislative assistant, Leon Keyserling, served as a principal drafter, incorporating principles of enforced neutrality modeled after the Federal Trade Commission's regulatory approach to promote balanced labor relations and economic stability. Wagner introduced an initial version of the bill on March 1, 1934, as S. 2926, aiming to establish federal protections against employer interference in union activities amid widespread labor unrest. After the Supreme Court invalidated the NIRA in May 1935, rendering Section 7(a) unenforceable, Wagner reintroduced a refined bill as S. 1958 in February 1935, emphasizing statutory mechanisms for union elections and unfair labor practice remedies to address the resulting vacuum in labor protections. A companion bill, H.R. 6287, was introduced in the House by Representative William B. Connery Jr. on March 11, 1935, aligning closely with Wagner's version to facilitate coordinated passage. The drafting process involved consultations with labor leaders and legal experts, prioritizing worker over voluntary employer concessions, which Wagner viewed as insufficient given historical patterns of employer resistance evidenced by blacklists, yellow-dog contracts, and company-dominated unions. In debates commencing in May 1935, Wagner led proponents in arguing that the bill would foster industrial peace by equalizing , asserting that unchecked employer dominance fueled strikes and economic disruption, as seen in over 2,000 labor disputes in alone. He framed the as a pragmatic response to market failures, where unorganized workers lacked leverage against concentrated corporate power, potentially stabilizing consumption and reducing reliance on federal relief spending. Supporters highlighted from prior state laws and NIRA experiences, claiming the would administer impartial elections to certify representatives, thereby minimizing and . Opposition, primarily from Republicans and business-aligned senators such as of , centered on constitutional concerns over federal overreach into interstate and private contracts, warning that the bill delegated excessive quasi-judicial power to an unelected board and infringed on management rights to hire and fire without union interference. Critics, backed by groups like the , argued it tilted the scales toward unions by prohibiting unfair practices while ignoring union abuses, potentially enabling monopolistic labor cartels that could raise wages artificially and harm , as evidenced by contemporary economic analyses questioning bargaining's in competitive markets. Despite amendments to address some jurisdictional limits, the passed the bill on June 28, 1935, by a vote of 63 to 12, reflecting Democratic majorities but revealing divisions even among some wary of empowering industrial unions in agriculture-exempt sectors. House debates echoed these tensions, with passage on July 10, 1935, by 242 to 74, after rejecting conservative amendments to weaken enforcement.

Passage through Congress and Presidential Signing

The Senate passed S. 1958, the National Labor Relations Act, on May 16, 1935, by a vote of 63 to 12, with supporters arguing it would stabilize by protecting workers' rights to organize amid ongoing labor unrest following the invalidation of the National Industrial Recovery Act. Opponents, including some Democrats like Senator , proposed amendments to limit perceived coercion by unions, but these were defeated, such as Tydings's measure by 21 to 50. The bill advanced to the House of Representatives, which approved it by voice vote without recorded division, reflecting strong Democratic majorities aligned with priorities. This followed debates emphasizing the need to address strikes and economic disruptions through federal oversight of labor practices affecting interstate commerce. President signed the National Labor Relations Act into law on July 5, 1935, designating it Public Law 198. In his , Roosevelt described the legislation as codifying employees' right to self-organization for , creating an independent to adjudicate violations and conduct elections, while clarifying that the board would not mediate disputes—a role reserved for the Department of Labor. He stressed its limited scope to industries burdening interstate commerce and its goal of fostering equitable employment contracts to reduce strife, without guaranteeing the end of all labor conflicts.

Key Provisions

Employee Rights to Self-Organization and Collective Bargaining

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 157, grants employees the right "to , to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of or other mutual aid or protection," while also affirming the right to refrain from such activities, subject to limited exceptions for union security agreements permitted under Section 8(a)(3). These protections aim to enable workers to counterbalance employer economic power in setting wages and working conditions, thereby reducing labor disputes that disrupt interstate commerce, as articulated in the Act's findings. Self-organization under Section 7 encompasses employees' freedom to establish or affiliate with unions without employer domination or interference, fostering independent representation in workplaces affecting commerce. rights permit chosen representatives to negotiate contracts on terms like pay, hours, and conditions, with the expectation of good-faith dealings once a union achieves status in an appropriate unit. "Concerted activities" extend beyond formal union efforts to include informal group actions, such as discussing grievances or protesting policies for mutual benefit, even among non-unionized workers, provided they relate to terms. The right to refrain ensures voluntariness, protecting against coerced participation except where lawful union-shop clauses apply post-certification. These rights apply broadly to private-sector employees engaged in commerce but exclude supervisors, independent contractors, and certain agricultural or domestic workers, with jurisdictional limits tied to interstate economic impact. Violations, such as employer coercion suppressing these activities, constitute unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(1), enforceable by the . The provision's scope reflects congressional intent to stabilize industrial relations amid Depression-era unrest, prioritizing empirical labor market imbalances over unrestricted employer autonomy.

Definition and Prohibition of Unfair Labor Practices by Employers

Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, enacted on July 5, 1935, defines five specific categories of conduct by employers as unfair labor practices, prohibiting actions that undermine employees' rights to self-organization and as protected under Section 7 of the Act. These prohibitions aimed to address prevalent employer tactics during the , such as and , which had suppressed union formation and worker concerted activities. The (NLRB), established by the Act, enforces these rules by investigating charges and issuing remedies like cease-and-desist orders for violations. The first prohibition, under Section 8(a)(1), bars employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in exercising their Section 7 rights, which include joining or assisting labor organizations, bargaining collectively through representatives, and engaging in other concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. This clause broadly targets subtle employer pressures, such as promises of benefits to deter union support or interrogations about union sympathies, without requiring proof of . Section 8(a)(2) forbids employers from dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of any labor organization or providing it with financial or other support. A proviso permits employers to allow employees to confer with during working hours without loss of pay, subject to NLRB rules, distinguishing permissible communication from unlawful control over "company unions" that lacked independence. This addressed pre-Act practices where employers sponsored captive unions to undermine genuine employee representation. Under Section 8(a)(3), employers are prohibited from discriminating in hiring, tenure, or terms and conditions of to encourage or discourage union membership. The original 1935 text included a proviso allowing union security agreements, such as requiring membership after 30 days of or the agreement's effective date, provided the union was not employer-dominated and employees could be discharged for non-membership upon union request (with religious exemptions). This balanced worker protections against employer favoritism, like preferential hiring of union members or discharges to quash organizing, while permitting limited closed-shop arrangements common in certain industries at the time. Section 8(a)(4) makes it unlawful to discharge or discriminate against an employee for filing charges or giving under the Act. This safeguard ensures employees can report violations or participate in NLRB proceedings without retaliation, promoting enforcement integrity from the Act's outset in 1935. Finally, Section 8(a)(5) requires employers to bargain collectively in with employee representatives certified under Section 9, subject to defined bargaining units. Refusal to negotiate over wages, hours, and other mandatory subjects constitutes an unfair practice, enforcing the Act's core objective of stable through mutual agreement rather than unilateral employer dictates. Violations of these provisions could result in NLRB orders for reinstatement, back pay, or affirmative , as outlined in Section 10 of the Act.

Establishment and Powers of the National Labor Relations Board

The National Labor Relations Act, enacted on July 5, 1935, established the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as an independent federal agency tasked with administering the Act's provisions to mitigate labor disputes affecting interstate commerce. Section 3(a) created the Board as a three-member body, with members appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, each serving a staggered three-year term. Presidential removal of members was limited to cases of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, aiming to insulate the agency from political interference while ensuring accountability. The Board required a quorum of two members to conduct business and was granted an official seal with judicial notice. Under Section 3(d), the NLRB held authority to appoint necessary personnel, including a secretary, attorneys, examiners, and regional directors, exempt from requirements to facilitate efficient operations. This enabled the establishment of regional offices to handle cases locally, with the Board retaining oversight. Section 6 further empowered the Board to promulgate, amend, or rescind rules and regulations as needed to implement the Act, providing flexibility in procedural matters without requiring additional legislation. These structural provisions replaced the ineffective precursor board under the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, granting the NLRB genuine enforcement capabilities. The Board's core powers centered on protecting employee rights under Section 7 through oversight of representation and unfair labor practices. Section 9 authorized investigations of petitions alleging representation questions, determination of appropriate bargaining units (such as employer-wide, craft, or plant units), and direction of secret-ballot elections to certify exclusive bargaining representatives based on majority support. The Board could certify results and address challenges to ensure free choice, excluding employer-dominated unions. Section 10 empowered the Board to prevent unfair labor practices by employers, including investigating charges, issuing complaints, conducting hearings, and, upon finding violations by preponderance of evidence, ordering cease-and-desist actions along with affirmative remedies like employee reinstatement and back pay to effectuate the Act's policies. Board orders could be enforced via petitions to circuit courts of appeals, with limited to the record and substantial evidence standard. These powers collectively aimed to balance bargaining inequities by curbing employer interference while promoting orderly union selection.

Mechanisms for Union Representation Elections

Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act authorized the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to oversee elections determining whether employees desired union representation for collective bargaining purposes. Under subsection 9(c), proceedings commenced upon filing of a petition by a substantial number of employees, their labor organization, or an employer, alleging the existence of a question about representation affecting commerce. The NLRB was required to investigate the petition and, if reasonable cause existed to believe a representation question persisted, conduct an appropriate hearing with due notice to interested parties. Following the hearing, the NLRB determined the appropriate bargaining unit under subsection 9(b), considering factors such as among employees, to ensure the unit was suitable for without unduly fragmenting or expanding representation. If the Board found a valid question of representation, it directed an election by among employees in the unit, allowing them to select a representative or none. The representative chosen by a of votes cast received as the exclusive bargaining agent, binding the employer to negotiate solely with that entity for the unit's employees. This majority-rule principle supplanted prior practices of multiple or company-dominated unions, enforcing exclusive representation to stabilize . Elections were barred in any unit where a valid had occurred within the preceding twelve months, preventing repetitive challenges and promoting decisional finality. The NLRB retained to dismiss petitions lacking sufficient employee support or where no genuine controversy existed, though the statute left the threshold for "substantial number" to Board interpretation rather than codifying a fixed . Objections to election conduct or results could be raised, with the NLRB empowered to investigate and certify outcomes only after resolving disputes, ensuring procedural integrity amid potential employer interference prohibited elsewhere in the Act. These mechanisms centralized federal authority over representation disputes, shifting from state-level or resolutions to a uniform administrative process.

Exclusions from Coverage and Jurisdictional Limits

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, in Section 2(3), defines "employee" broadly but explicitly excludes agricultural laborers, individuals employed in domestic service within a or person's home, those employed by a parent or spouse, independent contractors, supervisors, and employees of employers covered by the Railway Labor Act of 1926. These exclusions stemmed from administrative and political considerations during the Act's drafting, including the challenges of regulating dispersed agricultural workforces and the separate federal framework already in place for railroads and airlines under the Railway Labor Act. Agricultural and domestic exclusions, which disproportionately affected Southern and minority workers, were retained from earlier proposals to secure Southern Democratic support in , despite their impact on limiting unionization in key sectors. Section 2(2) further limits coverage by excluding from the definition of "employer" the government, any state or political subdivision thereof, and entities subject to the Railway Labor Act, thereby shielding employment and transportation industries with specialized labor laws from NLRB oversight. Independent contractors were distinguished from employees based on common- agency principles, emphasizing lack of control by the hiring entity, though early Board interpretations occasionally tested these boundaries in manufacturing contexts. Supervisors were excluded to prevent conflicts of interest in managerial hierarchies, a provision later expanded by amendments but rooted in the original Act's aim to protect rank-and-file workers without empowering oversight roles. Jurisdictional limits under the Act confine NLRB authority to disputes "affecting commerce," defined in Section 2(6) as interstate or foreign commerce or activities burdening or obstructing it, invoking Congress's power while excluding purely intrastate activities. This threshold required evidence of interstate impact, such as out-of-state purchases or sales, but the Supreme Court's 1937 upholding in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. broadly interpreted it to include and local operations with substantial interstate effects, effectively minimizing early statutory barriers. Prior to that validation, some employers challenged jurisdiction by claiming intrastate isolation, but the Act's findings in Section 1 emphasized labor strife's aggregate burden on national commerce, justifying expansive application over time. The Board initially exercised discretion in asserting jurisdiction, focusing on clear interstate ties rather than flows, to avoid overreach amid constitutional uncertainties.

Initial Enforcement and Judicial Review

Formation and Early NLRB Operations

The (NLRB) was created as an independent federal agency by Section 3 of the National Labor Relations Act, enacted on July 5, 1935, to oversee enforcement of the statute's protections for employees' rights to and , as well as to adjudicate unfair labor practices. The Act specified a three-member board, appointed by the President with confirmation for staggered seven-year terms, empowered to issue cease-and-desist orders and certify exclusive bargaining representatives via supervised elections. President nominated Dean as the first chairman, economist Harry A. Millis, and labor arbitrator Edwin S. Smith as the initial members; the confirmed them on August 27, 1935. The NLRB held its inaugural meeting on September 5, 1935, in , and promptly appointed Fahy as its first to handle investigations and litigation. To implement operations nationwide, the Board established 16 regional offices by late 1935, staffed initially with a small cadre of attorneys, economists, and examiners drawn from federal agencies and universities, amid budget constraints from the Great Depression-era Treasury. resigned as chairman on November 11, 1935, citing irreconcilable differences over the Board's aggressive enforcement stance toward employer resistance; Roosevelt designated , a and later , as acting chairman, with J. Warren Madden replacing Smith in 1936 to maintain continuity. Early NLRB activities centered on processing Section 10 charges of unfair labor practices—such as employer interference with union organizing or against union members—and Section 9 petitions for representation elections to resolve competing union claims or employee desires for union representation. In its partial 1936 operations, the Board received thousands of charges alleging violations, conducted preliminary investigations, and issued initial decisions in cases like those involving mass firings of union activists in steel and automobile industries, though circuit courts frequently denied enforcement petitions on constitutional grounds until rulings in 1937. By mid-1936, the NLRB had supervised over 200 elections certifying bargaining units totaling approximately 50,000 workers, primarily in manufacturing sectors, fostering rapid union growth despite employer challenges and limited resources; these efforts prioritized secret-ballot procedures to ensure employee free choice, drawing on precedents from the defunct National Labor Board under the National Industrial Recovery Act. Operations were further strained by a backlog of cases, with only about 20% resolved by formal orders in the first year, as the Board developed evidentiary standards and administrative rules amid skepticism from business groups questioning its quasi-judicial authority.

Supreme Court Validation in 1937 Cases

The National Labor Relations Act encountered swift constitutional challenges following its enactment, with employers contending that it impermissibly extended federal authority over intrastate manufacturing and labor relations under the , while also violating by delegating excessive power to the . Several federal circuit courts of appeals invalidated the Act or portions thereof, prompting the Board to seek review in multiple cases. In February and March 1937, the Court heard arguments in four consolidated cases testing the Act's validity, amid heightened tension from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's February 5 announcement of a plan to reorganize the judiciary by adding justices, ostensibly to address docket backlog but widely viewed as an effort to counter the Court's invalidation of prior measures. The lead case, National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), arose from the Board's 1936 order requiring the Pennsylvania-based steel producer—engaged in integrated mining, manufacturing, and distribution operations affecting interstate —to cease interfering with employees' union activities, reinstate ten workers discharged for union organizing, and pay back wages totaling approximately $11,600. The company, which shipped over 75% of its products across state lines, argued that its manufacturing processes were purely local activities immune from federal regulation. On April 12, 1937, the ruled 5-4 to uphold the Board's order and the Act's constitutionality, with Chief Justice authoring the majority opinion asserting that while manufacturing itself is not interstate , labor disputes within industries of substantial national character—like , vital to transportation and other sectors—could obstruct the flow of , justifying congressional regulation to avert strikes and disruptions. The dissent, led by Justice , maintained that the Act represented an overreach into local employer-employee relations, threatening . Companion decisions issued the same day reinforced the holding. In National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., 301 U.S. 49 (1937), the Court unanimously enforced a Board order against the Michigan trailer manufacturer for discharging union supporters and dominating a company union, emphasizing that the company's 85% out-of-state sales integrated its operations into interstate commerce, thus subjecting unfair labor practices to federal oversight. Similarly, National Labor Relations Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co., 301 U.S. 58 (1937), upheld the Board's findings against a Virginia clothing contractor that sourced 75% of its materials from out-of-state suppliers and operated within a multi-state production chain, rejecting claims that its assembly work was intrastate and affirming the Act's application to prevent commerce-burdening disputes. These rulings, collectively, marked a pivotal expansion of the Commerce Clause to encompass preventive regulation of labor relations in manufacturing and related activities, validating the NLRB's authority and enabling robust enforcement of the Wagner Act. The decisions' timing—mere months after Roosevelt's court-packing proposal and following Justice ' shift from prior conservative alignments in cases—fueled debate over , though Roberts maintained his vote aligned with evolving precedents like Stafford v. Wallace (1922). By sustaining the Act, the Court resolved uncertainty that had stalled NLRB operations, spurring a surge in union certification petitions and agreements in subsequent years.

Amendments and Reforms

Taft-Hartley Act Corrections in 1947

The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act, was enacted on June 23, 1947, after overrode President Harry S. Truman's veto by substantial margins in both chambers ( 68-31, 322-52). This legislation amended the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 to address its perceived one-sided emphasis on protecting union organizing and rights, which critics argued had enabled union abuses such as excessive strikes, secondary boycotts, and coercive tactics unchecked by equivalent employer safeguards. Post-World War II labor unrest, including over 4,600 strikes involving 4.6 million workers in 1946, fueled Republican gains in the 1946 congressional elections, prompting the reforms to promote industrial peace by balancing power between employers and unions. A core correction expanded the NLRA's definition of unfair labor practices to apply symmetrically to unions, prohibiting tactics like secondary boycotts (where unions pressure neutral parties to influence primary disputes), jurisdictional strikes (disputes over work assignment between unions), and (payments for unperformed work). The Act banned closed shops (requiring union membership for employment) outright and restricted union shops (requiring membership after hire) by allowing states to enact "right-to-work" laws exempting workers from mandatory dues, a provision ratified in Section 14(b) that empowered 28 states by 2023 to prohibit union security agreements. Employers gained explicit free speech to express views on without interference, provided no threats or promises of benefits, countering NLRA interpretations that had curtailed such communications. To rectify administrative imbalances in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Taft-Hartley Act restructured the agency by creating an independent Office of the General Counsel to handle investigations and prosecutions separately from the Board's adjudicative role, aiming to reduce the pro-union bias alleged in early NLRB operations under the original NLRA. It introduced union decertification elections, allowing employees to vote out a certified bargaining representative—a mechanism absent in the Act—and mandated affidavits from union officers affirming non-membership in the , reflecting concerns over ideological influences in labor leadership amid tensions. For national emergency disputes, the Act empowered the president to seek an 80-day against strikes or lockouts threatening , followed by fact-finding boards, extending NLRA tools beyond mere . Additional provisions required unions to file financial reports with the NLRB and barred political contributions from union treasuries without member consent (the "Beck rule" precursor), enhancing transparency to curb and misuse of funds that had proliferated under the unregulated framework of the Wagner Act. These changes collectively shifted the NLRA from a primarily regulating employer conduct to one enforcing mutual obligations, though implementation faced union-led challenges and uneven enforcement, contributing to a decline in union membership from 35% of the non-agricultural in to under 10% by the .

Landrum-Griffin Act Additions in 1959

The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), also known as the Landrum-Griffin Act, was signed into law by President on September 14, 1959, following investigations by the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field that exposed widespread union corruption, including embezzlement and racketeering in organizations like the . The Act amended the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) through its Title VI, strengthening restrictions on union conduct toward employers and secondary parties while preserving core NLRA rights under Section 603. These amendments targeted loopholes in prior law that allowed disruptive tactics, such as secondary boycotts and excessive , which had been inadequately enforced under the Taft-Hartley Act. A primary addition was the expansion of Section 8(b)(4) of the NLRA, which prohibits unions from engaging in secondary boycotts—pressuring neutral employers to cease business with primary targets—by mandating that the (NLRB) seek immediate federal district court injunctions rather than administrative proceedings, with full remedies available post-hearing. The Act also introduced Section 8(b)(7), deeming it an for a union to or threaten to an employer for recognition or organizational purposes unless the union files for an NLRB within a reasonable period (not exceeding 30 days) or where no certified union objects; this provision included exceptions for informational about subcontracting but barred such activity more than 12 months after a lost petition. Additionally, new Section 8(e) outlawed "hot cargo" agreements, where unions contractually compel employers to boycott non-union goods or services, rendering such clauses unenforceable except in the construction industry. Jurisdictional reforms addressed enforcement gaps by amending Section 14(c) of the NLRA to grant state courts and labor boards authority over cases declined by the NLRB, eliminating "" scenarios where neither federal nor state remedies applied, particularly for secondary boycotts involving local disputes. The Act further empowered the NLRB to conduct craft severance elections, allowing skilled workers to form separate units detached from broader industrial bargaining units if historical separation warranted it. Complementing these NLRA changes, LMRDA's Title II imposed annual financial reporting requirements on unions, officers, and employers for payments potentially influencing organizing or bargaining, amending NLRA Section 302 to prohibit employer loans or gifts to union officials except under strict conditions like equal-benefit trust funds with audits. These provisions aimed to enhance transparency and deter collusion without altering employees' Section 7 rights to organize or bargain collectively.

Minor Subsequent Changes and Interpretations

The 1974 amendments to the NLRA, enacted as 93-360 on July 26, 1974, extended the Act's coverage to employees of non-profit hospitals and other institutions, which had previously been exempt under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. This sector-specific expansion subjected these employers to NLRB jurisdiction over unfair labor practices and representation elections, while incorporating tailored provisions to address patient care concerns, including a on certain forms of recognition and a requirement for unions to provide at least 10 days' advance of strikes or . These changes responded to the rapid growth of the non-profit sector and aims to stabilize without broadly altering the Act's core framework. No further substantive legislative amendments have been made to the NLRA since , leaving the statute largely intact amid evolving economic conditions. Instead, refinements have occurred through judicial and administrative interpretations. In the United Steelworkers Trilogy of 1960 Supreme Court decisions—United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co., United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., and United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.—the Court upheld the enforceability of arbitration clauses in agreements under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley amendments, promoting voluntary while limiting judicial interference in labor contracts. Subsequent rulings clarified jurisdictional boundaries and employee status. For example, in NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979), the ruled that the NLRA does not authorize NLRB jurisdiction over teachers in church-operated schools, citing First Amendment concerns and the absence of clear congressional intent to include such parochial institutions. Similarly, NLRB v. Yeshiva University (1980) held that full-time faculty exercising managerial authority over academic policies are supervisors exempt from NLRA protections, narrowing coverage for professional employees in higher education. These interpretations maintained the Act's focus on non-supervisory private-sector workers while adapting to specific contexts without statutory overhaul.

Economic and Social Impacts

Surge in Union Membership and Bargaining Coverage

Following the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act on July 5, 1935, union membership in the United States surged markedly, driven by the law's protections against employer interference in organizing and the establishment of the to oversee representation elections and enforce rights. In 1933, amid the , total union membership stood at approximately 3 million workers, predominantly in skilled craft unions. By 1940, membership had nearly tripled to around 9 million, reflecting successful organizing drives in mass-production industries facilitated by NLRB certifications. Union density, or the percentage of nonagricultural wage and salary workers who were union members, rose from 12.8% in 1935 to 34.2% by 1945, a peak that encompassed wartime mobilization and expanded under the (CIO), formed in 1935. This growth was particularly pronounced in manufacturing sectors, where NLRB-conducted elections certified unions representing hundreds of thousands of workers annually; for instance, automobile and steel industries saw membership explode from negligible levels pre-1935 to covering major firms like and by 1937. Collective bargaining coverage expanded in tandem, as certified bargaining units negotiated contracts extending benefits to both members and non-members in many cases, though exact coverage figures exceeded membership due to union security clauses permitted under the Act. By the late 1930s, over 800,000 women had joined unions—a threefold increase from —often through contracts covering broader workforces in textiles and other sectors. The NLRB's role in invalidating company-dominated unions and resolving disputes further entrenched bargaining relationships, covering an estimated 25-30% of the nonagricultural workforce by the early 1940s, up from under 10% a prior.
YearApproximate Union Membership (millions)Union Density (% of nonagricultural workers)
19333.0~10
1935~3.512.8
19409.0~22
1945~1534.2
This table illustrates the rapid escalation, with data derived from Bureau of Labor Statistics historical series and adjusted for wartime shifts; the surge tapered post-1945 amid economic reconversion but marked a structural shift from pre-NLRA fragmentation.

Effects on Wages, Strikes, and

The enactment of the NLRA spurred union membership growth from 12.8% of nonagricultural workers in 1935 to 34.2% by 1945, empowering unions to negotiate wage increases via that exceeded competitive market levels. Unionized workers secured a wage premium estimated at 10-15% over non-union peers during the late 1930s and 1940s, with larger effects for lower-skilled, less-educated, and minority employees, contributing to wage compression and reduced inequality in organized sectors. However, this premium often came at the cost of reductions or higher consumer prices, as firms absorbed costs without the price-fixing allowances of prior experiments. Empirical evidence from the period identifies a in wage dynamics around 1936-1937, decoupling wages from industrial concentration and aligning them more closely with union . Strike activity intensified immediately following the NLRA, as protected organizing rights enabled aggressive union campaigns; workers involved in stoppages rose from 1.5 million in 1934 to over 2 million annually by 1937, including major actions like the (involving 14,000 autoworkers from December 1936 to February 1937) and the Little Steel strike (affecting 100,000 workers in 1937). This surge reflected both empowered worker militancy and employer resistance during certification drives, with total strike days lost peaking amid the 1937 recession. Long-term, the Act's framework channeled disputes into bargaining processes, reducing overall strike frequency and violence by institutionalizing representation elections and prohibiting employer interference, though intermittent or secondary strikes faced legal constraints. The NLRA fundamentally altered by mandating good-faith and curbing employer-dominated unions, fostering formalized structures like seniority-based promotions, grievance , and standardized hiring over pre-1935 paternalistic welfare programs. This shift diminished arbitrary dismissals and enhanced worker leverage in negotiations, improving conditions in unionized firms, but it also rigidified labor markets, complicating flexible responses to economic shifts and elevating adversarial tensions in sectors like . While reducing chaotic violence characteristic of pre-NLRA eras, the regime prioritized union security over individual worker autonomy, influencing policies toward closed shops in some industries until later amendments.

Long-Term Consequences for Productivity and Competitiveness

Empirical analyses of firm-level data from (NLRB) elections between 1961 and 1999 reveal that successful unionization efforts result in a substantial decline in firm , approximately 10% or $40,500 per represented worker in 1998 dollars, with effects persisting over 15-18 months. This reduction reflects diminished long-term profitability and scale, as unionized firms exhibit stable profit margins but contract in assets and sales, implying constraints on and growth. Long-term productivity impacts from unionization under the NLRA are generally small or negative, with studies showing no consistent positive economy-wide effects and slower growth rates over time due to restrictive work rules, systems, and resistance to technological adoption. Unionized firms invest 6% less in and 15% less in compared to non-union counterparts, limiting and gains essential for sustained . Employment growth in unionized sectors lags by 3.7-3.9% annually, as higher mandated wages and bargaining rigidities discourage expansion and hiring. These dynamics eroded U.S. competitiveness, particularly in , where NLRA-enabled unions imposed above-market labor costs—reaching 35% peak in 1954—without proportional offsets, contributing to import penetration and a 40% share of union decline attributable to foreign competition. Adversarial bargaining fostered practices like and jurisdictional disputes, raising unit labor costs and prompting ; for instance, U.S. 's global share fell from over 40% post-World War II to under 20% by the amid rising trade deficits. Right-to-work laws, which dilute NLRA-mandated union power, correlate with higher and lower , underscoring how pro-union frameworks hinder adaptability in global markets. While some cross-sectional studies posit short-term productivity boosts from union "voice" mechanisms, longitudinal evidence indicates these dissipate, with persistent negative effects on profitability (10-20% lower in unionized firms) dominating long-run outcomes and constraining overall economic dynamism.

Criticisms and Controversies

Perceived Pro-Union Bias in NLRB Administration

Critics of the (NLRB) have long argued that its administration exhibits a structural pro-union bias, stemming primarily from the partisan composition of its five-member board, where presidents typically appoint a 3-2 majority aligned with their political views, leading to doctrinal shifts that favor expansive interpretations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protections for unions. Empirical analysis of (ULP) decisions from 1956 to 1975, for instance, found strong evidence that board outcomes correlate with the appointing president's party, with Democratic-majority boards more likely to rule against employers in cases involving alleged interference with organizing efforts. This political dependency results in frequent reversals of precedent upon administration changes; under the Biden administration (2021–present), the board has overturned numerous Trump-era decisions, such as reinstating broader standards for union recognition via authorization cards in the 2023 Cemex Construction ruling, which presumes majority support without a secret ballot election if an employer is found to have committed even a minor ULP during organizing. Data on ULP enforcement further underscores perceptions of asymmetry: employers face charges in approximately 41.5% of union election campaigns, with findings against them in a of litigated cases, while complaints against unions succeed at lower rates—56% of cases against union respondents from 2021–2023 resulted in at least one ULP finding, compared to higher employer violation rates in analogous employer-focused charges. Regional variations in merit dismissal rates also reveal potential bias, with some NLRB regions showing consistently higher findings against relative to unions, a disparity attributed by analysts to judges' (ALJs) credibility assessments that disproportionately credit employee or union testimony. Under Democratic boards, such as during the Obama and Biden eras, enforcement priorities have intensified scrutiny of policies—like confidentiality agreements or non-compete clauses—as ULPs, while union violations, including secondary boycotts, receive comparatively lenient treatment, contributing to a 58% surge in union representation petitions post-2021. This perceived bias is amplified by the NLRB's quasi-prosecutorial structure, where the general counsel—also politically appointed—initiates most cases, often prioritizing pro-labor initiatives; a 2012 report documented internal communications favoring unions in high-profile disputes, such as the case, highlighting systemic favoritism. While the NLRA inherently emphasizes countering employer dominance in organizing (e.g., via Section 8(a) prohibitions), critics contend that activist interpretations exceed statutory bounds, eroding employer free speech rights under Section 8(c) and fostering an enforcement environment where employers settle charges to avoid prolonged litigation, even in meritorious defenses. Such patterns persist despite the board's tradition of 3-2 partisan balance, which, while intended to ensure deliberation, instead entrenches policy volatility tied to electoral cycles rather than consistent application of the . Sources documenting these trends, including employer-side legal analyses, must be weighed against pro-union outlets like the , which emphasize employer violations while downplaying union asymmetries, reflecting ideological leanings in labor scholarship.

Contributions to Union Corruption and Racketeering

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 granted labor unions exclusive bargaining rights under Section 9, monopoly control over employee representation, and protections for concerted activities, but omitted robust mechanisms for internal union democracy or financial transparency, enabling corrupt leaders to exploit these powers for personal gain and infiltration. This structural imbalance allowed unions to amass resources through compulsory dues and control hiring practices, such as closed-shop arrangements, which facilitated , kickbacks from employers, and without immediate accountability. By 1957, union membership had surged to over 17 million, concentrating economic leverage that racketeers leveraged for schemes like "no-show" jobs and sweetheart contracts, where union officials colluded with to inflate wages in exchange for bribes. The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management, known as the McClellan Committee, from 1957 to 1959 exposed systemic in major unions, documenting over $1 million in embezzled funds from the alone and ties to figures who used union pension funds for illicit loans totaling millions. Committee hearings revealed how NLRA-sanctioned strike threats and secondary boycotts were weaponized for ; for instance, Teamsters leader admitted to authorizing violence against non-compliant employers, while waterfront unions in New York enforced corrupt "" hiring systems that funneled kickbacks to mob-controlled piers. These abuses stemmed directly from the Act's failure to regulate union internals, as exclusive representation shielded corrupt officials from member challenges, with over 200 convictions for in the construction and garment trades by the early 1960s. Racketeering flourished particularly in industries with high union density post-NLRA, such as trucking and building trades, where corrupt locals demanded "jurisdictional" fees from contractors—estimated at $100 million annually by the —and laundered mob money through union health and welfare funds lacking audits. The Act's emphasis on prohibitions over union created a regulatory asymmetry, as evidenced by the Department of Justice's later invocation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in over 20 labor cases by 1980, targeting patterns of traceable to NLRA-empowered structures. While not all unions engaged in such practices, the absence of standards until 1959 reforms amplified vulnerabilities, with empirical studies linking union monopoly power to higher incidence in states with strong NLRA enforcement.

Distortions in Labor Markets and Business Operations

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 empowered unions with exclusive bargaining rights over entire workplaces, enabling them to restrict labor supply and impose above competitive market levels, thereby creating monopoly distortions in labor markets. This cartel-like structure, likened by economist to a "reverse Sherman Act," reduces the quantity of labor demanded by employers while elevating pay for unionized workers, resulting in persistent or within covered sectors. Empirical estimates indicate a union premium of 15 percent or higher for comparable non-union workers, which correlates with lower levels in unionized industries due to the substitution of capital for labor and displacement of marginal workers. These rigidities introduce a wedge between labor curves, shrinking overall market participation and , as resources are misallocated away from efficient uses. Union seniority rules and resistance to technological changes further exacerbate inefficiencies by prioritizing incumbent workers over gains, leading to phenomena like —payment for unperformed work—which inflates costs without corresponding output. Post-enactment data show strikes surged from an annual average of 1,000 in the to over 2,000 in the late , disrupting production and amplifying economic deadweight losses through lost s and output. In business operations, the Act's mandatory requirements curtail managerial flexibility, compelling employers to negotiate over decisions traditionally reserved for unilateral action, such as plant relocations or subcontracting. For instance, rulings have interpreted certain operational shifts—like job transfers—as mandatory subjects of bargaining if motivated by labor costs, delaying or preventing efficient reallocations and increasing compliance burdens. This rigidity discourages firm entry and expansion, as prospective employers anticipate protracted disputes and higher fixed costs, contributing to geographic misallocation where businesses avoid union-stronghold regions. Additionally, prohibitions on employer-supported employee committees stifle voluntary labor-management cooperation, forcing adversarial dynamics that hinder adaptive responses to market changes. Overall, these provisions foster conditions, where union leverage offsets employer but at the expense of dynamic efficiency, as evidenced by slower adoption of labor-saving innovations and elevated operational risks from protected strikes. States with right-to-work laws, which dilute NLRA-mandated union , exhibit higher employment-to-population ratios and faster job growth, underscoring the Act's role in perpetuating localized labor market distortions.

Modern Developments and Debates

Recent NLRB Challenges Including Quorum Shortfalls

Following the U.S. presidential election, the (NLRB) faced significant operational disruptions due to a prolonged lack of , beginning on January 28, 2025, when President Trump removed Democratic member Gwynne Wilcox from her position. The NLRB, structured under the National Labor Relations Act to require at least three of its five Senate-confirmed members for a to conduct , was left with only two members, rendering it unable to issue decisions on cases, process appeals from judges, or certify union election results. This shortfall persisted for nearly seven months by mid-2025, creating a backlog of unresolved cases and halting enforcement actions that typically resolve thousands of disputes annually. The quorum crisis stemmed from partisan shifts and unconfirmed vacancies, exacerbating long-standing board instability tied to staggered five-year terms and Senate confirmation delays. Prior to 2025, the board had operated with a Democratic majority under President Biden, but the incoming administration's actions, including Wilcox's removal—challenged and temporarily stayed in before being upheld—left it immobilized. Operational challenges compounded the issue, with NLRB field office staffing halved over two decades and ongoing vacancies hindering case processing even before the full lapse. By August 2025, despite closing approximately 11,800 cases through regional offices, the board's inability to adjudicate contested matters led to widespread uncertainty in enforcement. In response, several states enacted legislation to assert jurisdiction over private-sector labor disputes normally preempted by federal law, prompting federal challenges. New York passed a bill in June 2025 allowing its state labor board to handle NLRB-jurisdictional matters during federal quorum shortfalls, followed by similar expansions in California that dramatically broadened state powers over employer-employee relations. The NLRB filed suit against California in October 2025, arguing preemption under the NLRA, while New York's measure was designed to activate only during federal inaction. These state interventions raised constitutional and supremacy clause concerns, with critics viewing them as opportunistic power grabs amid federal paralysis. Efforts to restore quorum included White House nominations of Scott Mayer and James J. Murphy on July 17, 2025, but Senate confirmation delays prolonged the impasse into late 2025. Concurrently, a Fifth Circuit ruling in August 2025 deemed the NLRB's structure likely unconstitutional, citing separation-of-powers violations in its multi-member setup and enforcement powers, further challenging the agency's foundational operations. As of October 2025, the quorum shortfall continued to stall rulemaking and decisions, fueling debates over NLRB resilience and prompting calls for structural reforms to mitigate future partisan disruptions.

Supreme Court Constraints on Agency Overreach Post-2024

In (June 28, 2024), the overturned the Chevron doctrine, eliminating judicial deference to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) reasonable interpretations of ambiguous provisions in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This ruling requires courts to independently interpret statutes, curbing the NLRB's ability to expand its regulatory reach through interpretive rulemaking, such as in areas like joint employer liability or protected concerted activity, where prior deference had upheld board positions despite textual ambiguities. Lower courts have since applied to scrutinize NLRB decisions more rigorously, rejecting board interpretations that stretch beyond clear statutory language. Similarly, in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (June 13, 2024), the Court unanimously held that the NLRB must satisfy the traditional four-factor equitable test for preliminary injunctions under NLRA Section 10(j)—likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest—rather than a more deferential standard previously afforded to the agency. This decision constrains the NLRB's use of federal courts to secure interim relief against employers during ongoing administrative proceedings, requiring concrete evidence of likely success rather than mere probable cause, thereby reducing the agency's leverage in union organizing disputes. Extending these limits into 2025, the in Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025) granted a stay preventing the reinstatement of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox after her removal by President Trump, maintaining the board's lack of and halting its ability to issue decisions or enforce rules. This outcome underscores constitutional constraints on agency , affirming presidential removal power over multimember boards without for-cause protections, which had enabled insulated policymaking. The Fifth Circuit's August 19, 2025, ruling further challenged the NLRB's structure as likely unconstitutional under separation-of-powers principles, upholding preliminary injunctions that barred the board from prosecuting charges in specific cases due to its insulation from executive oversight. This decision, rooted in precedents like Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, targets the NLRB's single-director and for-cause removal restrictions, potentially rendering ongoing enforcement actions vulnerable and prompting broader constitutional litigation. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in March 2025 on a case testing post-Loper Bright deference to NLRB interpretations, allowing circuit-level resistance to board expansions to persist without immediate resolution.

Calls for Reform in a Gig and Service Economy Context

In the gig and , where platforms like , , and classify workers as independent contractors, the NLRA's exclusion of such individuals from its protections has prompted debates over the Act's relevance to modern labor arrangements. Independent contractors, defined under the NLRA as those not subject to employer control and operating their own businesses, lack rights to or union representation, a distinction upheld in NLRB precedents and contributing to the growth of flexible but unprotected workforces comprising over 36% of the U.S. workforce by 2023 estimates. This gap has fueled calls for federal reforms to either expand NLRA coverage or adapt its framework, amid evidence that gig workers often prioritize scheduling over traditional , with surveys indicating 70-80% satisfaction with flexibility in roles like ride-sharing. Proponents of reform, primarily labor advocates and Democratic lawmakers, argue for reclassifying many gig workers as employees eligible for NLRA rights, citing the Act's outdated 1935 framework ill-suited to app-based service sectors where algorithmic control mimics supervision. The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, introduced in multiple Congresses since 2021 and passing the House in 2021, would amend the NLRA by adopting an "ABC test" similar to California's AB5, requiring workers to prove they operate independent businesses (part A), perform work outside the employer's core (B), and control their operations (C) to qualify as contractors; failure on any prong deems them employees with union rights. Supporters, including the , claim this addresses power imbalances without eliminating gig flexibility, potentially covering millions in delivery and rideshare roles while codifying penalties for employer interference. NLRB actions under Democratic majorities, such as the 2023 McLaren Macomb decision and reversion to the 2019 Super Shag test for contractor status, have similarly tightened classifications, enabling union drives in sectors like services. Critics, including business groups and economists, contend that such expansions distort markets by imposing on inherently variable gig models, potentially reducing job opportunities and , as evidenced by California's AB5 leading to 2020 exits by platforms like from certain markets before Proposition 22's partial reversal. They advocate alternative reforms, such as sector-specific units or hybrid classifications exempt from full NLRA mandates, to preserve contractor while offering portable benefits; for instance, a 2023 congressional bill proposed hybrid status for app-based workers, granting limited without minimum wage mandates, though it stalled amid concerns over enforcement costs. State-level experiments, like California's 2025 law (AB 1341) enabling for qualifying gig drivers effective January 2026 without full employee reclassification, highlight hybrid approaches bypassing federal NLRA constraints via antitrust exemptions. These debates underscore tensions between extending New Deal-era protections and accommodating realities, where empirical data shows gig participation correlating with supplemental income rather than primary employment displacement.

References

  1. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/national-labor-relations-act
  2. https://www.fdrlibrary.org/wagner-act
  3. https://www.influencewatch.org/legislation/national-labor-relations-act/
  4. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4527&context=lawreview
  5. https://cei.org/blog/what-you-dont-know-about-the-wagner-act/
  6. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/stock-market-crash-of-1929
  7. https://www.ssa.gov/history/bank.html
  8. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-depression
  9. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c11482/c11482.pdf
  10. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/chapter5
  11. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/great-depression-and-world-war-ii-1929-1945/americans-react-to-great-depression/
  12. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/labor-law-highlights-1915-2015.htm
  13. https://www.hawaii.edu/uhwo/clear/home/Timeline-US.html
  14. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R42526
  15. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10985&context=mlr
  16. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/labor-legislation-and-unions
  17. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/context/mulr/article/3301/viewcontent/mulr34_04_rice_0233_0254.pdf
  18. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/uslabor/USLBR008-05.htm
  19. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/dolhistoxford
  20. http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/daybyday/event/november-6-1934/
  21. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/midterms-and-mandates/swing-time-the-new-deal-midterms-of-1934-and-1938/D17DEC43B1DA6893DDBA257503E1D5AD
  22. https://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=honors_theses
  23. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1476&context=articles
  24. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1931&context=hastings_law_journal
  25. https://smlr.rutgers.edu/sites/smlr/files/Documents/Faculty-Staff-Docs/The%2520Wagner%2520Act%2520at%252075.pdf
  26. https://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/labor_Hogler_vol23no1.pdf
  27. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/wagner-act
  28. https://books.openedition.org/pufr/4264?lang=en
  29. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/erepj/vol27/iss1/1/
  30. https://voteview.com/rollcall/RS0740066
  31. https://www.nytimes.com/1935/05/17/archives/wagner-labor-bill-passed-by-senate-by-vote-of-63-to-12-tydings.html
  32. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-signing-the-national-labor-relations-act
  33. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/157
  34. https://www.energy.gov/gc/articles/nlra-labor-law-overview
  35. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/158
  36. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/160
  37. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/159
  38. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html
  39. https://aglawjournal.wp.drake.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/66/2023/01/220531_Coffman_Final_Macro1.pdf
  40. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title29/html/USCODE-2010-title29-chap7-subchapII.htm
  41. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2626&context=vlr
  42. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/301/1/
  43. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-3/national-labor-relations-act-of-1935
  44. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=lalrev
  45. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-242.pdf
  46. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10230&context=mlr
  47. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-us-labor-law-for-the-twentyfirst-century/national-labor-relations-board-in-the-twentyfirst-century/AC316BC4F26849B0DB92462102DA7606
  48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1596757
  49. https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/025.html
  50. https://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/node-131/nlrb1941.pdf
  51. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/national-labor-relations-board-v-jones-laughlin-steel-corp/
  52. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/301us1
  53. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/301/49/
  54. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/301/58/
  55. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/120/veto-taft-hartley-labor-bill
  56. https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2009/06/on_this_day_in_1947_congress_o.html
  57. https://www.influencewatch.org/legislation/labor-management-relations-act-of-1947-taft-hartley-act/
  58. https://www.hnn.us/article/how-did-the-taft-hartley-act-come-about
  59. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tafthartleyact.asp
  60. https://www.findlaw.com/employment/wages-and-benefits/taft-hartley-act-overview.html
  61. https://www.indeavor.com/blog/labor-management-relations-act-of-1947/
  62. https://www.upcounsel.com/taft-hartley-act
  63. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/olms/laws/labor-management-reporting-and-disclosure-act
  64. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1852&context=mlr
  65. https://www.nlrb.gov/es/about-nlrb/who-we-are/our-history/1959-landrum-griffin-act
  66. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3500&context=lalrev
  67. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=4447&context=lawreview
  68. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol5/iss2/8/
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1234714/
  70. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2189&context=mulr
  71. https://www.wongfleming.com/in-my-opinion-its-time-to-amend-the-national-labor-relations-act/
  72. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/great-depression-and-world-war-ii-1929-1945/labor-unions-during-great-depression-and-new-deal/
  73. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1492&context=faculty_scholarship
  74. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47596
  75. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Labor-Unions-And-The-Middle-Class.pdf
  76. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23516/w23516.pdf
  77. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2014/4/regulation-v37n1-4.pdf
  78. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4698381
  79. https://www.bls.gov/wsp/publications/annual-summaries/pdf/work-stoppages-1934-and-1935.pdf
  80. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/493/
  81. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/bls/bls_0651_1938.pdf
  82. https://www.cato.org/regulation/spring-2014/striking-success-nlra
  83. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1907&context=lcp
  84. https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/1058/files/63bba46129a9f.pdf
  85. https://www.princeton.edu/~davidlee/wp/Longrununion.pdf
  86. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/UnionizationEconomicPerformance.pdf
  87. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0160449X221126534
  88. https://manhattan.institute/article/long-run-effects-of-right-to-work-laws
  89. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/econ_facpub/9/
  90. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2522666
  91. https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2023/08/new-nlrb-rules-favor-mandatory-union-recognition-limit-employee-voting-in-secret-ballot-elections
  92. https://www.epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer-opposition-to-union-election-campaigns/
  93. https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/are-the-credibility-findings-of-national-labor-relations-board-administrative-law-judges-credible
  94. https://michelehoyman.web.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/8395/2017/02/Hoyman-Schmidt-and-McCall-2008.pdf
  95. https://www.duanemorris.com/articles/promise_kept_nlrb_pro_union_bias_0922.html
  96. https://oversight.house.gov/release/oversight-report-on-nlrb-finds-pro-union-bias-ex-parte-communication-violations/
  97. https://nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/JLPP-26-3-Barudi.pdf
  98. https://economics.ucr.edu/repec/ucr/wpaper/202407.pdf
  99. https://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/laborracpaper.pdf
  100. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=law_faculty_scholarship
  101. https://www.history.com/articles/how-mafia-infiltrated-american-labor-unions
  102. https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal59-1335698
  103. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24385651
  104. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265812675_Is_Labor_Union_Corruption_Special
  105. https://aysps.gsu.edu/files/2016/01/11-30-Kaufman-EconomicAnalysisofLaborMarketsandLaw.pdf
  106. https://www.princeton.edu/~davidlee/wp/w10598.pdf
  107. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2877&context=journal_articles
  108. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/reforming-federal-laws-private-sector-labor-unions
  109. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1228578
  110. https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/appeals-court-upholds-board-finding-failure-bargain-over-job-relocation
  111. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/matthew-lilley/files/long-run-effects-right-to-work.pdf
  112. https://www.stinson.com/newsroom-publications-nlrb-lacks-quorum-to-exercise-its-authority-following-president-trumps-removal-of-member
  113. https://natlawreview.com/article/nlrb-quorum-lapse-creates-uncertainty-labor-law-enforcement
  114. https://www.employmentlawworldview.com/states-move-to-address-nlrbs-inability-to-act-but-legal-challenges-are-to-come-us/
  115. https://www.laborrelationsupdate.com/2025/03/nlrb-firing-decision-stayed-board-to-stay-without-a-quorum/
  116. https://sidebar.btlaw.com/post/102kz0a/nlrb-quorum-lapse-creates-uncertainty-in-labor-law-enforcement
  117. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-national-labor-relations-board-actions-through-its-administrative-data/
  118. https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/many-states-employee-friendly-labor-laws-take-effect-nlrb-remains-quorum-less
  119. https://www.managementmemo.com/major-changes-at-the-nlrb-a-new-acting-general-counsel-the-rescission-of-biden-era-general-counsel-memoranda-and-the-disappearing-reappearing-quorum
  120. https://www.progressivecaucuscenter.org/crisis-at-nlrb
  121. https://www.laborrelationsupdate.com/2025/06/new-york-assembly-passes-bill-to-fill-void-as-nlrb-lacks-quorum-raising-preemption-concerns/
  122. https://www.laborrelationsupdate.com/2025/10/california-dramatically-expands-state-labor-boards-powers-to-cover-employees-under-nlrbs-exclusive-jurisdiction-following-new-yorks-lead/
  123. https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2025/09/articles/labor-and-employment/the-nlrb-announces-its-intention-to-sue-just-as-governor-huchul-signs-bill-asserting-jurisdiction-over-labor-relations-in-new-york/
  124. https://www.employmentlawworldview.com/labor-law-update-the-nlrbs-continued-lack-of-a-quorum-states-responses-to-the-quorum-less-nlrb-and-a-federal-court-enjoins-californias-prohibition-on-captive-audience-mee/
  125. https://www.employerlawreport.com/2025/07/articles/labor-relations/the-nlrbs-quorum-likely-to-return/
  126. https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2025/08/articles/labor-and-employment/fifth-circuit-rules-nlrb-structure-likely-unconstitutional/
  127. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce-rightsgovernance/2025/07/better-it-but-fewer-people-for-the-national-labor-relations-board/
  128. https://www.klgates.com/Loper-Brights-Potential-Effect-on-Federal-Labor-and-Employment-Law-Possible-Consequences-for-Agencies-and-Practitioners-10-1-2024
  129. https://www.hunton.com/insights/publications/loper-bright-and-the-national-labor-relations-board
  130. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-367_f3b7.pdf
  131. https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2024/06/supreme-court-starbucks-win-nlrb/
  132. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a966_1b8e.pdf
  133. https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2025/05/articles/labor-and-employment/supreme-court-decides-against-reinstating-wilcox-to-nlrb-as-they-rule-on-her-termination-nlrb-remains-without-a-quorum/
  134. https://www.goldbergsegalla.com/news-and-knowledge/knowledge/fifth-circuit-finds-nlrbs-structure-likely-unconstitutional-what-employers-need-to-know/
  135. https://www.cdflaborlaw.com/blog/fifth-circuit-ruling-puts-nlrb-on-constitutional-hot-seat
  136. https://www.laborrelationsupdate.com/2025/03/supreme-court-declines-to-revisit-nlrb-deference-post-loper-bright/
  137. https://www.fordharrison.com/nlrb-revises-framework-for-determining-independent-contractor-status-under-the-national-labor-relations-act
  138. https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/articles/independent-contractors/
  139. https://news.illinois.edu/do-labor-laws-need-to-be-modernized-with-rise-of-gig-economy/
  140. https://aflcio.org/pro-act
  141. https://www.epi.org/blog/three-reasons-why-the-pro-act-wont-destroy-freelancing-or-the-gig-economy/
  142. https://proact.aflcio.org/the-pro-act-freelancing-and-creative-professionals/
  143. https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2023/06/wigging-out-the-nlrb-overturns-another
  144. https://www.laborrelationsupdate.com/2023/06/third-act-nlrb-reinstates-employee-friendly-independent-contractor-analysis-under-the-nlra/
  145. https://www.hunton.com/media/publication/85587_labor-and-employment-perspectives-on-the-gig-economy.pdf
  146. https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/new-congressional-bill-hybrid-job-classification-gig-workers.html
  147. https://www.cdflaborlaw.com/blog/new-california-law-allows-for-unionization-of-certain-gig-independent-contractors
  148. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/gig-economy-myths-and-missteps
  149. https://nysba.org/reimagining-workers-rights-in-the-gig-economy-bridging-the-gap-between-independent-contractors-and-employees/?srsltid=AfmBOoqaledd6xTd9YaiPSQWDR5kAvlfMp7ru1wlITVpIyuM_iv2uRW-
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.