Abstract
The author describes how in 1947 Congress incorporated two conflicting statements of purpose in Taft-Hartley: a restatement of the Wagner Act's policy of encouraging collective bargaining, and a new statement stressing the rights of individual employees and making no mention of collective bargaining. As a result, the author argues, both liberal and conservative Boards can justify their policies by choosing between the Taft-Hartley Act's inconsistent statements of intent. The author's analysis draws on the language and histories of the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts, the comments of seven former chairmen of the NLRB who attended a conference at Cornell commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Board and the Wagner Act, interviews with several of those chairmen, and writings by former chairmen.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.