LERA
and Industrial Relations
in the United States
WILLIAM B. GOULD IV
W
arbitration machinery as well as union
security agreements. The aftermath of all
of this brought about union growth and
the establishment of institutions and systems in the immediate post–World War
II period that have been with us for more
than six decades.
Foremost among such institutions is,
of course, the arbitration system itself,
which began to grow rapidly as both
labor and management sought out private parties whom they had come to
know and respect during War Labor
Board days and were willing to rely on
for definitive interpretations and rulings involving their negotiated collective
bargaining agreements. This new corps
of arbitrators consisted of many of the
The Early Days
members of the new IRRA. Though the
system of arbitration dates to the 1880s
The IRRA came into existence during
in the United States, its acceptance, vitala period of rapidly rising union memity, and strength—due to an ability to
bership. The NLRA departed from the
function expeditiously, ecolaissez-faire approach of the
nomically, and informally
Norris-LaGuardia Act of
This new corps
as a substitute for the strike
1932 and provided for state
weapon—became well esintervention designed to reof arbitrators
tablished during the early
duce the inequality between
consisted of many
postwar period.
capital and labor and to
of the members of
promote collective bargain The collective bargaining. Union membership was
ing
system itself was to take
the new IRRA.
also promoted in substanfundamental turns during
tial part by the War Labor Board, which
this same period in the late 1940s when,
was created by the War Labor Disputes
for instance, a series of fateful decisions
Act and ruled in favor of both grievanceon the part of some of the major indushen the Industrial Relations Research Association (IRRA)—later
to become the Labor
and Employment Relations Association
(LERA)—was created sixty years ago, the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of
1935 had already been established for
more than a dozen years. Nevertheless,
the founding and early development of
the IRRA coincided with some of the
most significant developments in American labor–management relations. The
organization also played a role in facilitating many important labor-relations
developments, which is a function LERA
must perform in the current era as well.
6
POW 11_2 text.indd 6
WINTER 2008
10/25/07 1:15:48 PM
trial unions took them down the path
toward the bargaining of pension and
health care benefits, items which are very
much at the core of collective bargaining
in 2007 as America struggles competitively with industrialized nations where
the state, rather than collective bargaining, provides for such systems through
taxation. The United States Supreme
Court and the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB) facilitated this development by holding that such subjects were
“mandatory” subjects of bargaining
within the purview of the NLRA.
The Taft-Hartley Act
From the beginning of the IRRA, the
Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 established
the framework within which labor and
management were to operate. That law
amended the NLRA and was decried
by some in organized labor as a “slave
labor act,” particularly because of its
provision for injunctions in connection
with so-called national emergency labor
disputes. Taft-Hartley imposed rights
and obligations of both sides, not simply on employers, as was provided by
the NLRA (or Wagner Act as it was
called then). It would seem as though
the amendments written into law in
1947 also helped to hobble union organizational efforts in the South, not
only through their prohibition against
secondary boycotts, but also as a result
of the greater scope accorded employers
to express opposition to unionization
(through the so-called “free speech”
proviso in the act). However, unions
continued to expand in the immediate
post–Taft-Hartley period, reaching their
zenith in representations in 1955.
One feature of the Taft-Hartley legislation that has received little attention
obligated the NLRB to hold hearings
before a union recognition election was
established in the absence of an agreement between the parties. This slowed
the election machinery, creating greater
potential for delay, which undercut employee self-organization. Still, the timing
of declining union membership suggests
that factors other than Taft-Hartley were
primarily responsible.
Union Decline and Globalization
What explains the precipitous decline
of union membership (as a percent of
the workforce) into the realm of single
digits? Foremost among various reasons
are the lethargy of much of the trade
union movement in organizing the unorganized; the rise of undocumented or
illegal workers who are afraid to protest
and therefore difficult to organize; and
international competition, not only from
the industrialized countries of Europe
and Japan, but also from developing
countries, including Brazil, Korea, and,
more recently, India and China. This has
meant that the realities of the new global
economy have become considerably important to LERA members.
The globalization discussion proceeds
on three main fronts. The first is a greater
interest in international labor standards
and mechanisms through which basic, or
“core,” standards can be implemented
at the nation-state level and through
international organizations. The most
recent venue for this discussion has been
so-called regional trade agreements with
Central America, Korea, and other coun-
PERSPECTIVES ON WORK
POW 11_2 text.indd 7
7
10/25/07 1:15:49 PM
tries, where the primary issue being deglobalization discussion involves legisbated is the inclusion of labor or “social”
lation that can address the concerns
clauses.
and needs of dislocated workers. This
A second front involves our own
should take the form of more effective
national legislation. The U.S.
pension legislation, trainHouse of Representatives has
ing allowances and other
A civilized
passed the Employee Free
educational benefits, and,
society cannot
Choice Act of 2007, which
most important, a unimandates the use of union
versal health care system.
tie health care to
authorization cards as a basis
A civilized society canthe employment
for compulsory recognition of
not tie health care to the
unions by employers, though
employment relationship.
relationship.
the Senate was not able to
All people must possess a
take up the matter because of a filibuster.
basic right to health care, whether they
Nevertheless, factors such as expediting
are employed or not.
the existing procedures for resolving
These matters inevitably will garner
self-organization issues and providing
the concern of LERA members and will
for more union free speech (as well as
need to be on the agenda of the associaemployer free speech) deserve unflagging
tion’s future national and regional level
attention. If we are to insist on strong
meetings. LERA has played a major role
international labor standards, labor and
in the dialogue between labor and manmanagement must respect and adhere
agement during the past sixty years. It is
to the rule of law in labor–management
a dialogue that must continue, with rerelations in the United States.
spect accorded to both sides, and LERA
Finally, perhaps the main front in the
will play a role in that process.
8
POW 11_2 text.indd 8
William B. Gould IV
William B. Gould IV is the Charles A. Beardsley Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Stanford Law School. He was
chairman of the National Labor Relations Board from
1994–1998.
WINTER 2008
10/25/07 1:15:49 PM