The Railway Labor Act - Essay Example

Labor Laws The Railway Labor Act This law, which was designed in 1962, was regarding the relationship of the laborers working for thecountry’s railway with the rail industry (Cihon, 2011, p.345). This law also stated about the appropriate relationship required to be maintained between the rail employees. Amendments in this legislation have been made several times since it came in action. Yet, it remains a constant reflection of the symbolic pattern of relation development among the railway workers. It is the oldest central collective bargaining Labor Act enactment. The purpose of implementation of this Railway Labor Act was to ensure that the railways continued to provide its services and the obstacles in the deliverance of services caused due to differences between the employees and employers were removed. This was an essential step for the sustainability of the reputation of the railway industry. This law provided the privilege of freedom to the railway employees to organize their own unions independently. Authority was given to both management and labor and none were bounded by the domination of one another; It served as an effective aid in resolving the conflicts that erupted as consequences of working at unfavorable salaries and unacceptable conditions related to the railway occupation; Often rail laborers had to agree on working terms that later gave rise to disappointment. Different laborers had different and colliding views about the prevailing working environment that caused conflicts. This law served as a rapid solution for all disputes of the rail industry. The Railway Labor Act (RLA) has a positive impact on the organizations because due to the enactment of this law the disputes that took place between the railway organizations and their employees started solving in a timely manner. Due to this the productivity of the organizations was not damaged as a result of the protests. The provision of development of a National Mediation board helped in ensuring that the disputes that were not being solved by the unions and organizations started being solved with the indulgence of a third party. This even ensured that the organizations were not able to manipulate the union leaders into working for the interest of the owners of the organization instead of working for the employees they represented. The Norris-La Guardia Act This Act clarified that yellow- dog agreement made between the laborer of a certain industry and its management as a condition for becoming an employee, was strictly unacceptable by the Federal Court (Cihon, 2011, p.342). Any such contract, which forbids the laborer to join a labor union, has no claimable existence in the Federal Court. This law of United States was established for the protection of the rights of the laborers to join labor unions and raise voice for their deserving demands. Any industry could not make a valid claim against the peaceful labor strikes, as this territory was absent from the jurisdiction of Federal Court. This law offered liberty to the laborers to form independent organizations, and enabled the Federal Courts to entitle ‘yellow-dog’ contract as being illegal. The impact of this act on the organizations was that as a result of this act the organizations were restricted from indulging in manipulative activities such as proving to the courts that the protests needed to be ended for the benefit of the employees. This increased the accountability of the organizations as now their manipulative actions were no longer of any use and instead they had to treat their employees in a fair manner to ensure the smooth running of the business. This act made the unions stronger within the relationship of the organization’s management and the unions. As due to this Act unions were allowed to protest without the fear of an injunction being obtained against their protests. Wagner Act Officially entitled as National Labor Relations Act, this law was passed in 1935 for reservation of the justifiable rights of the labor (Cihon, 2011, p.347). This law was enacted for the shielding of self-governed bodies of labor teams from the fidgeting of the Company employers. This law was as ultimate integrity developer of the laborers and served the employees with an extreme sense of provision of righteousness, justification and motivation. The federal Government formed the regulatory committee of the Wagner Act, which was sponsored by the Senator, Robert F. Wagner. With the enforcement of this legislation, a three membered Board, named as National Labor Relations Board was formed for the safety and implementation of labor rights, especially of the agricultural and domestic sectors. This act impacted the organization and their manipulative practices in a negative manner. The act clearly stipulated that employers were not allowed to only provide employment to those employees who accepted that they would not join a labor union. This act further strengthened the power of the unions as well as the employees because this act recognized that the unions and the organizations were two separate but equally powerful entities. This act further empowered the unions as they were now selected in an independent manner and without the involvement of the organizations. The Taft-Hartley Act This law is designed to maintain law and order in the state and for the purpose of protection of a nation’s goodwill and integrity (Cihon, 2011, p.350). This law enabled the president to come into action immediately and call upon an inquiry board for analysis of the conflicts erupting in the organization of a labor union. The president has full authority to abandon a labor strike for 80 days in case if he is suspecting a strike to damage the sanctity and integrity of the nation. This law is eligible of entitling all closed shops during a strike as being illegitimate, and only approves official permit to them when an ample number of laborers vote for them. It disapproves strikes against laws and boycotts. It deprives the worker unions from becoming a contributor of political operations. This act was both beneficial for the labor unions as well as the organizations. The benefit that this act offered to the organizations was that it restricted unions to indulge in the act of a secondary boycott. A secondary boycott takes place when the one organization is employed by another organization for certain tasks. In this form of boycott, the unions try to persuade the main employer to stop their business activities with the organization to which they have outsourced tasks and jobs. Due to the prohibition of the secondary boycott, organizations no longer had to fear losing work that they received from bigger organizations. This act ended up increasing the power of the organizations and decreased the power of the unions. This is because this act restricted unions from coercing employees into joining them and made it obligatory for the unions to indulge in bargaining in good faith. Landrum-Griffin Act This legislation was established in 1959, and brought about some changes in The Taft-Hartley Act (Cihon, 2011, p.358). This law is officially recognized as Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, and was approved by the U.S Congress. This law was designed against unlawful activities that were reported to be conducted in the labor unions and by the Industrial sector management department. Evidences of unjust violent behavior of labor unions and taking the fund collection method for granted by official heads of the unions were observed. Many insincere employers and employees, who were taking wrong advantages of union rights, were unveiled. This act even had a positive impact on the organizations and decreased the powers of the unions or made the unions more accountable. Due to this act the unions and their managing members had to change several of their tactics. This act resulted in increasing the power of the organizations in the organization’s management and union relationship. This is because this act helped in stopping the negative activities that were being conducted by the leaders of the labor unions. This act allowed the members of the union to hold the union heads accountable for their ill practices and even file a suit against them if the union was involved in wrong activities. References Cihon, P., & Castagnera, J. (2011). Employment & labor law. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Read More