This July marks the 90th anniversary of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the most pro-worker piece of federal legislation in U.S. history. It’s a timely opportunity to reflect on the mixed legacy of the NLRA and its implications for future union strategy.
The NLRA emerged during the Great Depression. It encouraged collective bargaining and the growth of unions to boost workers’ purchasing power and bring greater democracy to workplaces. The law barred employers from interfering with private sector workers’ right to organize. But it excluded farm workers and domestics, many of whom were people of color, from its protections. These exclusions reflected the determination of agricultural interests and southern politicians to discourage organizing and keep workers of color in a subordinate position.
The NLRA created the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). According to historian David Brody, the NLRB’s “vigorous enforcement encouraged obedience among employers.” “Assured of their safety,” Brody observed, “workers flocked into the unions.”
To curb labor’s growth and power, anti-labor forces amended the NLRA by passing the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. Taft-Hartley profoundly damaged unions. It allowed states to enact right-to-work laws and granted employers broad “free speech” rights to oppose union organizing. Most importantly, it allowed employers to stall labor board decisions through lengthy legal appeals. For workers seeking to form unions, “justice delayed” often became “justice denied.” Although unions still use NLRA procedures, they are keenly aware of their limitations.. Also, companies such as Amazon, SpaceX, and Trader Joe’s have challenged the board’s constitutionality. These employers are relentlessly determined to limit worker protections.
Seeking a political fix, the union movement has spent considerable energy seeking to strengthen the NLRA. Each proposed change — the Labor Law Reform Act (1978), the Employee Free Choice Act (early 2000s), and the PRO Act (2020s) — passed the House of Representatives. However, these bills failed in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to break a filibuster. Senate voting on labor law reform dramatically illustrates the shift in our politics over the past five decades. In 1978, 14 Senate Republicans voted to end debate to allow a vote to take place. In 2007, only one Senate Republican supported ending debate on EFCA. The PRO Act never reached the Senate floor.
Short of a political miracle, labor law reform won’t overcome the Senate filibuster anytime soon. Perhaps it is time for labor to set aside NLRA reform and put resources elsewhere. It could hire more organizers and salts, support more state and local organizing campaigns, focus on organizing key sectors of the economy, and invest in community relationships to support organizing.
Jennifer Abruzzo, who as NLRB general counsel aggressively sought to enforce labor law before being fired by President Trump, recently offered some sound advice for workers and unions. “I expect that workers with assistance from their advocates will take matters into their own hands in order to get well-deserved dignity and respect in the workplace,” she said. Abruzzo’s advice highlights the need to develop new labor strategies that might enable the NLRA to celebrate a happier anniversary when it turns 100 in 2035.
Bob Bussel is professor emeritus at the University of Oregon’s Labor Education and Research Center.
