One of the prime objectives of the Taft-Hartley Act was clearly to introduce a greater element of democracy into the internal affairs of labor unions. Provisions such as those on the closed shop, the union shop polls, filing requirements, and decertification elections were all based to some extent on the belief that union leaders often do not represent the wishes of their members. The thesis of this study is that these provisions have had little of the effect desired by their framers, either in the areas where real abuses needed to be corrected or in those areas where the Act, if effective, would have only caused mischief. (Author's abstract courtesy EBSCO.)
Read full abstract