[FredZarguna]

As a former shop steward, business agent, labor organizer and all around union thug whose ex was also a union thug, let me correct a few problems:

1. I believe history will show that Roosevelt and his "Brain Trust," were very much behind The Wagner Act (NLRA). It was cornerstone legislation in the "Second New Deal." Sure, it started in Congress as it must. But like most of the New Deal, it's Roosevelt's fault.
2. The The Wagner Act codified and permitted both union and closed shops. Courts were not involved.
3. Union shops, and closed shops are NOT the same thing.
4. The Taft-Hartly Act amended the NLRA to outlaw (among several things) closed shops. Closed shops have been illegal in the United States since 1947.
5. The Courts did not establish these rules. There were minor clarifications but for the most part labor rules have been established by the NLRB and by Wagner and Taft Hartley.
6. If anything, Supreme Court decisions have generally been more friendly to the first Amendment, and less friendly to the NLRA and its amendments, not the other way around. [see, Communication Workers of America vs. Beck, or Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, Int'l Union v. Mobil Oil Corp, for example.]
7. Under The Wagner Act union thugs very much could break into peoples houses in the middle of the night and force them to join a union. One of the most important provisions of Taft-Hartley was to require a regulated, (mostly) union-free, (mostly) employer-free election process. Before Taft-Hartley union organizers and employers were both permitted to subject employees to enormous pressure (employers somewhat less so) to vote one way or the other, and the process of getting a union certification under Wagner was actually easier than the proposed "card check" system, which I hope never to see.

[Tublecane]

For the record, and perhaps I should have been more explicit about it, I was talking mostly specifically about federal collective bargaining rights, which preceded the Wagner Act, which I said I’m not overly unfamiliar with.

Maybe I shouldn’t have brought it up on a Wagner Act thread, but the right to collective bargaining comes from, I believe, the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. It did not mean then what it means now, and its meaning certainly was expanded by the courts, in accordance with how FDR hinted, and what the AFofL devoutly desired, it should mean.

“Union shops, and closed shops are NOT the same thing.”

Of course not, which you’d realize I understand if you read my post. A (minimally) closed shop is one with mandatory union representation (though not necessarily membership) upon a union achieving majority vote. “Vote” in this instance is not to be confused with what people usually do under that name.

[Tublecane]

“The Courts did not establish these rules. There were minor clarifications but for the most part labor rules have been established by the NLRB and by Wagner and Taft Hartley.”

All those were important, but I believe you’ll find the watershed moment was the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), and that its meaning was unreasonably expanded by courts.

[Tublecane]

“Of course not, which you’d realize I understand if you read my post. A (minimally) closed shop is one with mandatory union representation (though not necessarily membership) upon a union achieving majority vote. ‘Vote’ in this instance is not to be confused with what people usually do under that name.”

To elaborate, a closed shop is one in which a majority union bargains for everyone, in which neither individuals nor minority unions can negotiate for themselves (unless the individuals are special employees, independent contractors and the like), and in which agreements between the employer and the majority union are binding on all employees.