According to this WSJ editorial one of his reasons for running is that the Dems are “too close to corporate interests” (true: look at how many businesses are trying to butter up Hillary and Obama, among them Archer Daniels Midland, which wants ethanol subsidies to continue forever) and don’t want to repeal “the notorious Taft-Hartley Act.”
Taft-Hartley was passed over Truman’s veto in 1947, a bill to somewhat undo the federal government’s extreme coddling of unions. It added a section to the National Labor Relations Act to acknowledge that unions might do some bad things (called unfair labor practices) whereas previously only employers were subject to governmental sanctions for not being nice to the unions. It also allows states to decide whether or not to have “right to work” statutes, permitting individuals who don’t want union representation to refuse to pay dues and not be fired.
Big Labor used to try to get at least Section 14(b) of the Act repealed — the part pertaining to right to work statutes. Recently, it has aimed at other pieces of special interest legislation it wants more, especially the “card check” unionization procedure.
If the AFL-CIO were to tell Hillary or Obama that support for repeal of Taft-Hartley would be greatly appreciated, would either candidate say “No”? I doubt it very much.
But I’m glad Nader wants to talk about this. Attention paid to our demented federal labor statutes is a good thing, even if Ralph would like to make them even worse.
