You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Impact of Landrum-Griffin on the Small Employer
Edward B. Shils
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Vol. 333, Labor Relations Policy in an Expanding Economy (Jan., 1961), pp. 141-152
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1033449
Page Count: 12
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The Landrum-Griffin Act emerged from an emotional climate of concern over the union practices revealed by the McClellan Committee. Although aimed primarily at the Teamsters Union, the act visits hardships upon small businessmen and small local unions, particularly through amendments to the Taft-Hartley Act contained in Title Seven. There is more to the Landrum-Griffin Act than the publicized "Bill of Rights" for union members. It can be argued that the act is a series of compromises lacking agreement on basic principles. This view is supported by the specific exemptions provided for the garment and the construction industries. These exemptions granted to certain small businesses and not available to other small industries may well undermine the constitutionality of the Landrum-Griffin Act. In effect, the act, in its attempt to curtail the disreputable practices of a few union leaders, discourages the efforts at statesmanship of the union leaders who are more concerned with long-range benefits for the workers than with short-term victories. Large, nationally organized companies are not particularly affected by the new act, but smaller employers who are already unionized are placed at a disadvantage by the improved position of their nonunionized competitors who wish to resist unionization. The fact that time is required for the Landrum-Griffin Act to be interpreted and understood will be to the further detriment of the small employer.
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science © 1961 American Academy of Political and Social Science