Subscribe via RSS Feed

This Day in Labor History: July 5, 1935

[ 18 ] July 5, 2014 |

On July 5, 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the National Labor Relations Act. This groundbreaking piece of legislation revolutionized the relationship between the federal government and organized labor and gave workers a fair shake from the government for the first time in American history.

When Franklin Roosevelt took over the presidency in 1933, the economy was in the worst state in American history. But Roosevelt wanted to help business, not hurt it. His first New Deal labor legislation was really more a pro-business measure. The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) intended to bring business on the board with a reform program, and in fact parts of the act were welcomed by corporations, especially as it promoted bigness to undermine harmful competition. Somewhat unintentionally, the NIRA’s provision protecting collective bargaining for workers was interpreted by American workers as giving them approval to strike. 1934 saw some of the greatest militancy in American history, with major strikes in San Francisco, Minneapolis, Toledo, and the textile plants in New England and the South. This growing labor movement helped cleave corporate support from the New Deal.

In 1935, when the right-wing Supreme Court ruled the NIRA unconstitutional, Roosevelt moved for greater empowerment of workers. In fact, it was only when the NIRA was shut down that FDR moved toward this greater empowerment of workers. He was originally skeptical of the act because it did so much for workers and seemed anti-business. But the election of 1934 created an overwhelmingly liberal Congress that the political space existed for Roosevelt to take such a significant step. Senator Robert Wagner (D-NY) shepherded the bill through Congress (and giving it its popular name of the Wagner Act). Wagner had long been a champion of labor. He had served as chairman of the New York State Factory Inspection Commission in the aftermath of the Triangle Fire and built upon that to become a Democratic senator from the state in 1927. Wagner was the Senate’s leading liberal during the New Deal, shepherding a variety of legislation through the body, particularly around labor issues.

The NLRA guaranteed “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection.” The law applied to all workers involved in interstate commerce except those working for government, railroads, airlines, and agriculture. The agriculture exception, as in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, continues to lead to the exploitation of agricultural workers today and is one of the more unfortunate aspects of the New Deal, although arguably including agricultural workers might have dampened support for these laws enough that they wouldn’t have passed.

The most important part of the NLRA was the establishment of the National Labor Relations Board, creating a government agency with real authority to oversee the nation’s labor relations. The government had now officially declared its neutrality in labor relations, seeing its role as mediating them rather than openly siding with employers to crush unions. This was a remarkable turnaround in a nation where unionbusting was a good political move for the ambitious pol. After all, Calvin Coolidge, out of office only 4 years before Roosevelt took over, made his name by busting the 1919 Boston police strike.

Business went ballistic after the NLRA passed. Business Week ran an editorial titled “NO OBEDIENCE!” It read: “Although the Wagner Labor Relations Act has been passed by Congress and signed by the President, it is not yet law. For nothing is law that is not constitutional.”

Conservatives immediately challenged the constitutionality of the NLRA. But Roosevelt’s war on the Supreme Court, while damaging his prestige and ability to get new legislation passed, did have an effect. The pressure of a changing nation by the time the case came to them had an effect. In the 1937 decision in NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the government and the act’s future was ensured. Within a year of the decision, three justices retired and Roosevelt ensured the future of his programs.

It’s also important to remember what life for workers was life before the National Labor Relations Act. It wasn’t just that they couldn’t form strong unions and thus were poor, although that was a piece of it. It’s that companies could do basically anything they wanted to in order to stop or bust a union. They could hire spies. They could hire a police force. They could kill union organizers. They could fire you for joining a union. Corporations had all the power and workers had none because in the end, the government was willing to back up the companies through legislation or even through military intervention to bust unions. The NLRA ended that, perhaps not entirely, but largely. Leveling the playing field meant workers now had the right to a decent life, a right they were happy to grasp and fight for. And fight for they did, as union membership skyrocketed after the NLRA was upheld by the Court.

In other words, social movements require accessing the levers of power, even if that means compromising on key principles, in order to codify change.

As is the case with most legislation, it proved susceptible to conservative regulatory capture and today the NLRB is a shell of its former robust self thanks to Republican attacks on it as one of the few agencies dedicated to giving workers a fair voice on the job, a principle to which the Republican Party opposed in 1935 and opposes in 2014.

This is the 113th post in this series. Previous posts are archived here.

Share with Sociable

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. DrDick says:

    Thank you again for this entry and series. It is important to remember the realities of unfettered capitalism, which the GOP has long sought to revive.

  2. ABlueTryst says:

    In the fifth paragraph, you want “employers”, not “employees”, no?

  3. muddy says:

    I kept yelling at the tv yesterday, we put on a mini-series on the History channel (ugh, I know) called The Story of Us. Maybe it was America: TSoU. It was really remarkable to learn how such things as the interstate highway system and the Hoover dam came to be, based purely on Americans’ can-do attitude and bravery. Not that it was a massive federal program. Yay, we won The war and lots of guys went to college and bought houses in the suburbs. Paid for entirely from our vast reserves of pluck.

    It went on about western movies, and how by these Americans grow up knowing the idea of good guy/bad guy from that, that’s why we’re better than the other countries. We were totally the good guys while practicing genocide and slavery in order to build/take our country. Easy to see why the other countries don’t understand our good guy ethic.

    I recorded part of it when I went out, so I could check later if it was going to improve. I did a lot of FF because it was pissing me off, and I would stop when I saw a picture of something where they would have to talk about having a government that actually did shit, but they would just slope right off into the pluckfest.

    • DrDick says:

      The of exaltation of westerns is especially rich in irony, given the importance of slavery, Native American genocide, and the imperial annexation of the northern third of Mexico to establishing those narratives (often valorized in those same movies).

      • postmodulator says:

        One of the many funny lines in Million Ways to Die in the West is “God, the Indians. What are they so mad about? We are basically splitting this country 50/50 with them.”

        • Chris says:

          “What is it with you and Indians, anyway?”
          “Oh, nothing. I try to shoot one a day, if possible, before noon. How about you, Coop? I figure it’s their fault for being on our land before we got here.”
          - Maverick

      • Chris says:

        I’ve always found the most ironic part of westerns to be the cliche of the cavalry saving the day at the end, in movies that’re held up as celebrations of rugged individualism from a time when men were men and Built That all by themselves and didn’t rely on handouts.

        The stereotypical cowboy hero is a guy who spends the entire movie getting in over his head but at the last possible minute is saved from his own mess by the ultimate institution of Big Government.

  4. Scott Lemieux says:

    I’m not sure about this history. Hasn’t Drew Westen made a pretty convincing case that Congress passed a lot of progressive legislation in 1935 because FDR made a speech about how he welcomed the hatred of business interests in 1936?

  5. N__B says:

    Frances Perkins was FDR’s Labor Commissioner when he was governor, and before that was on the NY state Industrial Commission under Smith. I’m fairly certain that the Industrial Commission was the Factory Inspection Commission made permanent. I have to believe that she was a good influence on FDR’s decision-making on issues like the NLRA.

  6. Bruce Vail says:

    Didn’t NLRA also outlaw company unions?

    • Brett says:

      Pretty much. It outlaws any labor organization which the employer forms or makes a substantial financial contribution to.

      Understandable, although it’s kind of shitty that it led to stuff like “work councils” and various kinds of co-management falling into the category of stuff like that.

  7. Good stuff. A few quibbles:

    I think this does the NIRA a bit of a disservice. Labor reform, from the minimum wage to the abolition of child labor to the legalization of unions, was not accidental or a small part of the act. Perkins and other progressives had been looking for a corporatist tripartite model of labor relations since WWI, when the National Industries Board and National War Labor Board had provided both cooperative planning for full production and recognition of unions.

  8. Doggy Daddy says:

    In the 1937 decision in NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the government and the act’s future was ensured.

    So 5-4 is good enough.

    good to know

    • DrDick says:

      When the reach the correct decision it is, but you would know nothing about such things, JenBoob, as you have never been right in your miserable life.

      • Swagger says:

        Lesses….

        Who to believe…who to believe….Hmmmmmm…

        I can go with the Supreme Court of the United States of America….

        *OR*

        Some dufus that calls himself Dr. Dick on the innertubes.

        What to do…who to believe?

        So hard….

  9. […] starts in Clifton-Morenci, Arizona, massive union-busting by copper company. July 5, 1935–FDR signs National Labor Relations Act July 11, 1934–Southern Tenant Farmers Union forms in Tyronza, Arkansas August 11, […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.