Collective Bargaining and the Democratic Process
| Author | Edwin E. Witte |
| Published date | 01 March 1951 |
| Date | 01 March 1951 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/000271625127400112 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
85
Collective
Bargaining
and
the
Democratic
Process
By
EDWIN
E.
WITTE
IN
the
past
there
has
been
a
wide
dif-
f erence
of
opinion
between
labor
and
management
over
what
constitutes
col-
lective
bargaining.
Particularly
in
the
National
Industrial
Conference
of
1919
and
during
the
wave
of
union
organiza-
tion
which
followed
the
enactment
of
Section
7 (a)
of
the
National
Industrial
Recovery
Act
of
1933,
management
pretty
generally
took
the
position
that
collective
bargaining
could
be
carried
on
with
individual
workers
from
the
plant
elected
by
the
employees ,to
rep-
resent
them,
with
no
union
behind
them.
At
that
time
many
employers
estab-
lished
such
employee
representation
plans
or
lent
a
&dquo;helping
hand&dquo;
to
&dquo;in-
dependent&dquo;
unions
which
were
manage-
ment-minded.
This
concept
of
collective
bargaining
became
legally
untenable
when
in
the
Wagner
Act
it
was
made
an
unfair
la-
bor
practice
for
employers
to
have
any
dealings
with
unions
which
they
had
helped
to
organize,
which
they
had
aided
financially
or
otherwise,
or
which
they
had
dominated
or
interfered
with
in
any
manner-a
prohibition
which
the
Su-
preme
Court
held
valid
and
to
which
it
.gave
broad
scope.’
This
restriction
has
been
retained
unaltered
in
the
Taft-
Hartley
Act.
To
this
day,
some
em-
ployers,
when
confronted
with
an
at-
tempt
to
unionize
their
plants,
give
aid
and
comfort
to
company-dominated
un-
ions.
Industry
in
general,
however,
has
accepted
the
view
that
collective
bar-
gaining
can
be
carried
on
only
with
un-
ions
which
are
genuinely
independent.
Theoretically,
it is
still
possible
for
un-
organized
workers
to
select
representa-
tives
to
bargain
collectively
with
their
employer-
without
forming
any
sort
of
a
union,
but
actually
they
seldom,
if
ever,
do
so.
On
the
other
hand,
there
con-
tinue
to
be
many
unaffiliated
unions
operating
within
a
single
plant
or
com-
pany.
Employers
may
bargain
collec-
tively
with
them,
provided
they
repre-
sent
a
majority
of
the
employees
and
are
completely
free
from
employer
in-
terference.
During
World
War
II
what
subjects
unions
might
bring
up
in
collective
bar-
gaining
became
a
major
issue.
This
issue
came
to
a
head
in
the
Labor-Man-
agement
Conference,
convened
late
in
1945
by
President
Truman.
In
this
Conference,
the
management
representa-
tives
wanted
to
have
labor agree
that
there
were
a
long
list
of
matters
which
were
management
rights
outside
the
scope
of
bargaining;
another
list
of
matters
as
to
which
management
had
freedom
to
act
unilaterally,
subject
to
labor’s
right
to
challenge
abuses
through
the
grievance
procedure;
and
also
a
list
of
matters,
including
the
crucial
questions
of
wages,
hours,
and
working
conditions,
which
management
conceded
were
proper
subjects
for
de-
termination
through
collective
bargain-
ing.
Labor
refused
to
go
along
with
any
advance
enumeration
of
the
sub-
jects
which
might
be
raised
in
collective
bargaining.
It
conceded
that
there
were
management
rights
upon
which
labor
did
not
want
to
encroach.
What
are
proper
subjects
for
bargaining,
how-
1
The
leading
case
on
the
subject
was
Texas
and
New
Orleans
v.
Brotherhood
of
Railway
Clerks,
281
U.
S.
548
(1930).
In
that
case
the
Supreme
Court,
five
years
before
the
Wag-
ner
Act,
took
the
position
that
there
could
be
no
collective
bargaining
where
the
employer
controlled
the
representatives
on
both
sides
of
the
table.
To continue reading
Request your trial