Impact of Landrum-Griffin on the Small Employer

• Author: Edward B. Shils
• Published date: 01 January 1961
• Date: 01 January 1961
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/000271626133300113
• Subject Matter: Articles

141

Impact

of

Landrum-Griffin

on

the

Small

Employer

By

EDWARD

B.

SHILS

Edward

B.

Shils,

Ph.D.,

Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania,

is

Associate

Chairman

of

the

De-

partment

of

Geography

and

Industry,

Associate

Professor

of

Industry,

and

Secretary

of

the

Labor

Relations

Council

of

the

Wharton

School

at

the

University

of

Pennsylvania.

He

has

been

Consultant

to

the

Small

Business

Administration

of

the

United

States,

and

he

acts

in

a

consultant

capacity

for

educational

surveys

and

groups

which

include

small

businesses.

His

previous

articles

have

appeared

in

scholarly

and

professional

journals.

ABSTRACT:

The

Landrum-Griffin

Act

emerged

from

an

emo-

tional

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

business-

men

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

ex-

emptions

granted

to

certain

small

businesses

and

not

available

to

other

small

industries

may

well

undermine

the

constitution-

ality

of

the

Landrum-Griffin

Act.

In

effect,

the

act,

in

its

at-

tempt

to

curtail

the

disreputable

practices

of

a

few

union

lead-

ers,

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.