Amazon.com Widgets

Do you believe the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) was necessary to balance power between unions and company owners?

  • The Balancing Act

    When it comes to any source of power in any organization it is important to have a standard for the maintaining of the balances between the participants. As has been proved many times throughout history, absolute power corrupts, absolutely.The LMRA allows that both management and laborers be well represented and insures no one suffers for having voiced differences.

  • Unions are too strong.

    Yes, I believe that the Labor Management Relations Act was necessary to balance power between unions and company owners, because the unions are way too powerful. There is a reason that union bosses are known to be thugs. People who work in a union do not have a choice but to follow the union line.

  • Yes the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) was need to balance union power.

    The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA), also know as Taft–Hartley Act, is the federal law that put restrictions on the power and activities of labor unions. The LMRA became law in spite of a veto by President Harry S. Truman. The most important element of the LMRA provides for federal court jurisdiction over collective bargaining agreements.

  • Not For An Extended Time

    I believe at the time of its passing the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) may have been necessary to balance power between unions and company owners, but after many years it has put all of the power in the companies hands. This bill should not have been enacted without limits and now it needs to be readdressed to give employees more power.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.