Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Chapter 36 - Regulating Strikes

  • from Section A: Economics
  • Mark V. Tushnet, Harvard Law School, Massachusetts
  • Book:
    The Hughes Court
    Published online:
    13 January 2022
    Print publication:
    03 February 2022, pp 986-1005

  • Summary

    Having held the National Labor Relations Act constitutonal, the Court then had to identify labor tactics that the NLRA protected and those it prohibited. In doing so it relied in substantial part on preexisting accounts of employers' property rights. It found no labor law violation when employers hired permanent replacement workers for those who went out on an “economic” strike rather than an “unfair labor practices” strike, and held that the NLRA did not bar employeres from firing workers who engaged in “sit down” strikes. It also limited the scope of the remedy of awarding back pay to workers unlawfully fired. All these decisions reduced the ability of unions to place economic pressure on employers.