Freedom from Union Violence Act

Last updated

The Freedom from Union Violence Act of 1997 [1] and 2007 [2] were identical bills proposed in the United States Congress. Their intended purpose was to amend the Hobbs Act and make violence committed in pursuit of labor union goals a federal crime. They would impose a fine of up to $100,000, 20 years imprisonment, or both, on labor unions that commit or threaten to use violence, extortion, or the obstruction of commerce in the furtherance of labor union goals and objectives.

Contents

The bills faced strong opposition from labor unions and others, especially for the clause that would disallow "obstruction of commerce," and failed to pass into law both times. Opponents noted that violence and extortion were already crimes, and argued that there was no need to pass a special law setting aside union violence and union extortion as being especially heinous.

Background

The Hobbs Act, passed in 1946, was an anti-racketeering act intended to deter robbery and extortion across state lines. It was commonly used to prosecute unions involved in restraint-of-trade to intimidate management. In 1970, the federal government attempted to expand the Hobbs Act to be used against violence as well. The indictment was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, discussing whether the Hobbs Act could be construed to cover violence as well. In the 1973 Supreme Court case United States v. Enmons , the ruling declared that the Hobbs Act as written did not cover such incidents, and cited Congressional debates at the time of passage that it was not intended to. Still, nothing prevented a new law from being passed.

Proponents of the Freedom from Union Violence Act have attempted to portray the United States v. Enmons as giving legal immunity to unions who engage in violence, though such an interpretation is incorrect; violence would fall under normal state laws prohibiting such activity. For example, Nebraska Senator Carl Curtis wrote an article that a predecessor to FUVA in 1981 would "outlaw violence by unions" and that unions enjoyed "immunity (for) union officials from Federal prosecution for committing and threatening to commit acts of extortion and violence." [3] However, the text of the court case, as well as commentary by lawyers, makes clear that no such immunity exists, merely that the Hobbs Act is the wrong vehicle to pursue such a case. [4]

The National Right to Work Committee, a strong proponent of the FUVA, [5] states: [6]

The Freedom from Union Violence Act closes a loophole in the federal Hobbs Anti-Extortion Act, eliminating the special judicially-created exemption in this law for union-related violence and extortion and holding union officials to the same legal standards as other Americans.

This legislation would establish that the 1946 Hobbs Act applies to all Americans, including union officials seeking to advance so-called "legitimate union objectives." Present law offers this unique exemption for union officials.

NILRR union violence investigations have determined that union violence is responsible for at least 203 Americans deaths since 1975; 5,869 incidents of personal injury; and more than 6,435 incidents of vandalism and tens of millions of dollars in property damage.

However, opponents of FUVA claim that the existence of union violence has been greatly exaggerated. In a 2001 law review article by law professor Julius Getman and former Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall analyzed the evidence of union violence. [7]

The claim that strike violence is "escalating" has no empirical basis. Even the study conducted by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research - cited regularly as authority for this proposition by FUVA's proponents - draws no such conclusion. And the study itself is a scholarly monstrosity that seeks to study union violence by compiling media reports, mainly newspaper articles concerning strike violence. The Institute admits that it did not actually investigate any of the incidents reported and does not know if the reports are accurate. It concludes: "Because it relies on news accounts the Institute cannot guarantee the accuracy of the file itself." In fact, articles about employer-instigated violence are included in the study's effort to determine union violence. n59 It seems obvious that the methodology employed confuses those strikes most written about with those most violent. Further, the Institute includes incidents of "psychological violence; i.e., intimidation, coercion and verbal threats" - terms which it does not bother to define. It seems clear, however, that this definition would include nonviolent civil disobedience of the type used by the civil rights movement and increasingly by the labor movement. But whatever the definition, it is almost certain that strike-related violence has decreased since the Enmons decision because the number of strikes has declined significantly.

See also

Related Research Articles

National Labor Relations Act of 1935 1935 U.S. federal labor law regulating the rights of workers and unions

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 is a foundational statute of United States labor law that guarantees the right of private sector employees to organize into trade unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take collective action such as strikes. Central to the act was a ban on company unions. The act was written by Senator Robert F. Wagner, passed by the 74th United States Congress, and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Taft–Hartley Act 1947 U.S. federal law regulating labor unions

The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, better known as the Taft–Hartley Act, is a United States federal law that restricts the activities and power of labor unions. It was enacted by the 80th United States Congress over the veto of President Harry S. Truman, becoming law on June 23, 1947.

In the context of labor law in the United States, the term "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions. Under these laws, employees in unionized workplaces are banned from negotiating contracts which require employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation. Right-to-work laws do not aim to provide general guarantee of employment to people seeking work.

Union violence is violence committed by unions or union members during labor disputes. When union violence has occurred, it has frequently been in the context of industrial unrest. Violence has ranged from isolated acts by individuals to wider campaigns of organized violence aimed at furthering union goals within an industrial dispute.

Picketing Form of protest, usually labor action

Picketing is a form of protest in which people congregate outside a place of work or location where an event is taking place. Often, this is done in an attempt to dissuade others from going in, but it can also be done to draw public attention to a cause. Picketers normally endeavor to be non-violent. It can have a number of aims, but is generally to put pressure on the party targeted to meet particular demands or cease operations. This pressure is achieved by harming the business through loss of customers and negative publicity, or by discouraging or preventing workers or customers from entering the site and thereby preventing the business from operating normally.

Strikebreaker Person who works despite an ongoing strike

A strikebreaker is a person who works despite an ongoing strike. Strikebreakers are usually individuals who were not employed by the company before the trade union dispute, but rather hired after or during the strike to keep the organization running. Strikebreakers may also refer to workers who cross picket lines to work.

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 547 U.S. 9 (2006), was a lengthy and high-profile U.S. legal case interpreting and applying the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): a law originally drafted to combat the mafia and organized crime, the Hobbs Act: an anti-extortion law prohibiting interference with commerce by violence or threat of violence, and the Travel Act: a law prohibiting interstate travel in support of racketeering.

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is a United States law that was signed by President Bill Clinton in May 1994, which prohibits the following three things: (1) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is obtaining reproductive health services or providing reproductive health services, (2) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship, (3) the intentional damage or destruction of a reproductive health care facility or a place of worship.

Hobbs Act

The Hobbs Act, named after United States Representative Sam Hobbs (D-AL) and codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1951, is a US federal law enacted in 1946 that provides:

(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires to do so, commits, or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895), was a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court decision handed down concerning Eugene V. Debs and labor unions.

Human rights in Paraguay Human rights in Paraguay

Technically speaking, Paraguayan law prohibits discrimination on grounds of gender, race, language, disability, or social status, but there is nonetheless widespread discrimination.

Julius Gerson Getman is a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law, and a noted labor and employment law scholar and labor historian.

Prostitution in Rhode Island was outlawed in 2009. On November 3, 2009, Republican Governor Donald Carcieri signed into law a bill which makes the buying and selling of sexual services a crime.

NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938), is a US labor law case of the US Supreme Court which held that workers who strike remain employees for the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Court granted the relief sought by the National Labor Relations Board, which sought to have the workers reinstated by the employer. However, the decision is much better known today for its obiter dicta in which the Court said that an employer may hire strikebreakers and is not bound to discharge any of them if or when the strike ends.

United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the federal Anti-Racketeering Act of 1934, known as the Hobbs Act, does not cover union violence in furtherance of the union's objectives.

Smith–Connally Act

The Smith–Connally Act or War Labor Disputes Act was an American law passed on June 25, 1943, over President Franklin D. Roosevelt's veto. The legislation was hurriedly created after 400,000 coal miners, their wages significantly lowered because of high wartime inflation, struck for a $2-a-day wage increase.

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 537 U.S. 393 (2003), is a United States Supreme Court case involving whether abortion providers could receive damages from protesters under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. National Organization for Women (NOW) obtained class status for women seeking the use of women's health clinics and began its court battle against Joseph Scheidler and PLAN et al. in 1986. In this particular case, the court's opinion was that extortion did not apply to the defendants' actions because they did not obtain any property from the respondents.

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments. Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to extort a co-conspirator.

When union violence has occurred, it has frequently been in the context of industrial unrest. Violence has ranged from isolated acts by individuals to wider campaigns of organised violence aimed at furthering union goals within an industrial dispute.

Freedom of religion in Australia is allowed in practice and protected to varying degrees through the constitution and legislation at the Federal, state and territory level. Australia is a secular country with legislated separation of church and state and with no state religion. The nation has over 13.5 million people who identify as religious and 7.1 million who identify as irreligious.

References

  1. ↑ S. 230 [105th]
  2. ↑ H.R. 919 [110th]
  3. ↑ Curtis, Carl (August 20, 1981). "HIGH TIME TO OUTLAW VIOLENCE BY UNIONS". The New York Times. Retrieved October 8, 2019.
  4. ↑ Union "Extortion" Under the Hobbs Act
  5. ↑ Opinion: Close union loophole in federal anti-extortion law
  6. ↑ "Freedom from Union Violence Act". National Right to Work Committee . Retrieved September 23, 2019.
  7. ↑ Julius G. Getman and F. Ray Marshall, The Continuing Assault on the Right to Strike, 79 Tex. L. Rev. 703, 712-13 (2001)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.