Taft–Hartley Act

Last updated • 10 min readFrom Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleAn Act to amend the National Labor Relations Act, to provide additional facilities for the mediation of labor disputes affecting commerce, to equalize legal responsibilities of labor organizations and employers, and for other purposes.
NicknamesTaft–Hartley Act
Enacted bythe 80th United States Congress
EffectiveJune 23, 1947
Citations
Public law Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States)  80–101
Statutes at Large 61  Stat.   136
Codification
Titles amended 29 U.S.C.: Labor
U.S.C. sections created 29 U.S.C. ch. 7 §§ 141-197
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the House as H.R. 3020 by Fred A. Hartley, Jr. (R–NJ) on April 10, 1947
  • Passed the House on April 17, 1947 (308-107)
  • Passed the Senate on May 13, 1947 (68-24, in lieu of S. 1126)
  • Reported by the joint conference committee on June 4, 1947; agreed to by the House on June 4, 1947 (320-79) and by the Senate on June 6, 1947 (54-17)
  • Vetoed by President Harry S. Truman on June 20, 1947
  • Overridden by the House on June 20, 1947 (331-83)
  • Overridden by the Senate and became law on June 23, 1947 (68-25)
Major amendments
Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
United States Supreme Court cases

The Labor Management Relations Act, 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.

Contents

Taft–Hartley was introduced in the aftermath of a major strike wave in 1945 and 1946. Though it was enacted by the Republican-controlled 80th Congress, the law received significant support from congressional Democrats, many of whom joined with their Republican colleagues in voting to override Truman's veto. The act continued to generate opposition after Truman left office, but it remains in effect.

The Taft–Hartley Act amended the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), adding new restrictions on union actions and designating new union-specific unfair labor practices. Among the practices prohibited by the Taft–Hartley act are jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. The amendments also allowed states to enact right-to-work laws banning union shops. Enacted during the early stages of the Cold War, the law required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government.

Background

In 1945 and 1946, an unprecedented wave of major strikes affected the United States; by February 1946, nearly 2 million workers were engaged in strikes or other labor disputes. Organized labor had largely refrained from striking during World War II, but with the end of the war, labor leaders were eager to share in the gains from a postwar economic resurgence. [1]

The 1946 mid-term elections left Republicans in control of Congress for the first time since the early 1930s. [2] Many of the newly elected congressmen were strongly conservative and sought to overturn or roll back New Deal legislation such as the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which had established the right of workers to join unions, bargain collectively, and engage in strikes. [3] Republican senator Robert A. Taft and Republican congressman Fred A. Hartley Jr. each introduced measures to curtail the power of unions and prevent strikes. Taft's bill passed the Senate by a 68-to-24 majority, but some of its original provisions were removed by moderates, like Republican senator Wayne Morse. Meanwhile, the stronger Hartley bill garnered a 308-to-107 majority in the House of Representatives. The Taft–Hartley bill that emerged from a conference committee incorporated aspects from both the House and Senate bills. [4] The bill was promoted by large business lobbies, including the National Association of Manufacturers. [5]

David Dubinsky of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union speaks against the Taft-Hartley Act, 4 May 1947 David Dubinsky gives a speech against the Hartley-Taft bill, with Luigi Antonini in the audience, May 4, 1947. (5278798677).jpg
David Dubinsky of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union speaks against the Taft–Hartley Act, 4 May 1947

After spending several days considering how to respond to the bill, President Truman vetoed Taft–Hartley with a strong message to Congress, [6] calling the act a "dangerous intrusion on free speech." [7] Labor leaders, meanwhile, derided the act as a "slave-labor bill". [8] Despite Truman's all-out effort to prevent a veto override, Congress overrode his veto with considerable Democratic support, including 106 out of 177 Democrats in the House, and 20 out of 42 Democrats in the Senate. [9] [10]

Effects of the act

As stated in Section 1 (29 U.S.C.   § 141), the purpose of the NLRA is:

[T]o promote the full flow of commerce, to prescribe the legitimate rights of both employees and employers in their relations affecting commerce, to provide orderly and peaceful procedures for preventing the interference by either with the legitimate rights of the other, to protect the rights of individual employees in their relations with labor organizations whose activities affect commerce, to define and proscribe practices on the part of labor and management which affect commerce and are inimical to the general welfare, and to protect the rights of the public in connection with labor disputes affecting commerce.

The amendments enacted in Taft–Hartley added a list of prohibited actions, or unfair labor practices, on the part of unions to the NLRA, which had previously only prohibited unfair labor practices committed by employers. The Taft–Hartley Act prohibited jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. It also required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government. Union shops were heavily restricted, and states were allowed to pass right-to-work laws that ban agency fees. Furthermore, the executive branch of the federal government could obtain legal strikebreaking injunctions if an impending or current strike imperiled the national health or safety. [11]

Jurisdictional strikes

In jurisdictional strikes, outlawed by Taft–Hartley, a union strikes in order to assign particular work to the employees it represents. Secondary boycotts and common situs picketing, also outlawed by the act, are actions in which unions picket, strike, or refuse to handle the goods of a business with which they have no primary dispute but which is associated with a targeted business. [12] [ citation needed ] A later statute, the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, passed in 1959, tightened these restrictions on secondary boycotts still further.

Campaign expenditures

According to First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams, the act "was the first law barring unions and corporations from making independent expenditures in support of or [in] opposition to federal candidates". [7]

Closed shops

The law outlawed closed shops which were contractual agreements that required an employer to hire only labor union members. Union shops, still permitted, require new recruits to join the union within a certain amount of time. The National Labor Relations Board and the courts have added other restrictions on the power of unions to enforce union security clauses and have required them to make extensive financial disclosures to all members as part of their duty of fair representation.[ citation needed ] On the other hand, Congress repealed the provisions requiring a vote by workers to authorize a union shop a few years after the passage of the act when it became apparent that workers were approving them in virtually every case.[ citation needed ]

Union security clauses

The amendments also authorized individual states to outlaw union security clauses (such as the union shop) entirely in their jurisdictions by passing right-to-work laws. A right-to-work law, under Section 14B of Taft–Hartley, prevents unions from negotiating contracts or legally binding documents requiring companies to fire workers who refuse to join the union.[ citation needed ] Currently all of the states in the Deep South and a number of states in the Midwest, Great Plains, and Rocky Mountains regions have right-to-work laws (with six states—Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, and Oklahoma—going one step further and enshrining right-to-work laws in their states' constitutions).[ citation needed ]

Strikes and lockouts

Notice provisions

The amendments required unions and employers to give 80 days' notice to each other and to certain state and federal mediation bodies before they may undertake strikes or other forms of economic action in pursuit of a new collective bargaining agreement; it did not, on the other hand, impose any "cooling-off period" after a contract expired.

National emergency provisions

Section 206 of the Act, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 176, also authorized a president to intervene in strikes or lockouts, under certain circumstances, by seeking a court order compelling companies and unions to attempt to continue to negotiate. [13] Under this section, if the president determines that an actual or threatened lockout affects all or a substantial part of an industry engaged in interstate or foreign "trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication" and that the occurrence or continuation of a strike or lockout would "imperil the national health or safety," the President may empanel a board of inquiry to review the issues and issue a report. [13] Upon receiving the report, the president may direct the U.S. Attorney General to seek an injunction from a federal court. [13] If a court enters an injunction, then a strike by workers or a lockout by employers is suspended for an 80-day period; employees must return to work while management and unions must "make every effort to adjust and settle their differences" [13] [14] with the assistance of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. [13] Presidents have invoked this provision 37 times. [14] In 2002, President George W. Bush invoked the law in connection with the employer lockout of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union during negotiations with West Coast shipping and stevedoring companies. [15] This was the first successful invocation of the emergency provisions since President Richard M. Nixon intervened to halt a longshoremen's strike in 1971. [15]

Prohibition on federal employee strikes

Section 305 of the Act prohibited federal employees from striking. [16] This prohibition was subsequently repealed and replaced by a similar provision, 5 U.S.C. § 7311, which bars any person who "participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States" from federal employment. [17]

Anti-communism

The amendments required union leaders to file affidavits with the United States Department of Labor declaring that they were not supporters of the Communist Party and had no relationship with any organization seeking the "overthrow of the United States government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional means" as a condition to participating in NLRB proceedings. Just over a year after Taft–Hartley passed, 81,000 union officers from nearly 120 unions had filed the required affidavits. [10] This provision was at first upheld in the 1950 Supreme Court decision American Communications Ass'n v. Douds , but in 1965, the Supreme Court held that this provision was an unconstitutional bill of attainder. [18]

Treatment of supervisors

The amendments expressly excluded supervisors from coverage under the act, and allowed employers to terminate supervisors engaging in union activities or those not supporting the employer's stance. [19] The amendments maintained coverage under the act for professional employees, but provided for special procedures before they may be included in the same bargaining unit as non-professional employees. [20]

Right of employer to oppose unions

The act revised the Wagner Act's requirement of employer neutrality, to allow employers to deliver anti-union messages in the workplace. [5] These changes confirmed an earlier Supreme Court ruling that employers have a constitutional right to express their opposition to unions, so long as they did not threaten employees with reprisals for their union activities nor offer any incentives to employees as an alternative to unionizing. The amendments also gave employers the right to file a petition asking the board to determine if a union represents a majority of its employees, and allow employees to petition either to decertify their union, or to invalidate the union security provisions of any existing collective bargaining agreement.

National Labor Relations Board

The amendments gave the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board discretionary power to seek injunctions against either employers or unions that violated the act.[ citation needed ] The law made pursuit of such injunctions mandatory, rather than discretionary, in the case of secondary boycotts by unions.[ citation needed ] The amendments also established the general counsel's autonomy within the administrative framework of the NLRB. Congress also gave employers the right to sue unions for damages caused by a secondary boycott, but gave the general counsel exclusive power to seek injunctive relief against such activities.[ citation needed ]

Federal jurisdiction

The act provided for federal court jurisdiction to enforce collective bargaining agreements. Although Congress passed this section to empower federal courts to hold unions liable in damages for strikes violating a no-strike clause, this part of the act has instead served as the springboard for creation of a "federal common law" of collective bargaining agreements, which favored arbitration over litigation or strikes as the preferred means of resolving labor disputes.[ citation needed ]

Conciliation Service

The United States Conciliation Service, which had provided mediation for labor disputes as part of Department of Labor, was removed from that department and reconstituted as an independent agency, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (United States). This was done in part because industry forces thought the existing service had been too "partial" to labor. [21]

Other

The Congress that passed the Taft–Hartley Amendments considered repealing the Norris–La Guardia Act to the extent necessary to permit courts to issue injunctions against strikes violating a no-strike clause, but chose not to do so. The Supreme Court nonetheless held several decades later that the act implicitly gave the courts the power to enjoin such strikes over subjects that would be subject to final and binding arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement.

Finally, the act imposed a number of procedural and substantive standards that unions and employers must meet before they may use employer funds to provide pensions and other employee benefit to unionized employees. Congress has since passed more extensive protections for workers and employee benefit plans as part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").

Aftermath

1952 political march by the International Ladies Garment Workers Union; among their signs is "Repeal Hartley-Taft Act" Crowd carrying placards and a banner reading, "Repeal Taft-Hartley Act," and "Fair Tax elect Stevenson." (5278847529).jpg
1952 political march by the International Ladies Garment Workers Union; among their signs is "Repeal Hartley–Taft Act"

Union leaders in the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) vigorously campaigned for Truman in the 1948 election based upon a (never fulfilled) promise to repeal Taft–Hartley. [22] Truman won, but a union-backed effort in Ohio to defeat Taft in 1950 failed in what one author described as "a shattering demonstration of labor's political weaknesses". [23]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ McCoy 1984, pp. 49–51, 57.
  2. ↑ McCoy 1984, pp. 93–95.
  3. ↑ Wagner, Steven. "How Did the Taft-Hartley Act Come About?". History News Network.
  4. ↑ Bowen 2011, pp. 49–51.
  5. 1 2 Anna McCarthy, The Citizen Machine: Governing by Television in 1950s America, New York: The New Press, 2010, p. 54. ISBN   978-1-59558-498-4.
  6. ↑ "June 20, 1947: On the Veto of the Taft-Hartley Bill". Miller Center. 2016-10-20. Retrieved 2019-02-22.
  7. 1 2 Debating 'Citizens United', The Nation (2011-01-13)
  8. ↑ "National Affairs: Barrel No. 2". Time. June 23, 1947. Archived from the original on April 16, 2008. Retrieved May 24, 2010.
  9. ↑ Benjamin C. Waterhouise, Lobbying in America, (Princeton University Press, 2013) 53.
  10. 1 2 Nicholson, Phillip (2004). Labor's Story in the United States. Temple University Press. ISBN   1-59213-239-1.
  11. ↑ Cox, Archibald (February 1960). "Strikes and the Public Interest - A Proposal for New Legislation". The Atlantic.
  12. ↑ 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 Section 8(b)(4)
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 The UAW-Automakers Labor Dispute and Taft-Hartley's National Emergency Provisions, Congressional Research Service (October 2, 2023).
  14. 1 2 Paul Wiseman, The president could invoke a 1947 law to try to suspend the dockworkers' strike. Here's how, Associated Press (October 2, 2024).
  15. 1 2 Sanger, David E.; Greenhouse, Steven (October 9, 2002). "President Invokes Taft-Hartley Act To Open 29 Ports". The New York Times.
  16. ↑ Fleischli, George R. (May–June 1968). "DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 10988". Air Force Law Review.
  17. ↑ Kurt L. Hanslowe and John L. Acierno, Law and Theory of Strikes by Government Employees, 67 Cornell L. Rev. 1055, 1059 n.16 (1982).
  18. ↑ United States v. Brown (1965) , 381U.S.437 ( Supreme Court June 7, 1965)("Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional.").
  19. ↑ Gruenberg, Mark (June 11, 2007). "Taft-Hartley Signed 60 Years Ago". Political Affairs Magazine. Archived from the original on May 18, 2013. Retrieved 2012-06-06.
  20. ↑ PUBLIC LAWS-CHS.114, 120-JUNE 21, 23,1947 (PDF). 80Ta CONG ., 1ST SESS .-CH. 120-JUNE 23, 1947. p. 136.
  21. ↑ Stark, Louis (June 24, 1947). "Analysis of the Labor Act Shows Changed Era at Hand for Industry". The New York Times. pp. 1, 4.
  22. ↑ Davis, Mike (2000). Prisoners of the American Dream: Politics and Economy in the History of the US Working Class. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN   1-85984-248-8.
  23. ↑ Lubell, Samuel (1956). The Future of American Politics (2nd ed.). Anchor Press. p. 202. OL   6193934M.

Works cited

Related Research Articles

The Railway Labor Act is a United States federal law that governs labor relations in the railroad and airline industries. The Act, enacted in 1926 and amended in 1934 and 1936, seeks to substitute bargaining, arbitration, and mediation for strikes to resolve labor disputes. Its provisions were originally enforced under the Board of Mediation, but they were later enforced under a National Mediation Board.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Labor Relations Act of 1935</span> 1935 U.S. federal labor law

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Labor Relations Board</span> U.S. federal government agency

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent agency of the federal government of the United States that enforces U.S. labor law in relation to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices. Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the NLRB has the authority to supervise elections for labor union representation and to investigate and remedy unfair labor practices. Unfair labor practices may involve union-related situations or instances of protected concerted activity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959</span> United States labor law

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, is a US labor law that regulates labor unions' internal affairs and their officials' relationships with employers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Philip Murray</span> Scottish-born American labor leader (1886–1952)

Philip Murray was a Scottish-born steelworker and an American labor leader. He was the first president of the Steel Workers Organizing Committee (SWOC), the first president of the United Steelworkers of America (USWA), and the longest-serving president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States labor law</span> US laws on fair pay and conditions, unions, democracy, equality and security at work

United States labor law sets the rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers in the US. Labor law's basic aim is to remedy the "inequality of bargaining power" between employees and employers, especially employers "organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association". Over the 20th century, federal law created minimum social and economic rights, and encouraged state laws to go beyond the minimum to favor employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires a federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 but higher in 29 states and D.C., and discourages working weeks over 40 hours through time-and-a-half overtime pay. There are no federal laws, and few state laws, requiring paid holidays or paid family leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 creates a limited right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in larger employers. There is no automatic right to an occupational pension beyond federally guaranteed Social Security, but the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 requires standards of prudent management and good governance if employers agree to provide pensions, health plans or other benefits. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires employees have a safe system of work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lee Pressman</span> American lawyer

Lee Pressman was a labor attorney and earlier a US government functionary, publicly alleged in 1948 to have been a spy for Soviet intelligence during the mid-1930s, following his recent departure from Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) as a result of its purge of Communist Party members and fellow travelers. From 1936 to 1948, he represented the CIO and member unions in landmark collective bargaining deals with major corporations including General Motors and U.S. Steel. According to journalist Murray Kempton, anti-communists referred to him as "Comrade Big."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Union busting</span> Efforts to prevent or hinder unionization among workers

Union busting is a range of activities undertaken to disrupt or weaken the power of trade unions or their attempts to grow their membership in a workplace.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007</span> Proposed United States legislation

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007, introduced in the 110th Congress(H.R. 980, S. 2123), proposed to establish minimum standards for state collective bargaining laws for public safety officers.

NLRB v. Truck Drivers Local 449 , 353 U.S. 87 (1957), is an 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a temporary lockout by a multi-employer bargaining group threatened by a whipsaw strike was lawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act.

NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938), is a United States labor law case of the Supreme Court of the United States 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of union busting in the United States</span> Aspect of U.S. history

The history of union busting in the United States dates back to the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. The Industrial Revolution produced a rapid expansion in factories and manufacturing capabilities. As workers moved from farms to factories, mines and other hard labor, they faced harsh working conditions such as long hours, low pay and health risks. Children and women worked in factories and generally received lower pay than men. The government did little to limit these conditions. Labor movements in the industrialized world developed and lobbied for better rights and safer conditions. Shaped by wars, depressions, government policies, judicial rulings, and global competition, the early years of the battleground between unions and management were adversarial and often identified with aggressive hostility. Contemporary opposition to trade unions known as union busting started in the 1940s, and continues to present challenges to the labor movement. Union busting is a term used by labor organizations and trade unions to describe the activities that may be undertaken by employers, their proxies, workers and in certain instances states and governments usually triggered by events such as picketing, card check, worker organizing, and strike actions. Labor legislation has changed the nature of union busting, as well as the organizing tactics that labor organizations commonly use.

Paul M. Herzog was an American lawyer, educator, civil servant, and university administrator. He was chairman of the United States National Labor Relations Board from 1945 to 1953.

Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative. The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights", and defining what Beck rights are and how a union must fulfill its duties regarding them is an active area of modern United States labor law.

The Labor Reform Act of 1977 was a proposed legislative act that would have amended the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The bill was introduced as H.R. 8410 in the U.S. House of Representatives and after passing through the House, it entered the U.S. Senate as S. 2467. In the Senate, the Act underwent amendments before failing to pass by a mere two votes.

American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950), is a 5-to-1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Taft–Hartley Act's imposition of an anti-communist oath on labor union leaders does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is not an ex post facto law or bill of attainder in violation of Article One, Section 10 of the United States Constitution, and is not a "test oath" in violation of Article Six of the Constitution.

The Save Our Secret Ballot, Inc. (SOS) is a 501(c)(4) conservative advocacy organization created to promote states to pass constitutional amendments that would ban card check legislation. Former U.S. Congressman Ernest Istook (R-OK) is Chairman of the National Advisory Board.

Executive Order 10988 is a United States presidential executive order issued by President John F. Kennedy on January 17, 1962 that granted federal employees the right to collective bargaining. This executive order was a breakthrough for public sector workers, who were not protected under the 1935 Wagner Act.

Guy Otto Farmer was an American lawyer and civil servant. He was Chairman of the United States National Labor Relations Board from July 1953 to August 1955. After leaving government service, he represented the Bituminous Coal Operators Association, the collective bargaining arm of the bituminous coal mining industry in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protecting the Right to Organize Act</span> Proposed United States federal labor law

The Richard L. TrumkaProtecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, is a proposed United States law that would amend previous labor laws such as the National Labor Relations Act for the purpose of expanding "various labor protections related to employees' rights to organize and collectively bargain in the workplace.” The measure would prevent employers from holding mandatory meetings for the purpose of counteracting labor organization and would strengthen the legal right of employees to join a labor union. The bill would also permit labor unions to encourage secondary strikes. The PRO Act would weaken "right-to-work" laws, which exist in 27 U.S. states. It would allow the National Labor Relations Board to fine employers for violations of labor law, and would provide compensation to employees involved in such cases. It is named after Richard Trumka, who was elected president of the AFL-CIO on September 16, 2009, and served in that office until his death in August 5, 2021.

References

Further reading

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.