Editing Taft–Hartley Act (section)

==Background==
{{See also|Strike wave of 1946|Presidency of Harry S. Truman}}

In 1945 and 1946, [[Strike wave of 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.{{sfn|McCoy|1984|pp=49–51, 57}}

The [[1946 United States elections|1946 mid-term elections]] left [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] in control of Congress for the first time since the early 1930s.{{sfn|McCoy|1984|pp=93–95}} 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 [[trade union|unions]], bargain collectively, and engage in strikes.<ref name="wagner1">{{cite web |last1=Wagner |first1=Steven |title=How Did the Taft-Hartley Act Come About? |url=https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1036 |publisher=History News Network}}</ref> 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 [[United States congressional conference committee|conference committee]] incorporated aspects from both the House and Senate bills.{{sfn|Bowen|2011|pp=49–51}} The bill was promoted by large business lobbies, including the [[National Association of Manufacturers]].<ref name="McCarthy"/>
[[File:David Dubinsky gives a speech against the Hartley-Taft bill, with Luigi Antonini in the audience, May 4, 1947. (5278798677).jpg|thumb|[[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,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/june-20-1947-veto-taft-hartley-bill|title=June 20, 1947: On the Veto of the Taft-Hartley Bill|date=2016-10-20|website=Miller Center|language=en|access-date=2019-02-22}}</ref> calling the act a "dangerous intrusion on [[Freedom of speech in the United States|free speech]]."<ref name=Nation/> Labor leaders, meanwhile, derided the act as a "slave-labor bill".<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,797962,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080416175321/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,797962,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=April 16, 2008 |magazine=Time |title=National Affairs: Barrel No. 2 |date=June 23, 1947 |access-date=May 24, 2010}}</ref> 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.<ref>Benjamin C. Waterhouise, [https://books.google.com/books?id=wYuGAAAAQBAJ&dq=taft+hartley+override+bipartisan&pg=PA53 ''Lobbying in America''], (Princeton University Press, 2013) 53.</ref><ref name=laborstory>{{cite book |last=Nicholson |first=Phillip |title=Labor's Story in the United States |publisher=Temple University Press |year=2004 |isbn=1-59213-239-1}}</ref>