# What does legal protection of unions consist in in the US? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 24, 2011, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-legal-protection-of-unions-consist-in-in-the-us/590132 "2011-07-24T02:12:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-legal-protection-of-unions-consist-in-in-the-us/590132/21 "2011-07-25T13:39:23Z")
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief] [Quote=Frylock] Before unions came to be protected, what prevented someone, legally, from saying “I defer to whatever X says concerning negotiations of the terms of my employment–and if you (the employer) don’t like that, then me and a bunch of other people who also defer to X will stop coming to work.” [/QUOTE] There was no legal prohibition against that. What prevented it was company policy and behavior. [/QUOTE] Well, yes, there was. In addition to the criminal offences mentioned by **davidm** , the courts held that union activities could be actions in restraint of trade, and thus subject to civil actions, such as injunctions. For example, the courts originally held that union activities could be contrary to the [Sherman Anti-Trust Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act#Early_applications). That Act was intended to be used against large corporations which were trying to control the markets; it was first used instead against unions, such as the litigation over the Pullman Strike, on the basis that the unions were acting in restraint of trade. It wasn’t until the [Clayton Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act) that union activities were excepted from the Sherman Act: > [@](#): > > An important difference between the Clayton act and its predecessor, the Sherman act, is that the Clayton act contained safe harbors for union activities. Section 6 of the Act (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 17) exempts labor unions and agricultural organizations, saying ‘that the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce, and permit[ting] labor organizations to carry out their legitimate objective’. Therefore, boycotts, peaceful strikes, peaceful picketing, and collective bargaining are not regulated by this statute. Injunctions could be used to settle labor disputes only when property damage was threatened. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-legal-protection-of-unions-consist-in-in-the-us/590132/22 "2011-07-25T13:46:53Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Unions were never, and are not now, specifically “allowed”, they didn’t need to be. They were never forbidden in the first place. While membership in unions were not forbidden, their activities could be subject to criminal and civil sanctions, as set out by **davidm** in post # 13, and in my previous post. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-legal-protection-of-unions-consist-in-in-the-us/590132/23 "2011-07-25T14:01:18Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > …At one time (I am not sure about now) it was against the law for US government employees to strike. Presedent Reagan fired all the air trafic controllers when they went on strike. Yes, they were free to unionize, but not to strike. President Reagan actually said he thought some Federal employees _ought_ to have the right to strike, just not those who were vital to public safety: [Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_traffic_controllers_strike#August_1981_strike) Calvin Coolidge was named Warren G. Harding’s running mate in 1920 largely because of his firm stance as Governor of Mass. during the Boston police strike the year before: [Boston police strike - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Police_Strike) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-legal-protection-of-unions-consist-in-in-the-us/590132/24 "2011-07-25T14:06:46Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > President Reagan actually said he thought some Federal employees _ought_ to have the right to strike … Spoken as a [true former union boss](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#SAG_president_and_television), that pinko! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-legal-protection-of-unions-consist-in-in-the-us/590132/25 "2011-07-25T16:40:04Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > While membership in unions were not forbidden, their activities could be subject to criminal and civil sanctions, as set out by **davidm** in post # 13, and in my previous post. Yes, I agree with that. My objection was to an implication of the OP’s wording. Namely, that which is not specifically allowed by law is forbidden. The actual case in US law is that unless a law specifically forbids an action, it is allowed. “Unions” per se, were never forbidden. Laws that did forbid certain actions had to be changed for certain union activities to be legal, but unions themselves were never forbidden, so to say that at some point they were specifically “allowed” is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-legal-protection-of-unions-consist-in-in-the-us/590132/26 "2011-07-25T19:07:18Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Yes, I agree with that. My objection was to an implication of the OP’s wording. Namely, that which is not specifically allowed by law is forbidden… Old Poli Sci joke: In a democracy, what is not prohibited is permitted. In a dictatorship, what is not prohibited is compulsory. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-legal-protection-of-unions-consist-in-in-the-us/590132.md?page=1)