A secondary boycott refers to a tactic used by labor unions where they apply economic pressure on a third party that is indirectly related to the primary employer engaged in a labor dispute. The primary goal of a secondary boycott is to compel the third party to cease its business dealings with the primary employer, thereby increasing leverage in the union’s ongoing dispute.
Definition and Key Concepts
Secondary Boycott: A coordinated effort by a union to stop the use, purchase, or transportation of products, goods, or services of a business not directly involved in a labor dispute, with the intent to pressure that business to cease its dealings with the primary employer undergoing the union action.
Primary Employer: The initial company or entity that is directly involved in a labor dispute with the union.
Third Party: An external company or individual that has business relations with the primary employer but is not involved in the labor dispute.
Legal Framework
The use of secondary boycotts is heavily regulated and restricted in many jurisdictions through labor laws and legislation. In the United States, the Taft-Hartley Act plays a pivotal role in this regulation.
The Taft-Hartley Act
The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act) imposes significant limitations on unions’ abilities to employ secondary boycotts. Under the act:
- Prohibition on Secondary Boycotts: Unions are barred from inducing or encouraging any individual employed by the third party to halt work or services in connection to the primary employer’s business.
- Restrictions on Picketing: The act limits activities such as picketing at secondary sites aimed at persuading third-party employees to refuse to handle goods or perform services.
Historical Context and Evolution
Secondary boycotts have been a part of labor union strategies since the late 19th and early 20th centuries as unions sought to expand their influence and pressure employers into meeting their demands. The passage of the Taft-Hartley Act marked a significant shift in the legal landscape, seeking to balance the power dynamics between employers and unions.
Applicability and Implications
The secondary boycott is an important concept in labor relations with substantial implications:
- For Unions: It serves as a strategic tool to amplify their bargaining power.
- For Employers: It poses potential operational and financial disruptions, with secondary partners potentially experiencing indirect pressure.
- For Third-Parties: Businesses may face ethical and operational dilemmas, balancing their commercial interests with reputational risks associated with being embroiled in labor disputes.
Comparisons and Related Terms
- Primary Boycott: A direct action targeting the primary employer involved in the labor dispute, not extending to third parties.
- Sympathy Strike: Workers at a different company strike in support of another group’s labor action, often considered under the umbrella of secondary actions.
FAQs
Are secondary boycotts legal everywhere?
Can secondary boycotts be effective despite legal restrictions?
How does the Taft-Hartley Act affect secondary boycotts?
References
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). “The Taft-Hartley Act.”
- Gilpin, R. (2018). “Labor’s Struggles: Insights into Union Strategies and Legal Constraints.”
Summary
Secondary boycotts represent a powerful, albeit highly regulated, tactic within labor union strategies designed to exert pressure on employers indirectly through third parties. The Taft-Hartley Act in the United States serves as a critical legal boundary dictating the permissible scope of such activities. Understanding secondary boycotts is essential for comprehending the broader dynamics of labor relations and the tools unions have at their disposal.
