Knowledge

1958 California Proposition 18

Source đź“ť

82:
Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that all workers should have the right to elect whether or not they join a labor organization. Supporters of the proposition believed that voluntary unionism would provide a safeguard against the exploitation that could arise from monopoly control of
29:
The proposition would also declare certain practices unlawful such as those practices relating to membership in labor organizations. It also provides for injunction and damage suits against any individuals or group found to violate or attempt to violate the amendment. Proposition 18 also provides
137:
Opponents argued that, the so-called “right to work” measure would jeopardize California's economy and pit employers and employees against one another during a time when there is a fluctuating national economy and international tension. The resulting tension between employers and employees would
225:
Opponents of Prop. 18 recorded spending $ 1,250,000 against the measure, according to the Secretary of State's office. Their receipts totaled $ 1,523,653, while spending $ 1,241,196. Supporters of Prop. 18 recorded their receipts to total $ 507,053 and spending $ 390,419. Prop. 18 opposition
25:
as an initiated constitutional amendment. This measure is more commonly referred as the "right to work" law and would have added a new provision, Section 1-A to Article 1 of the State Constitution. The amendment would “prohibit employers and employee organizations from entering into collective
149:
Opponents of Proposition 18 quote statistics from the U.S Department of Commerce that reveal California's per capita income is 60 percent larger than those states who passed such “right to work” measures. Therefore, passage of the proposition would lower income and profits of all professional
54:
activities due to the nature of these acts. With negotiating power now firmly in the hands of union officials and employers a growing concern about the power of employment and safety of workers' rights loomed. There was a shift from craft-unions to industrial-unions, ultimately changing the
86:
Those who supported the measure reasoned that it would grant workers the freedom of choice that was guaranteed in the U.S Constitution to all American citizens. This amendment would consequently protect workers from the unfair practices and corruption of employers and union officers.
145:
states that union open shop can only exist where there is majority rule because the majority of employees has chosen a single union as their bargaining agent. According to opponents of the measure union open shop is therefore “the American, democratic way” as well.
26:
bargaining or other agreements which establish membership in a labor organization, or payment of dues or charges of any kind, as a condition of employment or continued employment.” That is, making union membership voluntary, rather than compulsory, for employment.
230:
was the biggest supporter of the proposition residing outside of California, with the majority being spent on advertising. The largest out-of-state check written for the opposition was by the National Council for Industrial Peace in Washington.
74:, which was a select committee in charge of investigating the extent of corruption in labor-management relations, would expose many corrupt bosses and labor unions. This national issue would be decided on the state level. 242:
It was defeated by the efforts of unions and civil rights groups who fought to maintain the status quo, maintaining union strength. The labor issue created a rift in the Republican Party caused by the rivalry of Governor
55:
population of union members from approximately 3,000,000 in 1935 to 15,000,000 in 1945. Labor unions had more power than they ever did before. In response to these major changes, Congress passed the
550: 428:
Kelley, Augustine B. "Should It Be Illegal To Require Union Membership As A Condition Of Employment? CON." Congressional Digest 36.10 (1957): 235-237. Academic Search Complete. Web. 1 June 2013
251:
would create a shift in the political tide in favor of the Democrats. The liberal Democrats would remain firm and united in opposing the proposition, which would pay off with
112: 141:
The measure was deemed immoral and ran contrary to the U.S democratic system. The U.S government is based on the principle of majority rule and according to the
540: 239:
California Proposition 18 was defeated in the general elections of 1958 on November 4. The vote was 2.079.975 for (40,4%) and 3.070.837 against (59,6%).
555: 60: 56: 63:, still in effect today, forbids certain practices by unions, including forcing workers to join a union, and allowed states to elect to pass 407: 524:
Anderson, Totton J. "The 1958 Election in California." The Western Political Quarterly , Vol. 12, No. 1, Part 2 (Mar., 1959), pp. 276-300
289: 357: 118: 255:
winning the governorship of California and political control of California being held firmly in the hands of the Democratic party.
560: 545: 193: 90:
Supporters also claimed that passing the right-to-work law in California would help rid of disloyal union leaders.
99:
William Jennings Bryan Jr., Co-chairman of Southern California section of Californians for Yes on Prop 18, son of
39: 22: 47: 100: 436: 434: 159: 248: 179: 71: 64: 244: 164: 38:
Unions started to gain ground following the passage of several governmental acts such as the
227: 142: 364: 296: 504: 486: 534: 169: 358:"General Election Ballot Pamphlet [Proposition #s 1-18] (November 4, 1958)" 174: 105: 216:
Religious affiliates, including Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish institutions
51: 43: 252: 184: 125: 108:, honorary chairmanship of Women’s Division for Californians yes on Prop 18 392:
Wells, Joseph (October 19, 1958). "Right-to-Work Law and Union Strength".
213:
The Catholic Labor Institute and the National Catholic Welfare Conference
30:
the definition for a “labor organization”. The proposition did not pass.
408:"California Proposition 18, Prohibition of Collective Bargaining (1958)" 520: 518: 128:
Union Executive Secretary, Committee for Democracy in Labor Unions
489:(October 28, 1958). "Right-to-Work Forces Outspent 3-1 by Labor". 199: 189:
Benjamin H. Swig, President Fairmont Hotel Company, San Francisco
121:, California Coordinator, Committee for Democracy in Labor Unions 226:
outspent the supporters three to one. It was reported that
352: 350: 348: 346: 344: 342: 340: 338: 336: 334: 332: 330: 328: 326: 324: 322: 320: 318: 316: 50:. The newly empowered unions would be able to engage in 551:
Failed amendments to the Constitution of California
111:August E. Sommerfield, Former Steward, Local 170, 491:The Washington Post and Times-Herald (1954–1959) 441:"Irene Dunne Will Work to Help Proposition 18". 456:"Bryan Son Takes Post in Right-to-Work Group". 471:"Prop. 18 Fees Report Costs of $ 1,241,196". 8: 207:The Board of Rabbis of Southern California 363:. UCHastings Law Library. Archived from 192:Charles J. Smith, Director District 38, 387: 385: 264: 117:Arthur E. Simpson, Member, Local 770, 284: 282: 280: 278: 276: 274: 272: 270: 268: 7: 210:The Catholic Council on Working Life 200:California State Federation of Labor 198:C.J. Haggerty, Secretary- Treasurer 124:Howard B. Wyatt, Member, Local 626, 541:1958 California ballot propositions 14: 556:Initiatives in the United States 204:Church Federation of Los Angeles 185:Attorney General Edmund G. Brown 194:United Steelworkers of America 1: 505:"EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS" 138:destroy industrial relations 21:was on the November 4, 1958 577: 180:Governor Goodwin J. Knight 175:Chief Justice Earl Warren 113:Sheetmetal Workers Unions 40:Railway Labor Act of 1926 23:California ballot measure 19:California Proposition 18 290:"1958 California Ballot" 61:Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 57:Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 48:Taft Hartley Act of 1947 561:Politics of California 101:William Jennings Bryan 546:History of labour law 475:. September 30, 1958. 460:. September 10, 1958. 445:. September 26, 1958. 170:Vice President Nixon 160:President Eisenhower 154:Opposition includes: 70:The creation of the 249:William F. Knowland 119:Retail Clerks Union 94:Supporters include: 72:McClellan Committee 65:right-to-work laws 44:Wagner Act of 1935 410:. Ballotpedia.org 394:Los Angeles Times 370:on 11 August 2014 245:Goodwin J. Knight 568: 525: 522: 513: 512: 501: 495: 494: 483: 477: 476: 468: 462: 461: 453: 447: 446: 438: 429: 426: 420: 419: 417: 415: 404: 398: 397: 389: 380: 379: 377: 375: 369: 362: 354: 311: 310: 308: 307: 301: 295:. Archived from 294: 286: 228:General Electric 143:Taft Hartley Act 576: 575: 571: 570: 569: 567: 566: 565: 531: 530: 529: 528: 523: 516: 503: 502: 498: 487:Lahey, Edwin A. 485: 484: 480: 470: 469: 465: 455: 454: 450: 440: 439: 432: 427: 423: 413: 411: 406: 405: 401: 391: 390: 383: 373: 371: 367: 360: 356: 355: 314: 305: 303: 299: 292: 288: 287: 266: 261: 253:Edmund G. Brown 237: 223: 165:Adlai Stevenson 135: 80: 36: 12: 11: 5: 574: 572: 564: 563: 558: 553: 548: 543: 533: 532: 527: 526: 514: 496: 478: 463: 448: 430: 421: 399: 381: 312: 263: 262: 260: 257: 236: 233: 222: 219: 218: 217: 214: 211: 208: 205: 202: 196: 190: 187: 182: 177: 172: 167: 162: 134: 131: 130: 129: 122: 115: 109: 103: 79: 76: 35: 32: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 573: 562: 559: 557: 554: 552: 549: 547: 544: 542: 539: 538: 536: 521: 519: 515: 511:. 1958-01-01. 510: 506: 500: 497: 492: 488: 482: 479: 474: 467: 464: 459: 452: 449: 444: 437: 435: 431: 425: 422: 409: 403: 400: 395: 388: 386: 382: 366: 359: 353: 351: 349: 347: 345: 343: 341: 339: 337: 335: 333: 331: 329: 327: 325: 323: 321: 319: 317: 313: 302:on 2014-08-11 298: 291: 285: 283: 281: 279: 277: 275: 273: 271: 269: 265: 258: 256: 254: 250: 246: 240: 234: 232: 229: 220: 215: 212: 209: 206: 203: 201: 197: 195: 191: 188: 186: 183: 181: 178: 176: 173: 171: 168: 166: 163: 161: 158: 157: 156: 155: 151: 147: 144: 139: 132: 127: 123: 120: 116: 114: 110: 107: 104: 102: 98: 97: 96: 95: 91: 88: 84: 77: 75: 73: 68: 66: 62: 58: 53: 49: 45: 41: 33: 31: 27: 24: 20: 16: 509:Propositions 508: 499: 490: 481: 472: 466: 457: 451: 442: 424: 412:. Retrieved 402: 393: 372:. Retrieved 365:the original 304:. Retrieved 297:the original 247:and Senator 241: 238: 224: 153: 152: 148: 140: 136: 93: 92: 89: 85: 83:employment. 81: 69: 37: 28: 18: 17: 15: 106:Irene Dunne 535:Categories 306:2013-06-07 259:References 78:Proponents 52:union shop 46:, and the 34:Background 150:persons. 133:Opponents 126:Teamsters 473:LA Times 458:LA Times 443:LA Times 221:Spending 235:Results 59:. The 414:2 June 374:30 May 368:(PDF) 361:(PDF) 300:(PDF) 293:(PDF) 416:2013 376:2013 537:: 517:^ 507:. 433:^ 384:^ 315:^ 267:^ 67:. 42:, 493:. 418:. 396:. 378:. 309:.

Index

California ballot measure
Railway Labor Act of 1926
Wagner Act of 1935
Taft Hartley Act of 1947
union shop
Taft-Hartley Act of 1947
Taft-Hartley Act of 1947
right-to-work laws
McClellan Committee
William Jennings Bryan
Irene Dunne
Sheetmetal Workers Unions
Retail Clerks Union
Teamsters
Taft Hartley Act
President Eisenhower
Adlai Stevenson
Vice President Nixon
Chief Justice Earl Warren
Governor Goodwin J. Knight
Attorney General Edmund G. Brown
United Steelworkers of America
California State Federation of Labor
General Electric
Goodwin J. Knight
William F. Knowland
Edmund G. Brown


Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑