I don't know if this question make sense to you, but I always thought it was weird that Truman was willing to support other countries, but not support the laboe unions when they went on strike?
2007-01-26 07:38:20 · 5 answers · asked by Nomo 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
He sought to contain the growth of communism in the other countries -- Greece and Turkey, especially. He simply didn't support labor unions. They are 2 completely different issues.
2007-01-26 08:51:53 · answer #1 · answered by parrotsandgrog 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Like every American president in modern times, Harry S Truman supported the political and economic interests of Corporate America. The big General Motors, US Steel and General Electric strikes in 1946, and the railroad strike of 1947, hurt corporate interests, so that's why he opposed them.
The railroad strike in particular really hurt Corporate America, (back then, American business was a lot more heavily dependent on rail freight than it is now) and got in the way of the railroad companies carrying out mass layoffs of railroad firemen and brakemen.
That's why Truman broke that railroad strike by drafting the locomotive engineers, firemen, conductors and brakemen into the Army.
As a result of those strikes, and in an effort to drive communists and other militant labor leaders out of the union, Truman helped the Taft Hartley Act get passed in 1947.
This put strong restrictions on unions and made it easier for Corporate America to engage in union busting. Thanks to Taft Hartley, union membership has fallen from almost 30% of the workforce in 1947 to barely 7% today.
Truman was no "friend of labor"!!!
2007-01-26 17:34:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Truman had always been on the side of labor, but he would not allow strikes to paralyze the nation. He used executive orders and court injunctions to end the strikes, offending labor unions in the process. Also keep in mind he was essentially a small business man before becoming a public service. His major concerns were trying to avoid inflation in the post WW2 economy. His veto of Taft Hartley is evidence of that ,and if you read any of his speeches to congress you will also see that he vigorously defend the rights of workers to strike. It is unfortunate that because of how he handled the rail way strike and the coal miners that he is thought of as anti labor when this just isn't the case. I suggest you do more reading on this before forming any opinions. When it comes to discussing unions, it is very easy to get caught up in heated discussions especially with union members.
As far as his foreign policy he was a big advocate of the united nations. It was a new world and the potential threat of Communism was looming every where.
2007-01-26 17:22:42 · answer #3 · answered by Mark G 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because if he was helping other countries he could like a hero or a savior if you will. Also, communism was on verge of spreading throughout the world so by helping other countries he could have some influence in their philosophy.
If he supported the labor unions it might look bad almost As a if he is admitting the economic infrastructure is failing and at the time labor unions did not have as much power as they soon would in the near future. Remember at that point he was a full fledged politician and would have to pick and choose his battles wisely to maintain a decent relationship with congress and the voters. At least that's my opinion.
2007-01-26 16:58:43 · answer #4 · answered by MenaceD 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Truman understood that one simple fact that surpasses the understanding of the average American, that is;
Labour Unions are sucking the life out of The United States of America!
2007-01-30 14:18:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋