Then too when Taft-Hartley was passed, I doubt if there any local, state or Federal based unions or professional employee associations to be had.. Most of them evolved post WWII into our not so ‘Brave New World’ paradigm. Anyway I stand corrected on this issue. : )

Carl Nemo **==

I have provided the following quotation directly from the Act.

DEFINITIONS

Sec. 2. [§152.] When used in this Act [subchapter]– …

(2) The term “employer” includes any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation, or any Federal Reserve Bank, or any State or political subdivision thereof, or any person subject to the Railway Labor Act [45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.], as amended from time to time, or any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.

For further information or confirmation, please feel free to use the following link.

http://www.nlrb.gov/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act

One aspect of Taft Hartley is expressly limiting an employers acitivites relative to union organizing etc. Employers have a right to oppose such organizing, but not to meddle in the bargaining process. Basically the passage of this law by the Republican controlled Wisconsin legislature constitutes both an overt threat and reprisal on the part fo their governor against unions and their right to organize and collectively bargain with their employer; ie., the state.

Re: The following concerns employer relations with unions within the act.

***

The amendments codified the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that employers have a constitutional right to express their opposition to unions, so long as they did not threaten employees with reprisals for their union activities, or promise benefits as an inducement to refrain from them.

***

Carl Nemo **==