Emergence of the Labors Alliance and the Republican Party

The labors alliance and the Republican Party came about after world war. These labor alliances came about to fight for workers' vision of the postwar political economy. Workers were expressing their grievances of low pay and for shorter working hours. The development of the labor alliance and the Republican Party date back to the years when there was a formation of the liberal party. This was back in the days when the country was suffering numerous civil wars due to the monarchy over the powers of the House of legislatures.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Because of the decline in the formation of a third political party due to the dominance and rise of the labor party, a section of the members of the house moved away and formed a party, the social democratic party. The social democratic party and the labor party later saw there were no slots for the formation of a fourth political party and they decided to merge. They joined to form the SDP-liberal alliance. The main reasons that lead to the formation of the SDP-liberal alliance are to minimize competition between the two parties in the event of an election.

Despite the party having different manifestos, after the combining of the two parties, they came up with a joint manifesto that put aside their differences and run for the 1983 and 1987 elections. The manifestos presented by the SDP-liberal party, in my opinion, were compatible with the Republican Party's manifestos. This is because in both parties, they mainly focused on the laborers and their welfare. Despite their manifesto being almost compatible with each other, the Republican Party focused more on its laborers in its manifesto, and that is the reason they won the majority of the workers' votes despite the endorsement of the Democratic candidate by the AFL-CIOs in the 1984 and 1988 general elections. Many workers will tend to go where their concerns are carefully taken care of. Also, that is the reason they voted substantially for the Republican candidate.

Taft-Hartley Act (1947)

The Taft-Hartly act had many provisions. This act came on board to promote a full and efficient flow of commerce. The act was also to represent the rights of employers and employees within their relations affecting commerce. The act was also to provide a peaceful and organized platform to prevent violation of legitimate rights of the other. The act came upon to protect the rights of employees individually in their relations with labor organizations whose procedures and activities affect commerce. Another aim of the Taft-Hartley act was to defend the rights of the whole public in consideration of the labor disputes affecting commerce.

Though this Act had some provisions, it also had some negative aspects, which were detrimental to unions. This act had put across reforms that restricted unions that were already imposed on the employers. The act made it illegal to restrain employers who wished to have their rights of self-organization. Means of grievances such as sympathy strikes, secondary boycotts, and strikes that were mainly created to influence employees apart from those who were in a contract with the union were made illegal. These new laws were not comfortable with union leaders and supporters and hence wanted a revision of the laws on many occasions.

The Taft-Hartley Act gave the employer the first amendment right to free speech, which had been limited by the previous laws. This amendment allowed the employer to speak against unionization. The new act came up with a limitation of liability of employers on acts of managers. This meant that an employer could not be responsible for a supervisor who was harassing union members. On the other hand, then-President Bush gave a ruling on the ongoing dockworkers strike, in a form of exercising his legal rights, many anticipated that the ruling could be of significant impact on the American economy, but instead, it turned out to be of benefit to both the labors and the management.

Argument on legislation concerning replacement of strikers

Foremost it was believed that this law would take labor disputes away from the courts and allow the employees and their employers to settle their differences. This legislation was also channeled at giving employees power. This was to make sure workers enjoyed their fair share of national wealth as a means of curbing future depressions. Employers here are given the right to lock out their employees and change their terms and conditions of employment whenever negotiations become deadlocked. This provides an existence even after a labor dispute be over.

The legislature observed that the distribution of national income among the workers and the employers was the best method to deal with labor disputes resulting from employers to their employees. They aimed at putting all the parties level and by so doing effective bargaining is bound to take its course. This means that the labor governing body does not set the terms and conditions of the workers but instead, the collective bargain does. Despite the legislation favoring both parties, to some extent, it was disadvantageous to its employees as they were not able to hire employees after firing them from a strike. This made business operations hard for the management.

Bypassing into law this legislation means that the workers will have the power to start strikes, as they will not be replaced in the positions they had in the company. When employees know they have the authority to close down all operations in an organization, there would be a reduction in production from leading processing firms and service provider companies. And if labor unions had the powers to call for a strike, then the majority of the union members would vote for the strike knowing that they got support from their respective labor unions. This will be of threat to the firms, and there will be a significant decrease in the production of essential commodities and services.

Saving Medicare

There are some responsibilities Congress owes to the companies operating in the United States of America. For instance, if Medicare Company is declared bankrupt there are standard procedures that are expected to be done by Congress to save it and enable it to resume normal operations. One of the main things Congress has to do is to regulate the prices that Medicare has set on its services. Due to the high prices of the services offered by the institution, a majority of the clients tend to defect to other institutions that provide services at a relatively cheaper price. Congress will set policies that will govern the pricing and will apply to all institutions offering the same services as Medicare. By so doing the clients will be attracted back thus bringing income to the company.

Another aspect that affects Medicare and that Congress has to take care of is the inflation in the Medicare cost. Congress will need to find strategies to maintain the ever-increasing per capita income of providing healthcare in the United States of America. In general, the American economy is not for health care providers. The government in specific Congress has to come up with proper strategies that are to be implemented that will control the economy about the healthcare service providers. As a means of ensuring the operations of Medicare remain uninterrupted, the government has to review the taxes that are in direct relationship with the services offered by the Medicare giants. The review should be mainly done for Medicare to ensure there is a flow of income.

It is simply not possible for Congress to address all the issues that have proven to be of threat to the operation of Medicare. The company has too to take care of basic factors that will ensure they remain relevant in the health-providing sector. They have to come up with effective policies that will govern the conduct of their workers and how they offer services to their clients. This will ensure their relevance in the industry.

Reference

Berntein, D. (1960). The history of American workers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

David, B. (1980). Workers in industrial America. New York, oxford university press

Hertog foundation (2015). National affairs: saving Medicare from itself retrieved from,

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/saving-medicare-from-itselfNational labor relations (2013). 1947 Taft-Hartley Substantive Provisions. Retrieved from,

http://www.nlrb.gov/who-we-are/our-history/1947-taft-hartley-substantive-provisions