Flibbertigibbet

To answer your final question, Generally, not successfully since before the Federal Government enacted the National Labor Relations Act and associated legislation basically empowering unions to do all sorts of nasty things, and requiring management to go along. Unions were empowered to solicit for members, unionize workers if a majority vote was acquired, and force, with government might, employers to negotiate "in good faith" with the union. Basically that means that no employer was allowed to refuse the Union's terms on the grounds that he did not want a unionized work force. Like all civil anti-discrimination laws, the end result is that employers have to accept union terms nearly unconditionally. And the unions had the power to strike, legally granted by Federal law.

The situation improved with the Taft-Hartley amendments, passed some 11 years after the NLRA. The amendments outlawed "closed shops," (unionized workplaces where the union demanded that no non-union workers may be hired so long as the union contract is in place) and allowed the states to pass their own "right to work" laws, which undercut much of the unions' powers.

With a bit more research on RICO and on the anti-trust laws (blech), I might be able to tell you more, and perhaps find some cases where unions have been sued for the kinds of reasons you suggest.

-Q

Wow! Great info!

I had suspected as much. My labor relations segment in B school was really brief, so I'm not very surprised.

Thanks for the comment!