Final answer:
Agricultural laborers are in fact excluded from coverage under the Labor Management Relations Act, which is also known as the Taft-Hartley Act. Sharecroppers were tenant farmers who paid their rent with a portion of their crops, and this practice is accurately represented. The Lecompton Constitution controversy in the Kansas territory did not show Free Soilers' dominance but was pro-slavery, contrary to the Free Soil movement's anti-slavery stance. It is true that agricultural laborers are specifically excluded from coverage under the LMRA.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question regarding agricultural laborers and their coverage under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) seeks to clarify whether such workers are included within the scope of the Act or not. It is indeed true that agricultural laborers are specifically excluded from coverage under the LMRA. This exclusion is rooted in the historical context of labor laws in the United States, where certain categories of workers, such as agricultural and domestic workers, were often left out of federal labor protections. The LMRA, also known as the Taft-Hartley Act, has been a significant piece of labor legislation since its enactment in 1947 and continues to impact labor relations today.
Furthermore, it's important to address the several statements provided. The assertion that sharecroppers were tenant farmers who paid their rent with shares of their crops is true. Sharecropping was a system prevalent in the Southern United States after the Civil War, where laborers would farm the land and pay rent through a portion of their crop yield.
On the other hand, the statement about the proposed Lecompton Constitution showing the dominance of the Free Soilers in the Kansas territory is false. The Lecompton Constitution was actually a pro-slavery constitution which the Free Soilers opposed. The Free Soil movement supported the exclusion of slavery from new territories and states.
The example of the longshoremen's union work stoppage in 2015 illustrates the impact of the LMRA, as President Obama threatened its use to impose a cooling-off period. This showcases how the Act can be applied in modern labor disputes, thus emphasizing the continuing relevance of this legislation in labor relations.