Final answer:
A Supreme Court decision in 2018 reaffirmed states' ability to enact "right-to-work" laws based on the Taft-Hartley Act provisions, affecting the influence of labor unions.
Historically, cases like Lochner v. New York have protected individual contract liberties, while cases like United States v. E. C. Knight and United States v. Lopez have defined the limits of federal regulatory power.
Step-by-step explanation:
A Supreme Court decision in 2018 allowed individual states to declare union and agency shops illegal by passing "right-to-work" laws. These laws, which stem from provisions in the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, provide that no person can be compelled to join or not join a labor union as a condition of employment.
The passage of "right-to-work" laws can significantly impact the power and influence of labor unions within a state by limiting their ability to require union membership and collect dues from all employees in a given workplace.
Throughout history, there have been several landmark cases and legislation that shaped labor and work regulations, such as the Lochner v. New York decision, which protected the "liberty of contract," and the United States v. E. C. Knight case, reflecting early limits on federal regulatory power.
Over time, however, the balance of power between states and the federal government has shifted, with various Supreme Court decisions modifying how much authority Congress has to regulate commerce within states—for instance, the significant alteration in the interpretation of the commerce clause in United States v. Lopez.
The Taft-Hartley Act itself was a response to the Wagner Act that promoted labor rights and aimed to weaken union influence by curbing their activities and permitting states to enact "right-to-work" laws.
To date, many states have taken advantage of this provision to influence labor relations within their jurisdictions.