62.5k views
5 votes
which did the federal government not do in response to union led strikes? A. Seek injections B. Mediate disputes C. Bring in troops D. Act quickly

1 Answer

3 votes

Final answer:

The federal government did not typically act quickly in response to union-led strikes. While they have sought injunctions, mediated disputes, and sometimes employed troops, historical events such as the Anthracite Coal Strike and the Pullman Strike show that fast action wasn't a common approach.

Step-by-step explanation:

The federal government has historically taken various actions in response to union-led strikes, but one thing it did not typically do is act quickly. While the government has sought injunctions, attempted to -mediate disputes, and on some occasions, brought in troops, there is evidence that quick action was not always a hallmark of its response. For instance, during the Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902, President Roosevelt's intervention marked a departure from previous government inaction, suggesting that prior to this, the government may not have acted as swiftly in response to strikes.

Additionally, during significant union-led strikes such as the Pullman Strike, the government was seen using repressive legislation under the guise of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to secure a court order to end the strike, a process that also did not reflect quick action. The use of troops to intervene in strikes, such as in the Pullman Strike, indicates a willingness to employ force but not necessarily an indication of rapid response.

User Bemis
by
7.8k points