The boards of inquiry, which are charged with reporting the facts to the President before he seeks an injunction and again after sixty days, have sometimes engaged in useful mediation, but they can do no more. The injunction may forestall calamity by keeping the wheels of industry turning for an additional eighty days. It can take the leadership off the hook if management or union blunders into an unwanted strike, or if the rank and file compels union officials to sanction a strike against their better judgment. In the typical case, however, the injunction simply postpones the showdown by relieving both employer and employees of the necessity to bring about a settlement. For example, the steel companies would surely have felt more pressure to make concessions if they had not known that they could renew operations under an injunction.
Employees grow more obstinate when put back to work under a court decree.
All the disputes handled under the Taft-Hartley procedure, except two, have been settled either at the outset or after the injunction was lifted and the renewal of the strike brought about a negotiated settlement. It is sometimes said that the real pressure for a settlement under the Taft-Hartley Act comes from the balloting which the government conducts upon the employer's last offer of settlement. A vote to accept the offer puts irresistible pressure upon the union leaders, but the evidence available shows that the employees almost always support their leaders and vote to strike. The political strategy of the referendum distracts both sides, but especially the union leaders, from collective bargaining, just when negotiations are most important. The future, if not the existence, of the union is at stake.