1. Why, do you think, did the courts so squarely ally themselves with the employer community and against organized labor from the days of the American Revolution until the Great Depression of the 1930s? 2. "The Norris-LaGuardia Act conferred no new rights on workers. It merely adjusted an inherently inequitable situation." Comment. 3. Comment on the truth of this statement: "There was great need for the Wagner Act. Its sole defect lay in the fact that it was not slightly broadened from time to time to regulate a few union practices of dubious social value." 4. It has been argued that whatever deficiencies may have accompanied the Taft-Hartley Act, it did "free workers from the tyrannical hold of union bosses." Do you agree? 5. Do you feel that the Wagner Act or the Taft-Hartley Act has been more influential in leading to the current status of organized labor in this country? 6. "In the last analysis, the public must judge the relative merits of the collective bargaining process." Discuss. 7. If all existing national labor legislation could instantly be erased and our statutory regulation could then be completely rewritten, what would you advocate as public policy governing labor relations-and why? 8. Whether or not you agree with the exact scope and specific wording of the present laws, do you consider these laws to be essentially equitable to both management and labor? 9. "If union members were to attend union meetings regularly and take an active role in the operation of the union, there would be no need for Landrum-Griffin." Defend your position, whatever it may be. 10. What do you believe to be the most important right that the Taft-Hartley Act offers (a) the employee, (b) the employer? In each case, defend your selection.