Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to examine the impact of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). It is expected that returns would have increased in response to the law’s passage, as it imposed a number of restrictions on unions vis-à-vis management and instituted many rules regulating unions’ internal affairs.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper uses event study methodology, which examines the impact of the law’s passage on the shareholder returns to the firms likely to have been affected by the law. Three different samples are used. Shareholder returns are examined on critical dates associated with the passage of the law to assess whether it benefited the firms in the samples.
Findings
Shareholder returns to firms expected to have been affected by the LMRDA fell in comparison to their competitors’ returns, indicating that the law was viewed by investors as being beneficial for firms. Presumably, the restrictions the law placed on unions were judged to be more important by investors than the improvement in unions’ image that might have resulted from the law, indicating that the law benefitted firms.
Originality/value
This is the first paper that has examined the impact of the LMRDA empirically to assess its impact on firms.
Reference27 articles.
1. Amending the taft-hartley act: a decade of frustration;Industrial and Labor Relations Review,1958
2. The labor management reporting and disclosure act of 1959;Harvard Law Review,1960
3. The labor management reporting and disclosure act of 1959;Harvard Law Review,1960
4. The impact of the taft-hartley act on the balance of power in industrial relations;American Business Law Journal,1996
5. Evaluating long-horizon event study methodology,2015