[1] After enactment of the Taft–Hartley Act in 1947, the number of union victories in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)-conducted elections declined.

But such conduct in the union movement is not as common as it was twenty years ago; and, in large measure, that can be credited to the existence of the Landrum–Griffin Act.

However, Griffin argued that the violations were contrary to the Act, placing the blame instead on the Department of Labor for failing to pursue action against the Teamsters for its corruption.

[10] As law professor Alan Hyde put it, "the courts advance democratic bargaining only when assured that such democracy will not disadvantage more fundamental policy interests, such as harmony between employers and 'unions' (read union elites) or control of inflation.

"[11] With regard to retiree pensions, among other secondary issues, the Act did nothing to close the loophole created by the National Labor Relations Act to allow such 'permissive' or 'not mandatory' items from being dealt with by a union employer unilaterally,[12] a right which was upheld by the Supreme Court as late as 1971 in Allied Chemical Workers Local 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.

[15] The National Federation of Independent Business sued and, on November 16, 2016, U.S. District Judge Samuel Ray Cummings issued a permanent nationwide injunction blocking the Persuader Rule, finding it was not authorized by the Act, and that it violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.