[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 88 (Monday, July 11, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND RAILWAY LABOR ACT AMENDMENTS


                           Motion to Proceed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 55, which the clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 55, a bill to 
     amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor 
     Act to prevent discrimination based on participation in labor 
     disputes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Ohio 
[Mr. Metzenbaum].
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, today we begin debate on S. 55, the 
Workplace Fairness Act. This legislation would ban the hiring of 
permanent striker replacements, but ultimately it is about much more 
than that. It is about fairness to workers. It is about restoring a 
degree of balance to labor-management relations. And it is about 
preserving our collective bargaining system.
  The Workplace Fairness Act has the strong support of our President. 
It passed the House of Representatives last year by a substantial 
margin. A majority of the Senate supports it as well. I want to 
emphasize that point. A majority of the Members of this body are in 
favor of this legislation. Most importantly, according to a recent poll 
by Fingerhut/Powers, the American people support it by a margin of more 
than two-to-one.
  So why is not this bill about to become a law? Because the Republican 
leadership opposes this bill, and is blocking the Senate from even 
debating it.
  I have been in the Senate for 19 years, and while I strongly disagree 
with the Republican leadership's position, I must say that I am not 
surprised. In fact, the Republican Party has a long and rich tradition 
of turning its back on American workers.
  In the past two decades, the GOP has consistently served as the tool 
of America's corporate giants, ignoring the needs of America's working 
families. The Republican Party has fought the battle for the National 
Association of Manufacturers. It has stood shoulder to shoulder with 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It has fought for other big business 
groups. But when it comes to fighting for American workers, the 
Republican Party is nowhere to be found.
  In fact, when the chips are down, the Republican Party is 
consistently against fairness in the workplace. Just take the last 5 
years as an example. In 1989, the Republican Party fought against 
minimum wage legislation, turning its back on millions of low-wage 
workers struggling to make ends meet. In 1990, the Republican Party 
fought against civil rights legislation, turning its back on women, 
minorities, older workers, and the disabled who suffered harm from 
intentional discrimination or harassment on the job.
  In 1991, in the midst of a serious recession, the Republican Party 
fought against an extension of unemployment compensation benefits, 
turning its back on millions of working families hard hit by layoffs 
and plant closings. In 1992, the Republican Party fought against this 
very bill, after it had passed the House of Representatives, turning 
its back on thousands of workers who lost their jobs for exercising 
their Federal right to strike.
  In 1993, the Republican Party fought against the Family and Medical 
Leave Act, turning its back on workers who need time off to care for 
sick or dying family members. And this year, consistent with its 
previous actions, the Republican leadership has talked about 
filibustering health care reform, turning its back on 37 million 
Americans who have no health care at all, and on all working Americans 
who are fed up with spiralling health care costs.
  So it is no surprise that today, the Republican leadership, as a 
policy matter, is fighting against the Workplace Fairness Act. A 
majority of the American people and the Congress support this bill, but 
the Republican Party is blocking the Senate from even moving to the 
point of debating it. We are on a motion to proceed to be able to get 
to the point of debating the merits of the bill, but the Republican 
Party is filibustering the motion to proceed.
  The Republican Party has turned its back once again on working 
families in this country.
  Let me make it clear. Not every Republican Senator has opposed these 
measures, and I am grateful for the support some have given. In fact, 
some have had to rise above their own colleagues to stand up and vote 
for some of these measures that I previously mentioned, and there will 
be some in on the opposite side of the aisle who will vote to make it 
possible to proceed forward with this debate. But as a policy matter 
the Republican Party's position is against even moving forward to 
debate this legislation. But time after time after time, when the 
interests of American workers have been before this body, the 
Republican Party leadership has turned its back. It may be a ``no'' 
vote, it may be a filibuster, it may be a Presidential veto, but the 
result is the same: The Republican Party gives a leg up to big business 
and corporate greed, while American workers get the cold shoulder.
  The Workplace Fairness Act is not just about restoring the right to 
strike--it is about the very survival of the American labor movement. 
For decades, American workers have helped make this country a great and 
progressive nation. But the growing practice of hiring permanent 
striker replacements has stripped workers of the economic leverage they 
once had, and crippled the American labor movement.
  Today, we are at a critical juncture. I would say to my colleagues, 
you have two choices: You can restore the right to strike, or you can 
turn your backs on the working men and women of this great Nation. The 
American people are watching, and they want to know: Which side are you 
on?
  First, I would ask my colleagues, are you on the side of history? 
Since 1935, our Federal labor law has expressly protected the right to 
strike as an integral part of our collective bargaining system. For 
decades, workers were free to exercise this right without fear of 
losing their jobs. With this economic balance, workers were an equal 
partner in a fast-growing American economy.
  In the last decade, however, all that has changed. The General 
Accounting Office has reported that employers hire or threaten to hire 
permanent replacements in one out of every three strikes. This year, 
the Bureau of National Affairs reported that an incredible 82 percent 
of employers indicated that if struck, they would attempt to replace 
their work force to keep operating, or would consider doing so. More 
specifically, roughly one-third said they would definitely hire 
replacements, and half said they would consider doing so. Finally--and 
this is a critical point--of the employers who said they would hire 
replacements, or consider doing so, more than 1 in 4 said the 
replacements would be permanent.

  True, this deplorable practice was first suggested by the Supreme 
Court in 1938 in the Mackay Radio case. But for decades, employers 
virtually never hired permanent replacements. Instead, they valued 
their workers and counted on them to return after a strike.
  In the merger-crazed 1980's, however, this union-busting practice 
exploded. A new breed of employer emerged, one that does not hesitate 
to replace its union work force. These employers treat loyal workers--
many of whom have given 10, 20, 30, and in some cases, 40 years of 
their working lives to build a successful enterprise--as just another 
commodity to be used up and tossed aside.
  This issue is of critical importance to working Americans, but the 
Republican Party does not even think it deserves to be debated by the 
Senate--that is why the Republican leadership is filibustering this 
bill.
  If you are on the side of history, you must vote to restore the 
historical balance between labor and management that existed for 
decades before this despicable practice developed.
  Second, I would ask my colleagues, are you on the side of fairness? 
The very purpose of our Federal labor policy is to enable workers to 
join together to improve their wages and working conditions. As part of 
that policy, our Federal labor law expressly protects the right to 
strike. But what good is that right if you can lose your job for 
exercising it?
  In the last few years, tens of thousands of American workers have 
lost their jobs at companies like Eastern Air Lines, International 
Paper, Greyhound, Phelps Dodge, and dozens of other companies. Hundreds 
of thousands more have refrained from exercising their right to engage 
in collective action because of the threat of permanent replacement.
  There is no shortage of examples. At Diamond Walnut in California, 
workers earning between $5 and $10 an hour agreed to cut their own pay 
by up to 40 percent when the company was struggling. They were not 
making much. They were making between $5 and $10 an hour. They agreed 
to cut their own wages by up to 40 percent because the company was in 
tough times. But after their sacrifices turned the company around, the 
company demanded even more givebacks, leaving workers with no choice 
but to strike.

  I do not understand the attitude of a company like Diamond Walnut, a 
name that is very well known in this country; how they could ask their 
workers to give back part of their wages, accept the givebacks that 
they gave them in order to help the company survive, and then turn 
around and fire the workers when they had to go on strike in order to 
regain some of the losses that they had given up. Then the company 
hired permanent replacements. Hundreds of loyal workers have been left 
out in the cold for 3 years, losing their jobs for exercising what they 
thought was a protected right.
  Thanks, Diamond Walnut. You are sure a great employer. And anybody 
who buys Diamond walnuts knowing of these conditions has to have their 
head examined.
  Similarly, in Hope, AR, 300 low-wage workers at Champion Parts 
Rebuilders were permanently replaced after the company demanded 
sweeping cuts in health benefits. At first, the workers did not want to 
strike, so they offered to take substantial health insurance cuts. But 
the company absolutely refused to budge from its position, which would 
have left many workers unable to afford health coverage at all. The 
workers continued to negotiate for 5 months after the contract expired, 
but finally found themselves with no choice but to strike. The company 
hired permanent replacements several days later.
  For these and thousands of other hard-working Americans, the practice 
of hiring permanent striker replacements has had a devastating impact. 
It is absurd to force workers to choose between their right to strike 
and their livelihoods. But that is just what the Republican Party is 
doing today, by preventing the Senate from even debating this 
legislation, when a majority of the Senate and the House and the 
American people support it. If you are on the side of fairness, you 
must vote for the Workplace Fairness Act.
  And not permitting this Senate to move on to get to the substance of 
the legislation itself is an impropriety and certainly does not serve 
the Republican Party well, except as they serve the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.
  Third, I would ask my colleagues, are you on the side of collective 
bargaining? Since 1935, our national labor policy has favored the 
resolution of labor disputes through collective bargaining. As the 
Supreme Court has recognized, Congress specifically protected the right 
to strike as ``an economic weapon which in great measure implements and 
supports the principle of the collective bargaining system.'' Although 
the right to strike is exercised in less than 1 percent of all 
bargaining negotiations, it serves to bring the employer to the table.
  Without a meaningful right to strike, collective bargaining becomes 
little more than collective begging. As Secretary of Labor Robert Reich 
said in his testimony before Congress, ``management that has the option 
of simply eliminating the other side has little commitment to finding a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of differences.'' No matter what the 
opponents of the Workplace Fairness Act say, there is one very simple, 
indisputable fact: The hiring of permanent replacements triggers longer 
and more bitterly divisive struggles, and turns a limited dispute about 
wages and working conditions into a much broader, and much more 
destructive conflict about every worker's job. That is why the average 
strike lasts several times longer when the employer hires permanent 
replacements.

  Some employers have actually used the practice of hiring permanent 
striker replacements to attack the very concept of collective action. 
More specifically, these employers have precipitated strikes in order 
to replace striking workers, and decertify the union once and for all. 
For example, in a study covering strikes between 1983 and 1994, the 
steelworkers found that in two-thirds of the strikes involving 
permanent replacements, the union was decertified or the plant was 
closed, destroying the bargaining relationship altogether.
  In short, the hiring of permanent replacements creates an imbalance 
of power that jeopardizes the continued effectiveness of the American 
labor movement. Without an effective labor movement, our collective 
bargaining system cannot work. That does not seem to trouble the 
Republican leadership, which has fought this legislation at every turn. 
If you are on the side of collective bargaining, you must give back to 
workers the economic leverage to make collective bargaining work.
  Fourth, I would ask my colleagues, are you on the side of 
competitiveness? In the coming years, we must meet the tremendous 
challenges of the new global economy. But we cannot hope to compete in 
world markets if those who labor cannot work with those who manage.
  Hiring permanent replacements sends an unmistakable message that 
workers are disposable, reducing employee morale and lowering 
productivity. The practice can tear a community part, as was the case 
in Jay, ME, several years ago when International Paper disposed of 
second and third generation workers like so many paper cups.

  It is no wonder that our principal competitors--including Germany, 
Canada, France, and Japan--have long recognized that using permanent 
replacements is unwise, as a matter of both public policy and good 
business. A majority of the Senate recognizes this too--but because of 
the Republican leadership filibuster, we may never get to vote on this 
issue. If you are on the side of competitiveness, you must ensure that 
workers and managers can face these global challenges as partners, 
rather than adversaries.
  Let me take a moment to tell you what the Workplace Fairness Act 
does, and what it does not do. The act prohibits the hiring of 
permanent striker replacements, or other discrimination against workers 
engaged in a lawful economic strike.
  Does it preclude employers from operating during a strike? Absolutely 
not. Employers would be free to operate during strikes, using temporary 
replacements or managerial personnel, or subcontracting or transferring 
work, as they have done successfully for 59 years under the National 
Labor Relations Act.
  Does it beckon workers to strike? Of course not. Those who say S. 55 
will trigger many more strikes do not have a clue about what a strike 
means for workers. The right to strike is labor's most effective 
weapon, but workers are loathe to exercise it. Striking means foregoing 
wages, walking the picket line, and exhausting the family's life 
savings. It is a decision of last resort, and not one taken lightly. 
That is why S. 55 would not trigger a flood of strikes.
  Fifth, I would ask my colleagues, are you on the side of democracy? 
Our democracy is premised on the principle of majority rule. As I have 
said, a substantial majority of the House has already passed this bill, 
and a majority of this body supports it as well. Two years ago, the 
Members of this body never got a chance to vote on it, because of a 
Republican-led filibuster. This year, we face the same tactics of 
obstruction.

  If the last election taught us anything, it is that Americans are 
tired of gridlock. American workers deserve a vote on this bill. If it 
passes, the President will sign it. If it does not pass, so be it. But 
let the Senate decide, based on the democratic principle of majority 
rule. So if you are on the side of democracy, you must vote for 
cloture, and allow this measure to stand or fall on its merits.
  Finally, I would ask my colleagues this fundamental question: Are you 
on the side of the American labor movement? That is ultimately what is 
at stake here. The labor movement was built on some of this country's 
highest ideals--fairness, social justice, and the right to earn a 
decent living. And the labor movement has won many battles over the 
years--for fair wages, safe workplaces, basic benefits and a secure 
retirement--not just for their members, but for all working Americans.
  But the future of our labor movement depends on restoring the right 
to strike as an effective economic weapon. In turn, a healthy labor 
movement will restore balance to labor-management relations, facilitate 
greater labor peace, and contribute much toward ensuring U.S. 
competitiveness in world markets.
  That is why the American people support this bill, by more than 2 to 
1 according to the most recent poll. That is why the House of 
Representatives passed it. That is why a majority of the Senate and the 
President of the United States support it. But today, the Republican 
leadership is blocking the Senate from even debating the bill. Once 
again, the Republican Party has turned its back on America's working 
families, siding instead with big business and corporate greed.
  For America's hard-working men and women, whose hours are growing 
longer and whose paycheck is growing smaller, this is an issue of basic 
fairness. This week, they are asking each one of us, ``which side are 
you on?''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to S. 55, 
which, as the Senator from Ohio has said, is legislation which will 
prohibit the hiring of permanent replacements during an economic 
strike. The implications of this, as the Senator from Ohio pointed out, 
go beyond just the stark words of this legislation.
  Two years have passed since the Senate last considered this bill. If 
anything, the passage of time has only confirmed that this measure is 
ill-considered and ill-founded. Frankly, I do not believe that there 
are any changes that could possibly be made to salvage this bill. No 
matter how you dress it up, S. 55 will turn 50 years of labor law on 
its head, creating new incentives for longer strikes that will wreak 
havoc on our economy.
  More strikes, more disruptions in the workplace, and more antagonism 
between labor and management will only add to the uncertainty about our 
economic future, at a time when workers are seeking more stability and 
greater job security.
  This bill is not about turning our backs on the American worker. This 
bill is about trying to assure that there will be a greater sense of 
stability and security in the workplace.
  This bill does not destroy the right to strike. The right to strike 
is certainly retained. But that is one side of the coin. Just as an 
employer's right to hire permanent replacement workers has, for 50 
years, been the other side of the coin. Now some are trying to say, 
``No, that is not fair. It should be just one way, not two sides of the 
coin.''
  Our current Federal law already establishes an appropriate balance 
between the interests of labor and management. On the one hand, the law 
guarantees labor the right to strike--and that is as it should be. But 
the law balances this right against an employer's right to operate his 
or her business. On rare occasions, this may require hiring permanent 
replacements. This balance provides a key element to stable labor 
relations--an incentive towards settling labor disputes. Mr. President, 
we all wish to see the settling of disputes and cooperation between 
labor and management.
  Companies have invested large amounts of time and energy into 
developing the skills of their work force. Their institutional memory, 
their knowledge, skills and abilities, are not something that can be 
easily replaced.
  Businesses will not replace their work force knowing that they will 
have to retrain replacements at great cost, unless there is no 
alternative. The decision to strike and the decision to hire permanent 
replacements both carry great risk.
  These choices, although painful, are precisely the incentives that 
lead both labor and management to settle, without disruption, the 
overwhelming number of contract negotiations. The competing rights of 
the parties, and the hardships that they impose, are what compel 
management and labor--far more often than not--to resolve their 
differences at the bargaining table.
  By contrast, S. 55 will overturn a half-century of established 
Federal labor law. The bill would upset the delicate balance that has 
worked so well. It would, for the first time, create the unqualified 
right for labor to walk off the job, for any reason, without advanced 
notice, no matter how unreasonable the demands.
  Current law draws a distinction between workers who strike because 
their employers are violating the law, and workers who strike because 
they are dissatisfied with their wages and benefits. Workers who strike 
because their employer commits an unfair labor practice cannot be 
replaced. However, if a union strikes over demands for higher wages or 
greater benefits, an employer may have to resort, ultimately, to 
permanent replacements in order to keep the business open and in 
operation.
  S. 55 would eliminate this critical distinction in the law. Under 
this bill, workers may strike for any reason with complete impunity, 
even if their demands for wages and benefits are completely 
unreasonable. Simple common sense tells us that this will lead, I would 
argue, to more strikes.
  The Senator from Ohio said that anyone who makes that statement does 
not know what this is all about. But I suggest that S. 55 would create 
a great sense of uncertainty and antagonism at the very time that we 
most need to restore a sense of security in our workplace. The ability 
to strike for wages and benefits without risk or adverse consequences 
is bound to encourage--not discourage--the use of strikes, with 
devastating effect on our economy.
  In fact, this conclusion is borne out by the evidence of what has 
occurred in Canada, where several provinces have banned replacements. 
According to one comprehensive study, a prohibition of replacement 
workers in Quebec significantly increased both the incidence and 
duration of strikes.
  The fact is, that over the past 25 years, under our current system we 
have witnessed a dramatic decrease in the number of strikes. In 1974 
there were 424 major strikes. By 1984, that number had declined to 62. 
And in 1993, there were just 35 major strikes, an all-time low.
  The current system, I believe, works well. It could work even better 
if, indeed, labor and management recognized the importance of 
cooperation in resolving their differences instead of ever greater 
antagonism.
  In fact, the Dunlop Commission, appointed by President Clinton to 
study worker-management relations, recently concluded that:

       In most workplaces with collective bargaining, the system 
     of labor/management negotiations works well. Conflict is 
     relatively low, and unions and firms have developed diverse 
     forms of new cooperative arrangements.  * * * The relations 
     among workers, their unions, and management in these 
     workplaces are well regarded by these parties.

  Even the Secretary of Labor has recognized that ``The vast majority 
of collective bargaining contracts are settled without strikes * * * 
.''
  I suggest, if the system is not broken, why are we trying to fix it?
  The Senator from Ohio has said we will not have time to debate this 
issue. We have today, tomorrow, the next day--and potentially the next 
day after that--during which we will be debating this issue. I hope 
that during the course of this debate arguments both pro and con will 
be made which will help the American people to understand what is at 
stake.
  Hiring permanent replacements is hardly a standard practice. A recent 
General Accounting Office report found that only 3 percent of striking 
workers were permanently replaced in 1989. We should not ban this 
seldom-used practice when the consequences will be devastating to the 
vast majority of our Nation's workers.
  Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Ohio on the issue of 
Diamond Walnut, I would like to go through a bit of the history at 
Diamond Walnut.
  Another relatively recent strike that highlights the dangers, I 
suggest, of S. 55 becoming law, is the one that happened at Diamond 
Walnut. The Teamsters struck Diamond Walnut, a California agricultural 
cooperative, on September 4, 1991, at the beginning of the annual 
walnut harvest. All the crop must be harvested immediately to avoid 
spoilage. Diamond Walnut is a cooperative, owned by more than 2,000 
growers who own, on the average, 36 acres of walnut orchards. We are 
talking about family farms, not some huge, enormous agribusiness.
  The union timed this strike to place maximum pressure on Diamond 
Walnut. The only way to avoid the devastating losses of an entire 
year's crop was to hire permanent replacements.
  The labor relations history is important. Diamond Walnut found itself 
in an uncompetitive labor cost situation in 1985 and negotiated wage 
rate reductions, as was mentioned by the Senator from Ohio.
  Nevertheless, Diamond Walnut remained an industry leader in employee 
compensation. So while they reduced their compensation, they were still 
paying more than their competition. In 1991, negotiations centered on 
health care employee copayments, with Diamond Walnut suggesting that 
workers pay about 9 percent of that burden. The company also wanted to 
implement a profit-sharing plan as part of the compensation package.
  Mr. President, I think it might be helpful to look at the wage and 
benefit package that was offered by Diamond Walnut and that the 
Teamsters rejected in 1991, because it was a very generous package.
  According to Diamond Walnut management, a ``general laborer'' at 
Diamond Walnut earned about $6 per hour and would have received a 10-
cent-per-hour raise. Competitors, mostly nonunion we would assume, paid 
$4.99 per hour. The union demanded $7 per hour. So Diamond Walnut was 
paying $1 per hour more than its competitors, and the union wanted the 
company to pay $2 an hour more than its competitors.
  The situation was equally troubling for ``machine operators.'' 
Diamond Walnut paid $10 per hour; the union demanded $11 per hour. 
Diamond Walnut competitors were paying $6.30 per hour. After the 
strike, the company implemented their final offer, which was $10.10 an 
hour.
  Diamond Walnut paid highly competitive wages, but that was not good 
enough for the union business representative. So they ordered a strike.

  Mr. President, health care was an important issue in the Diamond 
Walnut strike. Health care costs had increased from 74 cents per hour 
to $2.21 per hour from 1988 to 1990. Something had to be done.
  Diamond Walnut asked their employees to pay about 9 percent of their 
monthly health care costs, which was $12 per month for individuals and 
$33 per month for families, with no deductible. Before the strike, the 
union plan had $100 per individual and $300 per family yearly 
deductibles.
  I ask my colleagues to note that this proposed health care copayment 
was well below the 20 percent copayment that the Clinton health care 
plan envisions.
  Diamond Walnut also proposed several improvements to the health care 
plan, including the addition of an annual physical for $20; eye exams 
for $10; out-of-pocket limit reduced from $2,100 to $1,000 for 
individuals; $6 for generic prescription drugs; and a modification of 
the maximum benefit from $1 million to unlimited amounts.
  The union chose to walk away from this offer. That was their choice. 
But should we say to the small farmers who belonged to the Diamond 
Walnut cooperative and to the thousands of workers who will lose their 
jobs if this legislation passes, that the union can shut you down even 
when you are paying well above the market rate of compensation? That 
was really the issue here.
  Mr. President, the Caterpillar Co. and Diamond Walnut strikes are 
both excellent examples of how out of touch union leaders can be with 
the best interests of their membership. Both Caterpillar and Diamond 
Walnut offered generous contract proposals, but the union leadership 
thought the union should hold out for more.
  I suggest in both these instances that the workers probably were ill-
served by their union leaders. Nevertheless, our Federal law should not 
bail out these leaders for their mistakes, because the system worked 
just as it should have in each of these strikes.
  That is not to say that there are not two sides to every labor 
dispute. Management does not always recognize the value of their 
employees. There have been times in the past when that was certainly 
true. But I believe we must also recognize that union leadership has 
not always acted in their members' best interest.
  Our economy is just now recovering from a recession. We have seen a 
long-term restructuring of our economy. Americans are anxious about 
their jobs. They are concerned about having a job to go to in the week 
ahead, let alone the next year. They are not interested in legislation 
that promotes strikes and costs jobs. They want legislation that 
promotes real job growth.
  Over the past several months, we have heard a great deal about the 
jobless recovery. Even as our economy expands, our blue chip companies 
continue to downsize their work forces. President Clinton has stated 
that his top priority at the G-7 summit in Naples will be to create 
jobs. Regrettably, S. 55 will not help us meet that goal.
  S. 55 will adversely affect our Nation's competitiveness. Companies 
must respond to the needs of the marketplace. Yet, S. 55 will force 
U.S. companies to engage in global competition with one arm tied behind 
their backs.
  I know that unions have had a tough time over the past two decades, 
but the fact is our whole economy has been in transition. Employers and 
workers have all had a difficult time. My concern is that striker 
replacement legislation will force companies to adopt uncompetitive 
labor contracts, and this will lead to further layoffs and further 
downsizing.
  A Kansas City Star editorial called the striker replacement bill ``an 
ill-considered time bomb'' that, if passed, would be ``one of the most 
irresponsible acts of the modern Congress.'' I would like to quote at 
length from that editorial because I think it states the case so well:

       The long-term damage a striker replacement law would do to 
     this country's competitiveness is beyond calculation * * * If 
     organized labor is given the leverage to push up wages faster 
     than productivity, it will surely use that leverage. If 
     companies can never replace employees who refuse to work, 
     unions will steadily undermine the very trends that are 
     erasing America's labor disadvantage relative to 
     developing countries.
       Organized labor cannot have it both ways. It is 
     inconsistent to complain that jobs are moving off-shore and 
     then lobby for measures that will, over time, undermine the 
     course that makes American workers more productive. If a 
     striker replacement ban becomes law, it will increase the 
     incentive of employers to move work to overseas labor markets 
     that are more flexible--and less hostile.

  Mr. President, rather than encouraging more strikes, more 
divisiveness, and more antagonism between labor and management, we 
should be seeking ways to encourage greater cooperation. I can think of 
nothing more beneficial.
  But if S. 55 becomes law, it will turn the clock back to an era in 
which everyone loses, not only the workers but the economy as well.
  I oppose S. 55 and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the cloture 
motion, which I suggest is not just a procedural vote in this instance 
but a vote on the merits of the bill itself. And during the course of 
these days of debate, I hope that not only my colleagues here on the 
Senate floor, but all those who are listening, will listen carefully. 
The consequences of our action on this particular bill will go far in 
determining what kind of work force and what type of security and 
stability we will have in our labor market in future years. I feel 
strongly, Mr. President, that S. 55 will work to the detriment of the 
future of our labor force.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum is noted. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I listened with interest to my 
colleague from Kansas talk about how much better it would be if we do 
not change the law and how this is so necessary to permit permanent 
replacements in order to protect employers of this country and the 
economy of this country.
  I previously pointed out that our major industrial competitors in the 
world already protect strikers and do not permit the bringing in of 
permanent replacements. But the fact is--and I think we ought to be 
realistic about this--we live by the laws of this country going all the 
way back to the Mackay Radio decision, which was a decision in the 
thirties that made it possible for employers to bring in permanent 
striker replacements. But employers did not do that. They had an ethic 
about them. They were decent employers. Then some of the leveraged 
buyout artists and the fast-buck boys came in and started buying up 
companies. And as soon as they came in, they started terminating worker 
pension rights, taking the excess pension funds, and then deciding they 
were going to cut back on wages so that they could make up for the 
debts they had in buying up the companies.

  Now, why did they do that? What happened for the 50 years when 
permanent striker replacements were permissible but were not used? I 
will tell you what happened. There was a wonderful President, a 
President who was really concerned about workers, who came into office. 
That President was supported in his election effort by two unions. One 
was the Teamsters Union and the other was PATCO, the Professional Air 
Traffic Controllers.
  Now, between the time he was elected and shortly after he took office 
or thereabouts--and I do not remember the specific times--those PATCO 
employees went out on strike. It was an illegal strike. They did not 
have the right to do so. But that wonderful defender of the American 
worker, President Ronald Reagan, what did he do to this union that 
supported him? Bang, he fired them all. And suddenly the employers of 
this country said, well, if the President can do that, so can we.
  And so a practice that had not been used for the past 50 years, 
although it was legal to do so, suddenly became the rule of thumb, and 
today more and more employers are using this procedure of bringing in 
striker replacements. It is an unfair, inhumane procedure. It is a 
procedure that says we do not care how many years you have worked for 
us. We do not care how hard you fought to make our machines operative. 
We do not care how cooperative you have been in the last 10, 20, or 30 
years. We are going to fire you if you go on strike.
  I remember conducting a hearing up in New York at the New York Daily 
News. Those employees did not even go on strike. I remember testimony 
before our committee which said: ``I wasn't on strike. I walked outside 
to take a smoke and I couldn't get back into the plant because the 
company said I was on strike. But I wasn't on strike.''
  The companies have used this whole concept of permanent striker 
replacements to break unions. My distinguished colleague from Kansas 
quotes an editorial from the Kansas City Star. I would like her to 
point out to me once--not twice, once--in the history of this Nation 
that the Kansas City Star was ever on the side of working people. The 
Kansas City Star is a retrogressive newspaper that has been 
consistently Republican, consistently antiworker, consistently 
antiunion. And the fact that they write an editorial saying that this 
is the right thing to do does not make it so. I think the paper ought 
to come forward and start to get common with this century. It has not 
been in this century for many years. And with all due respect to the 
fact that it is the leading paper in the Senator's State, I have to say 
to her that quoting that paper and making it right to use striker 
replacements is very irritating to this Senator, as is quite obvious at 
this point.
  Let me make it clear. When we talk about Diamond Walnut, Diamond 
Walnut, that great employer that was so concerned about bringing in 
permanent replacements, they really talk out of both sides of their 
mouth. When they took the permanent replacements on, they made each of 
them sign a statement that says the following:

       I understand that the company has the same right to 
     terminate my employment at any time and for any reason and 
     without any notice.

  What a wonderful employer Diamond Walnut is. They bring in permanent 
replacements and then say to them, ``Oh, but you are not permanent. We 
can fire you at a moment's notice.''
  Now, I would guess that the Republicans will win on this issue 
because there are enough of them to keep this matter from moving 
forward toward the vote. But the reality is that a majority of the 
Members of the Senate do not believe that bringing in permanent striker 
replacements is the right thing to do.
  It is only by reason of the rules of the Senate that make it possible 
to filibuster and require 60 votes in order to cut off that filibuster 
that Republicans are saying they will not even permit us to get into 
the substance of the legislation. What we are on now is a motion to 
proceed, and a motion to move forward with respect to the whole issue 
rather than to debate the issue itself of striker replacement. The 
legislation is not yet before the body.
  So I say to my colleague from Kansas, for whom I have tremendous 
respect, this is an embarrassing situation for the Republicans. It is 
an embarrassing situation to say that we are consistently against 
American working people, we consistently carry the hod for the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and so 
many other right-wing groups. It is time in this Senator's opinion for 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to catch up with the 
present and realize that there is a desire in this country by the 
people in this country to move forward; that harmonious labor relations 
make good business, make for a strike-free enterprise system.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone].
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I would just echo the sentiments of the distinguished 
Senator from Ohio. I hope that we will in fact get a chance to have a 
discussion and a debate in the U.S. Senate about this piece of 
legislation, S. 55, which I think is one of the most important 
workplace fairness pieces of legislation ever to be introduced in the 
Senate. I commend Senator Metzenbaum for his leadership, most 
importantly because the bill is designed to combat an unfair labor 
practice which strikes at the very heart of the collective bargaining 
process: the permanent replacement of striking workers.
  Mr. President, during the hearings that we had in the labor 
subcommittee of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, many men and 
women came in and talked in very personal terms about what this 
legislation meant to them. I have seen some of this out in Minnesota as 
well. It is really quite heartbreaking when you think about what our 
country is about, which I think is fair wages and decent working 
conditions, and making sure that working people get a fair shake, to 
see people who go out on strike be permanently replaced, to see people 
afraid to go out on strike because they know they will be permanently 
replaced, to see an erosion of any kind of fair balance of power 
between management and labor. Too often, working people do not feel 
like they are in a position to really negotiate because they are put in 
the impossible position of being forced to go out on strike and then 
being permanently replaced.
  What has happened is that the right to strike has become the right to 
be fired in the United States. This piece of legislation which is now 
being filibustered on the floor of the U.S. Senate is an attempt to 
restore some fairness and balance to labor-management relations.
  During the 1980's, as a January 1991 General Accounting Office study 
and other studies have observed, the use of permanent replacement has 
increased dramatically. Private sector employers emboldened--as Senator 
Metzenbaum said--by what happened with PATCO in the early 1980's have 
used the permanent replacement of striking workers as a way of 
abrogating collective bargaining agreements and bringing in new hires 
often screened for their antiunion biases.
  Mr. President, the process is fairly simple: require major and 
unreasonable concessions of a union. Force them to strike, then 
permanently replace them with workers unsympathetic to the union, and 
then move to decertify the union.
  We should call this what it is, Mr. President: ``Outright union 
busting.'' That is what has been going on in our country. Twenty years 
ago, Mr. President, this approach was used by just a few renegade 
American employers. But as Senator Metzenbaum has already said on the 
floor of the Senate today, given all the mergers and acquisitions, the 
leveraged buyouts and the rise of a new breed of employer, not locally 
owned businesses but firms who make business decisions halfway across 
the country or halfway across the world, too often communities no 
longer matter, workers are expendable, and collective bargaining 
agreements are essentially being torn up.
  Mr. President, there are an estimated 14,000 workers covered by the 
NLRA that are replaced each year by American employers, and thousands 
more under the Railway Labor Act.

  The GAO report indicates that from 1985 to 1991, employers hired 
permanent replacements in 1 out of every 6 strikes, and threatened to 
hire replacements in 1 out of every 3. But ultimately, this is not a 
quibble about the numbers. The essential point is this: all workers 
engaged in legal economic strikes must be protected from permanent 
replacement.
  Mr. President, during this debate we are going to hear from some 
urging us not to meddle with ``the delicate balance of labor-management 
relations established over 50 years.'' But I think we should be frank. 
This is an attempt to restore some balance. From my own point of view, 
I think that it is extremely important that we have high levels of 
productivity. I think it is extremely important that employers and 
employees are partners. I think it is extremely important that there be 
high morale. But that cannot be the case when all too often some 
employers--I think the good employers do not have any problem with this 
at all--force people out of work and them permanently replace them.
  Mr. President, the debate boils down to this: We must restore two 
principles which have undergirded the collective bargaining process 
established by the Railway Labor Act, and the National Labor Relations 
Act, in the 1930's.
  The two principles: one, employees have a right to pursue their 
interests collectively without fear of employer reprisal; and, two, the 
representation questions must be separated from the substantive issues 
in disputes, and a Government-supervised procedure should be 
established to ensure fair representation. Remaining substantive 
disputes are to be resolved through the collective bargaining process. 
But this system can work only if the right to strike, in the words of 
the National Labor Relations Act, is not ``interfered with or impeded 
or diminished in any way.'' Sadly, this is no longer the case. It is no 
longer the case in the face of all attempts today on the floor of the 
Senate to focus attention away from the central issue that is before us 
today: The right to organize and bargain collectively. That is what is 
at issue here.
  It is no longer the case in the face of efforts today to point to 
this legislation as special interest legislation. It is no longer the 
case in the face today of attempts to present this bill as a ``solution 
in search of a problem.''
  Mr. President, I have seen people in Minnesota recently going out on 
strike. They did not want to. They felt they had no other choice. Then 
they were permanently replaced. It is all over for them and their 
families.
  When you see all the people who can no longer bargain, can no longer 
bargain collectively, and have no way of getting decent wages and 
decent working conditions, this is hardly a solution in search of a 
problem. This problem is all too real in the face of an alarming 
increase in hard hitting antiunion activity among some employers and 
their hired consultants.
  It is helpful to remember these two principles. Workers have a right 
to organize without being retaliated against for exercising that right, 
and they have a right to negotiate decent wages, decent benefits, and 
decent health and safety conditions through collective bargaining. 
Those are the rights that have been so severely undercut by what has 
been going on in this country for more than the last decade.
  Mr. President, let me just go through for a moment the legislative 
history of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act which, in the 
words of its author, Senator Wagner, are described as ``an omnibus 
guaranty of freedom for American workers.'' The purpose of this act is 
clearly stated and quite unequivocal.

       Employers shall have the right to self-organization, to 
     join, form, or assist labor organizations, to bargain 
     collectively through representatives of their own choosing, 
     and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose 
     of collective bargaining or other forms of mutual aid or 
     protection.

  It sounds simple and straightforward, and it is. Again, in section 8 
of the act we see that it provides explicit assurances that workers who 
engage in the concerted union activities protected by section 7 will 
not be subject to employer reprisals. It says:

       It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer * * * 
     to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the 
     exercise of their rights guaranteed in section 7.
  Even more specifically, it prohibits employers ``by discrimination in 
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of 
employment, to encourage or discourage membership in any labor 
organization * * *.''

  It goes on, and section 2 states that employees do not lose their 
status when their ``work has ceased as a consequence of, or in 
connection with, any current labor dispute.''
  Given these protections, Mr. President, the notion that permanent 
replacement is somehow practically different from being fired is not 
only untenable, but it is ludicrous. We say on the one hand that a 
company cannot fire people for going out on strike, but, on the other 
hand, a company can permanently replace them. It ignores the central, 
practical reality of such labor-management disputes. In either case, 
whatever you call it, the employee loses his or her job because he or 
she has exercised the right to strike.
  Mr. President, this piece of legislation--I will give a short history 
of this, because I see my colleagues, Senator Simon and Senator Cohen, 
on the floor here. This legislation simply overturns the judicially-
created ``permanent strike replacement doctrine'' first stated in Labor 
Board versus Mackay Radio in 1938 and amplified in other cases in the 
1980's. This decision said that a company cannot fire those workers who 
had gone out on strike, but a company can permanently replace them. It 
is absurd logic. It has resulted in some truly bizarre and, I think, 
very tragic results.
  Mr. President, to those who argue that this is a solution in search 
of a problem, to those who argue that this bill is unnecessary, to 
those who are unwilling to even let us proceed and have a debate for 
several days or weeks or whatever it takes to pass this piece of 
legislation, for those who say that we should not pass this piece of 
legislation because we do not need to do anything to restore some kind 
of balance and fairness in labor-management relations, let me invite 
them to smaller cities and towns in Minnesota where I went to talk to 
working people who have been permanently replaced by their employers. 
Let me invite them out to CF Industries in Pine Bend, MN, where many 
workers have been permanently replaced, again, for exercising their 
legal right to strike.
  I say to my colleague from Illinois, I went out to CF Industries 
several weeks ago knowing that we were going to have this debate. I had 
to pinch myself to remind myself that this is 1994. I felt like it was 
in the 1930's and we had turned the clock back. These were a group of 
people together on a Sunday morning, it was raining, and they were out 
there with their spouses and children. Without going into a long 
history of this strike, they were essentially given no other choice but 
to go out on strike. They were permanently replaced the day they went 
out on strike. These were people who had done extremely well in terms 
of productivity. The fertilizer company had done extremely well in 
terms of its profits. These were people who worked for the company for 
a long period of time. These were people who wanted nothing more than 
to work and to make a decent wage to support their families.
  As the rain came down and I looked at the fences and at the security 
guards and was wondering, is this the United States of America in 1994? 
I asked them: ``Why did you go out on strike?'' They said that it just 
came to the point where it was a matter of dignity, just in terms of 
the way they were treated by a company for whom they had worked for 
years--although a different management was brought in. They said, ``We 
simply could not work under those conditions. We are men and women of 
dignity, worth, and substance. We could not work under those 
conditions. We had to take on what we felt were very unfair 
conditions.'' When they spoke up and when they tried to negotiate and 
tried to reach a settlement, the company said no, no. They believed 
that CF Industries wanted them to go out on strike because, given the 
current law, they could permanently replace them. That is precisely 
what they did. That is what this debate today is all about.
  So to the workers of Hormel Meat Packing in Austin, to the employees 
at Quality Tool, to the employees at Union Brass and Metal 
Manufacturing in Saint Paul, to the employees at Jennings Red Coach 
Restaurant--these are all people who were permanently replaced--Midwest 
Motor Freight in Roseville, or Fargo/Moorhead, to the ``Hibbing 
Seven,'' seven women who were permanently replaced for years and 
finally won their jobs back in Hibbing, MN, to all of those men and 
women in my State, much less other strikers that we hear about--New 
York Daily News, Pittston Coal, Eastern Airlines, Greyhound, Ravenswood 
Aluminum--let me simply say that I think it is really an injustice that 
we cannot proceed and go on with a full debate, whenever the final vote 
is, if we do not get the 60 votes.
  I think it will be a real injustice if this piece of legislation gets 
filibustered. I think it will be a real injustice to ``regular'' 
people, which I do not use in a pejorative sense--whether they are in 
unions or whether they are not in unions, by the way--because I feel, 
for working people, there ought to be a way that they have decent 
representation. There ought to be fairness for them. I think this would 
not only be important for working people in this country, moderate and 
middle income, whether in unions or not; I frankly think it is the key 
as to how we compete in the international economic market.
  I mean that sincerely, because when we look at our competitors, I 
kind of lose patience with people who say that if we pass S. 55, we 
will not be able to compete. Look at the other advanced economies in 
the world: Japan, Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, 
Sweden, Canada; all of those countries do not permit the permanent 
replacement of workers. I think one of the things they have done well 
is they built up a partnership. I thought we were talking about 
employees becoming more involved in the decisionmaking, not being shut 
out completely.
  I thought we were talking about people who build a partnership where 
there is a real stake, a real sense of ownership of the company. I 
thought we were talking about how we build higher levels of morale. I 
thought we were talking about how to have a skilled work force that 
believes in the companies, and the companies that believe in that work 
force.
  I am telling you, Mr. President, this is not just an issue of justice 
to working people; this is an issue of how we as a country compete in 
the international arena. We are an advanced economy. We do not compete 
by depressing wages. We do not compete by unsafe working conditions. We 
do not compete with an unhealthy work force. We do not compete with low 
morale. We do not compete when we have some companies--thank goodness 
not all--that make the workers expendable, force them out on strike and 
permanently replace them.
  We compete when we have the framework set up through this kind of 
legislation that brings employees and employers together, brings 
workers and management together, and restores fairness in the 
workplace.
  I think that is what this legislation is about. There is not a piece 
of legislation I feel more strongly about. I have seen what this means 
in human terms in my State. I do not want to continue to see people 
driven out, squeezed out, permanently replaced. I do not want that to 
be part of what our country is about.
  I hope my colleagues will not filibuster this. We have a majority of 
the Senate supporting this bill on the floor. We have majority support 
in the country. I hope we can go forward with this piece of 
legislation. I urge my colleagues strongly to vote ``aye'' on the 
motion to proceed to the Workplace Fairness Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daschle). The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I have listened to the arguments of my 
colleagues on the other side. I must say the way in which the debate 
has been characterized is if you are for fairness for working people 
then you will vote for S. 55; if you are for unfairness for working 
people, you will oppose it; if you favor helping working people, you 
will vote for S. 55; if you are opposed to helping working people, then 
you will vote against it.
  I must say I find this characterization not only simplistic but 
fundamentally wrong.
  Over the years, I have supported and worked to help the working 
people of my State.
  I supported the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 
for example, which requires employers to provide advance notice to 
workers who will be laid off, as well as passage of the Job Training 
Partnership Act, which provides training to those who have been laid 
off. I also supported extending emergency unemployment compensation 
benefits to the long-term unemployed and an increase in the minimum 
wage.
  Creating new jobs and maintaining existing ones are two of the most 
important tasks facing Maine's citizens and elected officials. To this 
end, I have worked vigorously to keep the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 
open and to bring its facilities up to date. This modernization, in 
which I played a large part, was a major factor in the Pentagon's 
decision to keep the yard open and thus preserve thousands of many 
Maine jobs.
  In addition, I helped bring two new Federal programs--the Jobs Corps 
and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service [DFAS] to the area 
around Loring Air Force Base. Together they should create 850 to 900 
new jobs, and the Job Corps is expected to spend an additional $4 to $6 
million on local services.
  Like labor, I also am concerned about the future of the Nation's 
maritime industry, which is in a serious state of decline that 
threatens our national security. To combat this trend, I have 
consistently opposed efforts to weaken cargo preference requirements, 
long a cornerstone of our maritime policy, which require goods 
purchased by the U.S. Government to be shipped on U.S.-flagged vessels.
  Most recently, I supported legislation in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee to allow baseball players the right to sue owners under 
antitrust laws. All other sports allow players this right. In the case 
of baseball, I believed that the relationship between the players' 
union and management was out of balance, and I agreed with labor's 
position. Despite my support of numerous labor positions, today we are 
told if you are against S. 55 you must be fundamentally opposed to 
working people.

  Again, I want to reiterate the simplistic nature of that particular 
argument and the erroneous conclusion.
  I disagree with organized labor on the issue of striker replacement. 
In 1992, I joined a number of my colleagues in opposing similar 
legislation. At that time, I was disturbed by the intransigence of both 
labor and management in addressing the issue of permanently replacing 
striking workers. I suggested that further consideration should be 
given to establishing a more cooperative and harmonious relationship 
between labor and management.
  Clearly, a strike represents the ultimate failure of opposing parties 
to compromise. In the end, everyone suffers. The workers and their 
families suffer because of lost wages and lost opportunities; the 
employer who has to spend time and money hiring and retraining the 
replacements also suffers.
  We have heard a lot of talk of how important it is to maintain 
productivity, efficiency, and high morale. An employer can hardly do 
that if he or she is simply resorting to replacing striking workers on 
a permanent basis. And, given that both sides want to avoid a strike, 
my hope was that over the past 2 years both labor and management would 
see the mutual benefit in reaching a compromise on the issue of 
permanently replacing striking workers.
  Unfortunately, I must say we are no further along today than in 1992. 
Both labor and management continue to insist vehemently that there is 
no room for compromise on this issue.
  While certainly not perfect, the current law regarding striking 
workers is preferable than the legislation now before us. Unlike the 
striker replacement legislation, for example, current law creates 
economic incentives to bring both labor and management to the 
bargaining table. Workers who are on strike to protest wages or 
benefits will be more willing to negotiate with management if they know 
that at some point they might be replaced by others who are willing to 
accept those conditions. The striker replacement legislation, on the 
other hand, places all the bargaining chips on the side of labor. Labor 
unions could strike and return to their jobs at any point in time, and 
management would be left to hire temporary workers only--assuming they 
could find people who would be willing to work on a temporary basis in 
a very hostile and highly charged environment.
  At the same time, current law preserves strong incentives for 
businesses to negotiate at the bargaining table. Companies have a 
tremendous amount of time and money invested in their employees. Like 
labor, they recognize that a well-trained work force is a company's 
most valuable asset.
  In addition, it is costly, inefficient, and demoralizing to new 
workers who come on board as the permanent replacements because they 
know that somewhere down the line they too might be summarily fired or 
let go if they refuse to accept the conditions that they may find to be 
either economically unjust or fundamentally unfair. So knowing this, 
companies, I believe, would prefer to reach an agreement with their 
current employees rather than train permanent replacements.
  Current law also creates an incentive for management to negotiate in 
good faith with striking employees. For example, if striking employees 
unconditionally offer to return to their jobs and the employer does not 
reinstate them because permanent replacements have been hired, an 
employer may be liable for back pay if the National Labor Relations 
Board finds that the workers were striking over unfair labor practices. 
Moreover, if an employer reinstates its striking workers, the 
individuals who were told they were permanent replacements also may 
have a right to sue.
  Federal law should not distort these economic incentives for both 
labor and management to reach agreements. Federal laws should neither 
tip the scale in favor of striking workers nor penalize workers for 
exercising their right to strike.
  In the past 2 years, I have met on nearly 20 occasions with a number 
of individuals from my State on both sides of this issue. Since April, 
I have heard from approximately 2,800 constituents and about 4,600 
others who have expressed concerns on this issue. And I tried to make 
clear to all concerned that I do not believe that striker replacement 
legislation--at least this bill--offers the sort of balance that exists 
with current law.
  I know there is concern that management either threatens or has an 
implied threat that if anyone goes out on strike they are immediately 
going to be replaced. If that is the case, if the replacement on a 
permanent basis of the striking workers becomes the rule rather than 
the exemption, I must tell my colleagues I would not hesitate to 
reconsider my position on this or any other modified legislation.
  We have been through such a strike with the International Paper Co. 
in Jay, ME. Let me tell my colleagues it has torn that small town 
asunder where families do not even talk to each other anymore because 
of the way in which it was handled. I must say both labor and 
management misjudged and mishandled that entire situation. There were 
families who were thrown out of work, replaced by relatives, and others 
coming up from different parts of the country. The strike has made that 
town a place which does not bear much resemblance to a place it used to 
be.
  So I understand some of the heartaches and hardship that can be 
created by such a situation. But I must say I still believe that 
employers should resort and will resort only as a last measure to 
hiring permanent replacements for strikers. If they turn to it as a 
first resort, then I believe it does undercut the right to strike in 
this country.
  I would send a message to employers as well as to labor that I 
continue to hope that employers will work in a cooperative way with the 
employees to settle disputes without resorting to replacing striking 
workers. Moreover, I hope that management and labor will do everything 
possible to address some of the animosity that seems to exist at some 
worksites around this country. Our competitiveness in the international 
economy depends on it. And the well-being of our work force demands it.
  If employers choose to simply summarily replace workers without a 
good-faith effort to end the strike on terms that are mutually 
agreeable, then I think they would invite legislation such as S. 55 and 
it will receive support of an overwhelming majority.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am pleased to stand up and support S. 55.
  I would like to use a word that our colleague from Minnesota, Senator 
Wellstone, used--``balance.'' This is what is lacking in our situation 
today.
  In the past, when you had a Democratic President, the National Labor 
Relations Board had a slight tilt toward labor. When you had a 
Republican President, there has been a slight tilt toward management. 
But, basically, the National Labor Relations Board has been pretty 
balanced.
  I do not say this as a partisan now, because I think privately many 
of my colleagues on the other side would agree with me. Then, when 
Ronald Reagan got elected President, it went way out of balance, and 
not only that went out of balance, but the whole business of labor-
management relations went out of balance, and we have been hurt.
  We are now at the point where 16 percent of our working force belongs 
to organized labor. No other Western industrialized country has that 
kind of a small percentage. And, if you accept the governmental unions, 
it is down to 11.8 percent; one-third of Canada, less than that from 
Western Europe and Japan.
  I am not suggesting that this is solely because of this, but there 
has been slippage in our standard of living. There is no question our 
deficit has been a big part of that. That deficit has caused interest 
rates to be excessive; it has caused 37 to 55 percent of our trade 
deficit, according to the studies, and that has discouraged industrial 
development in South Dakota, in Illinois, in Kansas, in Idaho, in 
Minnesota, and the other States. But the combination has been 
devastating.
  As late as 1986, the average manufacturing wage per hour in the 
United States was higher than any other country. Now there are 13 
countries higher than the United States. The average manufacturing wage 
in Germany, for example, is approximately $7 an hour higher than it is 
in the United States of America. That is hard to believe. I was 
stationed in Germany in the Army after World War II when the Germans 
were desperately poor. Things have changed dramatically. And it is not 
because there is some magic in Germany. It is because of flawed policy. 
Things have gotten out of balance.
  Part of this getting out of balance is that companies which had the 
ability for a long time to permanently replace workers now are taking 
advantage of that. The self-restraint is gone. And when self-restraint 
leaves on one side, it too easily leaves on the other side, too.
  I am not saying that labor unions are all right and management is all 
wrong. There is a lack of self-restraint on both sides.
  But where are the places you can legally fire your strikers and have 
permanent replacements? Great Britain, Singapore, Hong Kong. That is 
it. You cannot do it in Canada. You cannot do it in France. You cannot 
do it in our industrialized countries. In Quebec, you cannot even have 
temporary replacements.
  And if there are permanent replacements, then there is a bitterness 
in the community that hurts in ways that none of us can measure.
  Right now, we have a strike in Illinois at Caterpillar. This hurts 
many communities, but particularly Peoria, IL. I have been urging both 
sides to come together. I have been on the phone to both sides. But if 
there should be permanent striker replacements at Caterpillar, let me 
tell you, there would be violence in that community. I do not advocate 
it; no union official advocates it; no Caterpillar official advocates 
it. But there would be violence. Just as certain as I am standing here, 
that would be the case.
  We have to have balance, and this bill moves us in the direction of 
balance.
  Is this bill a substitute for better labor-management relations? 
Obviously, it is not. What you need is labor and management sitting 
down, working together.
  Just a few days ago, I was visiting the Sunstrand Corp., whose 
corporate office is in Rockford, IL. It was not very many years ago 
when Sunstrand had terrible labor-management relations. But I sat down 
with the corporate officers and right there in that board room was the 
president of the UAW, as we talked about various aspects of Sunstrand 
and what they are trying to do and not do.
  Let me add that, whether this is adopted or not, we need some changes 
in labor law in this country to help balance things. I think we have to 
recognize that things have gone out of balance.
  Up to the north in Canada, if you want to organize a plant, for 
example, you have to have a majority of the people sign a card and pay 
a dollar, and it is automatically organized. Here, the process can drag 
out for as much as 7 years to get organized. I think we have to modify 
that so that if a majority of workers clearly evidence they want to 
have a union represent them, that we move quickly on that. This cannot 
drag out.
  Second, right now, even if the NLRB recognizes that a plant is 
organized, then the company can just negotiate endlessly on that first 
contract. I think we have to say, for the first contract after a plant 
is organized, that they have 60 days, 90 days, to work out a contract, 
and if they do not, then there is binding arbitration for that first 
contract so we can get things going.
  Third, there has to be reasonable penalties for firing people who are 
active in trying to organize a company. Back a few years ago, there 
might be a few hundred people at the most fired during the course of a 
year because they advocated having a union in a company. Now, literally 
thousands are fired every year because the penalty is a slap on the 
wrist. It is back pay. But if, in the meantime, you have worked for 
McDonald's, or anyplace else, that pay is subtracted. So there is very 
little penalty for an organization.
  Fourth, if you violate civil rights laws, then you cannot get a 
Federal Government contract. But if you have a pattern and practice of 
violating labor laws, you can still get a contract from the Federal 
Government. We should not be awarding Federal Government contracts to 
lawbreakers. It just seems to me that is basic.
  There ought to be equal access for both sides when there is an 
attempt to organize. What happens now in some plants, let us just say 
you have a plant in Sioux Falls, SD, and in the plant there are 1,000 
people. The company owners say, ``Everybody has to show up at 10 
o'clock. We are going to have a movie.'' And then they have an 
antiunion movie, and they give an antiunion lecture.
  In most countries, the unions would then have equal access to those 
employees. That is not the case in our country. That just seems to me 
to make sense.
  And then, finally, in the area of labor law reform, we ought to say 
to law firms and lawyers, and specifically to lawyers who advocate 
violating the law, that the National Labor Relations Board has the 
obligation of reporting that to State bar associations for possible 
disbarment. We should not--and this applies whether it is an advocacy 
to labor unions or to corporations--we should not be encouraging and 
tolerating people advocating breaking the law who should be guardians 
of the law, and that is our lawyers.

  Senator Wellstone used another word besides ``balance;'' he used 
``partnership.'' That is what we have to create in labor-management 
relations. That partnership in our country is frayed, and I think this 
bill moves it back in the right direction.
  I understand we may have a hard time getting the 60 votes because of 
the filibuster. I would just say to my friends who are inclined to vote 
against cloture, the filibuster is a good weapon if it is used 
selectively. If we keep on using it over and over and over and over 
again, we may reach the point where the Members and the American public 
will say you cannot let a minority stop the will of the majority here 
endlessly. It ought to be used rarely. We are using it over and over. 
It is the old story of somebody crying wolf, and if you cry wolf too 
often, pretty soon people do not believe you. If we use this filibuster 
too often, the day will come when it will be stopped.
  Mr. President, you may be the next majority leader of this body. One 
of the questions you will have to face if you are elected to that 
position is the abuse of the filibuster. Let us be careful. Let us not 
use it unnecessarily. If we keep on using it excessively, it is going 
to go--no question about it.
  Again, I hope we do not use the filibuster to stop the majority of 
Members of this body voting for legislation that I think is balanced, 
that is in the national interest.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heflin). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this afternoon, as I express my opposition 
to Senate bill S. 55, I think there are some very important statistics 
that deserve to be a part of the record.
  For example, all of us have received in our offices a great amount of 
communications over this issue, an issue that has been a very high 
profile issue in the debate around the country over the last 1\1/2\ or 
2 years. For example, in my office I have had 649 contacts from the 
citizens of my State--472, to date, have expressed their opposition to, 
177 have expressed their support for, S. 55. That represents about 73 
percent in opposition and about 27 percent in favor.
  That is quite close to a CNN/Time poll which found that, when our 
citizens were asked if they favored Senate bill S. 55 as it related to 
prohibiting employers from hiring permanent replacements for striking 
workers, they spoke out by saying 60 percent ``no'' and 29 percent 
``yes.'' That was in 1992.
  In 1991, the question was asked by Penn & Schoen, a polling firm 
which has done work for the AFL/CIO, ``Should companies be permitted to 
operate during a strike using replacement workers?'' And 63 percent of 
the public of our country said ``yes,'' 25 percent said ``no.''
  Then the poll went on to ask, ``Once a strike has ended, should the 
replacements be fired?'' And 54 percents said ``no'', 34 percent said 
``yes''.
  Clearly, from all of this polling information, Senate bill S. 55 does 
not have anywhere near the majority support of the American people. But 
I think what the polls also speak to is the attitude that our public 
has that can only be seen as an understanding of the need for a level 
playing field for both the employee and the employer.
  We all know that a strike causes hardship on both sides, giving both 
sides, in essence, the incentive to negotiate. In many cases, S. 55 
would give strikers the power to threaten the employer with a give in 
or get out of business kind of approach. This amounts to unilateral 
disarmament of employers at the bargaining table, and that kind of 
imbalance has never been granted either side in the kind of 
confrontation that can often go on, and can justly be allowed to go on, 
between employers and employees. Federal policy should promote 
negotiations, consultation, and conciliation. It should not emphasize 
confrontation and/or escalation in the use of an economic weapon 
against an employer.
  That has been the principle of labor law in this country 
historically. S. 55, in my opinion, would largely upset that balance.
  The argument is that employers hire replacements only as a last 
resort, and I think we believe that to be the case. Others would argue 
that once hired, replacements would be there permanently. General 
Accounting Office studies of strikes in 1985 and 1989, found that only 
3 to 4 percent of strikers are replaced with workers who may or may not 
get to keep their jobs at the end of a strike. These studies also 
clearly demonstrate that two-thirds of the replaced strikers are 
reinstated within the year.
  Current law already protects the basic rights of both parties in 
employer-employee negotiations. For example, it is illegal to fire a 
striker for striking. It is illegal for an employer to provoke a strike 
with the intent to bust a union. Strikers get preferred rehire status 
when a strike is over. An employer cannot hire a replacement worker for 
less than the last bona fide offer made to the strikers.
  Strikers can be replaced only during an economic strike, a term used 
and defined in court decisions and the National Labor Relations Act, 
and it is defined in this way: An economic strike is one over pay, 
benefits, and the usual, negotiated terms and conditions of employment.
  Strikers cannot be replaced except by explicitly temporary workers 
when a strike is over unfair labor practices.
  If an employer is found to have committed an unfair labor practice, 
strikers must be reinstated with back pay and interest. What these 
facts say very clearly is that current law already protects the basic 
rights of both parties in that a balanced playing field that should be 
what we strive for in labor negotiations.
  During a strike, strikers can take other jobs as long as they are not 
substantially equivalent to the work being struck. Strikers retain 
prestrike seniority. Replacement workers must be represented by the 
same union that continues to represent the strikers. Replacement 
workers may not vote to decertify a union until at least a year after a 
strike has started, and such a vote will be delayed longer if unfair 
labor practice complaints are filed and must be heard.
  In many cases, strikers benefit from compensation from union strike 
funds and State unemployment insurance.
  Once again, let me emphasize that the American people, in all 
instances, in labor negotiations want a balanced, level playing field. 
Current law offers that. S. 55 radically tips the scales away from the 
relationship that has historically brought stability and accuracy and 
responsibility in labor relations. To balance these protections of 
employers, employers are allowed to stay open and stay in business 
during a strike by hiring replacement workers. In other words, there 
has to be a balance so they can hire replacement workers with full-
fledged employee rights, including the possibility--I repeat, the 
possibility--of permanent status.
  Under current law, if a strike is over unfair labor practices or if 
an employer commits such practices, permanent replacements are 
prohibited. S. 55 does not change that.
  S. 55 would take away the right of good employers to stay in business 
during a strike. Employers who are bargaining in good faith, who are 
dealing fairly and honestly with their employees and who are being 
struck over economic issues, those are the good employers. S. 55 would 
be worse than the old adage of throwing the baby out with the bath 
water. Only good employers would lose legal rights in this instance.
  I assume the best motives on the part of the supporters of S. 55, but 
the facts tell us something about its real purpose, and that it seems 
to be misguided in its purpose. This bill is not about stopping bad 
employers or protecting jobs. As we just said, it is the good employers 
that would get penalized. It is not about ensuring the level playing 
field I have spoken of while protecting the basic rights of the 
bargaining parties. What it is about is determining the outcome in 
advance of a strike. It is about tilting the playing field in one 
direction in advance in all cases regardless of the specific 
circumstances in each individual case.
  In essence, it can be responsibly argued that S. 55 would promote 
strikes. In Canada, some provinces prohibit hiring replacements and 
some do not. In 1990, the University of Toronto study for the Journal 
of Labor Economics found that prohibiting replacements produces more 
strikes and longer strikes. That is clearly not in the best public 
interest; just look at the recent strike we had with the truckers.

  S. 55 could destroy jobs by promoting more strikes. One trucking 
company estimates that the recent strike will cost it 20 percent of its 
business permanently. That means it will never have the work it needs 
to rehire about 20 percent of its drivers. S. 55 would only make things 
worse in most regards.
  There are other circumstances this bill does not take account of, Mr. 
President. Due to factors of geography, the area labor market, the 
skills involved, and safety knowledge concerned, temporary replacements 
are often just not an option. As it is, replacements now are hired only 
with the prospect of long-term employment. Under current law, 
negotiated settlements often could result in the firing of permanent 
replacements and the rehiring of the strikers. And that seems to be 
what we have always seen. The reason, of course, is because of those 
very individualized circumstances of each case.
  What I am suggesting, because of what I know of current labor law, is 
that this type of legislation just does not fit in with our sense of 
what it takes to have a growth economy, does not fit with the fact that 
it is our responsibility to promote positive policies that create 
economic growth and development, that actually stimulate and produce 
jobs for our economy and do not, instead, destroy them or damage them.
  So for the next few minutes, I would like to talk about some of the 
policies of this administration, their promotion and support of S. 55 
in the context of jobs: Jobs and job creation. That is what we all 
really ought to be about. This Senate ought to cautiously screen the 
public policy that it promotes with the goal of economic growth and 
development in mind. S. 55 simply does not fit in that matrix. It is 
not a promoter of that kind of a relationship that promotes economic 
growth. It is a promoter of confrontation. For example, it is found, as 
I mentioned, in Canada that the S. 55 approach actually promotes 
strikes and prolongs strikes because there is little or no will to 
settle; that the employer is held hostage.
  Our President was speaking in Europe to the economic jobs summit that 
was held in March of this year in Detroit, MI, between the 14th and the 
15th. At that time, as he spoke in Europe, he spoke of jobs and job 
creation, and here is what he said:

       We simply must figure out how to create more jobs and how 
     to reward people who work both harder and smarter in the 
     workplace.

  Mr. President, we agree with that statement. All policy ought to be 
used or, I should say, all policy ought to be formed by screening it 
through that kind of statement. But I suggest, Mr. President, that if 
we are to emulate European labor practices and European labor law, the 
result would be just the reverse; that it could not fit; that it is 
time we clearly recognize that it is the European policy of which 
striker replacement is a substantial part, and that it would not serve 
our country well. All we have to do is look at the economics of Western 
Europe to make that argument sound.
  So, Mr. President--and I mean President Clinton, not the Presiding 
Officer--while you were talking about job creation and yet promoting 
the passage of S. 55, you were doing several other things that are not 
consistent with economic growth, that are not consistent with job 
creation in the way that we as a government ought to be promoting 
it. For example, you enacted the biggest tax increase in America's 
history, which has been and will be discouraging new business 
investment and job creation by raising corporate and individual tax 
rates. You signed the family and medical leave mandate. Again, we 
believe that will cost the working men and women of our country a 
substantial number of jobs. And you have proposed a massive overhaul of 
the health care system, and there are an awful lot of statistics out 
there--and you by your own admission suggested it in your early days of 
promoting it--that it would cost in its initial phase over 600,000 jobs 
across this country and that they would not be replaced because jobs 
that would be created under your proposal would be in a different 
setting, in a different workplace, and a different skill would be 
required; you have proposed worker training and unemployment insurance 
reforms that would cost between $3 billion and $9 billion per year to 
the employer; you have asked consideration of a hike in the minimum 
wage from $4.25 to $4.75, again a disincentive to hire teenagers and 
the poor and the inner-city unemployed. And you have moved ahead in my 
region of the country very aggressively with new environmental 
regulation, in the instance of logging in Oregon, to the tune of 
thousands of jobs. You are now supporting a mining law reform that, if 
it went through in the form that your Secretary of the Interior Bruce 
Babbitt has proposed, could cost 35,000 to 40,000 jobs across the 
public-land West. Your logging policies in my State will cost jobs. You 
just joined a battle with me in this Chamber on a policy, Mr. 
President, through the advocacy of your Secretary of Energy in opposing 
the integral fast reactor. We were successful in defeating you. But 
that, again, would have been over 1,200 jobs across this country.

  So, Mr. President, as we talk about growth and economic development 
in this country, why are we putting S. 55 up front? Why are you saying 
that this is a No. 1 policy or one of the legislative priorities of 
your administration, along with major tax increases, along with the 
overhaul of a health care system that would cost thousands of jobs, 
along with new environmental policy that will shut businesses down and 
turn people away from the workplace?
  Let me suggest that there are basic principles to which we ought to 
adhere as a policymaking body of this country as it relates to job 
creation and a favorable climate in the workplace for the men and women 
who are seeking employment in this country.
  Those principles, I believe, were effectively outlined in a position 
paper put forth some months ago by the Heritage Foundation. And let me 
for the next few minutes state those principles because they are the 
kind that we ought to be speaking to instead of arguing about S. 55 and 
radically changing the balance in the relationship and the negotiations 
between the employer and the employee.

       Principle 1: European-style job training and employment 
     practices have proven incapable of keeping unemployment low 
     or raising the worker's overall standard of living.

  And yet it was those types of employment standards and European-style 
job training programs that you proposed at the job summit in Detroit, 
MI, March 14 and 15.

       Principle 2: High tax rates on employers and capital is the 
     quickest way to insure high unemployment.

  And yet we know the tax increase of last year went directly at 
medium- and small-sized businesses that are now the largest employers 
in our country in the composite.

       Principle 3: Excessive financial and banking regulations, 
     which restrict the amount of capital firms can obtain, 
     greatly limits business and job expansion.

  And, once again, the kinds of rules and regulations that are now 
pouring out of this Government, all in the name of the environment or 
in the name of better practices or certainly in the name of Federal 
mandates, that say that business and Government ought to conduct itself 
in certain ways at the local level, do nothing but restrict the 
economic climate in our country and make more difficult the creation of 
jobs.

       Principle 4: Increasing the regulatory burden and mandating 
     numerous employee benefits is a recipe for job destruction.

  That I just spoke to, like the Family and Medical Leave Act--again, a 
job destroyer, very destructive in the workplace.

       Principle 5: Sustained job growth results from competitive, 
     efficient industries that are free of excessive Government 
     interference.

  Those are the industries in 21st century America that offer the 
working men and women of our country the greater opportunity, the 
better work climate, and clearly the unique chance for advancement and 
career fulfillment.
  Those are the kinds of issues that this Senate ought to be 
addressing. Instead, we are stepping backwards into a century-old 
attitude that somehow labor deserves the upper hand and that, if this 
one side is granted the upper hand, somehow all of the relationships 
are improved. History has shown that is simply not the case; that when 
people come to the table to negotiate, that table must be level. There 
must be equal balance on either side, equality on both sides. S. 55 
would destroy that equality.

                          ____________________