[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]

 
                           EMPLOYMENT GROWTH

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first I wish to talk about this 
employment growth comparison chart that I have here displayed. I know 
for many this will seem incredible, but it happens to be true. It is a 
comparison of North America and the European Community of countries--
from 1974 through 1991, and from what I understand things have not 
changed much since then. Since 1991 employment trends have been moving 
in exactly the same direction. In fact, we know they are in 1992. We 
are not quite sure exactly where these lines would be for 1993 and 
1994, but we think the trend is pretty obvious.
  So let us look at what is happening to the jobs in North America in 
terms of the public and private sector.
  Along the bottom of the graph we have the years 1974 up through 1991. 
On the side we have the number of new jobs created, measured in 
millions of jobs. Looking at that solid green line from 1974 to 1991, 
the level of new jobs in North America rises straight up. In all, a 
total of 30 million new jobs were created in the private sector: little 
companies, big companies, unionized companies, nonunionized companies, 
all private sector employment.
  Public sector employment is the hash marked green line on the graph. 
During that entire period of time, jobs in the public sector rise by 
less than 5 million jobs--a very, very slow rate of rise compared to 
the private sector. So that the ratio of new private jobs to public 
jobs is enormous.
  Thirty million new private sector jobs from 1974 to 1991--versus 5 
million in the public sector, is a 6-to-1 ratio for North America. And 
the overwhelming proportion of these are in the U.S.A.
  Let us look at the European Community, same period, 1974 to 1991. The 
solid green line shows about 2 million new private sector jobs. And in 
a number of years there are less jobs than the year before.
  In fact, there are less private sector jobs in the European 
communities in 1984 than there were in 1974. There were even less 
private sector jobs in Europe in 1988 than in 1974. After that net jobs 
showed a slight increase. While American private sector jobs experience 
were going up dramatically, European jobs went up slightly.
  Now let us look at the whole spectrum in 1974 to 1991. As I 
indicated, the net result of it is in millions of jobs. In total, there 
are few if any new private jobs in 1991 in the European Community over 
nearly a 2-decade period. Think what America would be like if we had no 
new private sector jobs for that length of time.
  Mr. President, there may be some that would say, ``So what? The jobs 
that we have would all be worth $38 an hour.'' That might be the case. 
There would be a lot of people unemployed though, and there would be no 
growth in the economy.
  Now let us look at what happened to the public sector jobs in Europe. 
From 1974 until 1991, while there is really no increase in private 
sector jobs--in fact the sum private sector total is almost a wash, the 
public sector went up about 5 million.
  So, we see about 5 million new jobs in the public sector, no new jobs 
in the private sector. In the United States--in Canada and the United 
States, essentially 30 million new private sector jobs versus about 5 
or less in terms of the public sector; 6-to-1 ratio. Importantly, these 
ratios are about real numbers, real jobs, and real people.

  Mr. President, the European Community--if anybody has been reading 
economic literature about what is going on in Germany, Italy, and 
France, I think it is fair to say that a bright economist here in the 
United States came up with a good name for what is going on. He says 
that the European economy has ``Euro-sclerosis''. That is a very nice 
descriptive word for a very, very sick economy--``Euro-sclerosis.'' The 
principal ingredient of ``Euro-sclerosis'' is no new private-sector 
jobs. Costs of their products are skyrocketing, unemployment is very, 
very high, and their products, except for some very exceptional ones, 
are getting less competitive, not more.
  America used to look at West Germany and shiver. With their economy's 
competitiveness, they were going to beat us in every market. 
Interesting, now they are moving their automobile plants to America to 
make cars here because ``Euro-sclerosis'' has set in. The balance 
between management and labor has been such that government asks 
business to do more and more things for the social benefit of their 
workers and their country. Consequently, there is less and less 
flexibility on the part of the people who operate a business, large or 
small, to do what they must in order to be competitive and sell their 
products in the world market.
  We have on the floor of the Senate an issue that is not about today 
or tomorrow, but about the long term. Does the United States want to 
engage in a long-term commitment that labor unions ought to be able to 
strike, and if wages cannot be agreed to, then if the plant ever opens 
again, strikers are entitled to get all of their jobs back. Business 
cannot employ anybody to take their place?
  Frankly, it is not the kind of issue that some think of. But clearly 
this legislation takes great economic flexibility out of the American 
private sector, and in the long run moves us one step closer to the 
ailment that engulfs Europe. Soon we will have ``sclerosis-Americana'' 
or ``U.S.A.-sclerosis,'' and we will say, ``How come business cannot 
make it?'' It will be because we tied their hands. When we do that, we 
end up hurting all workers.
  In the United States, only 12 percent of the work force is unionized. 
But if you put this into existence and it begins to deny flexibility in 
terms of trying to succeed as a business, then obviously you hurt all 
who hope to prosper in the future. Ultimately the result is plain and 
simple: This legislation is antijobs, and antigrowth. In a very real 
sense, it moves us in the direction where, if we do this and a few more 
things recommended today--such as more OSHA regulations--we will 
establish the pattern that every time we find a social problem, we put 
the burden on the business community.
  Another example is the business mandates associated with some health 
care plans. If we do that, it represents another giant step in the 
direction of imposing the same kinds of economic sclerosis on America 
that is bringing the relationship between private sector and public 
sector jobs to the European community. They are stuck with high 
unemployment, much higher than in the United States. They do not know 
what to do about it and their companies cannot grow.
  Let me describe this bill as I see it. Currently, there are 
limitations on employers in unfair labor practice disputes with unions. 
We are not talking about taking away any of the union powers there. 
Employers cannot hire permanent replacements in disputes over workers' 
job rights and contract conditions. That remains unchanged. This 
legislation has nothing to do with that. This legislation will limit 
employers' options in disputes over economic issues, issues such as 
what wage rates a company ultimately can afford to pay, or about 
expanded benefit packages, and many other items that cost money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator wished to be advised when 10 
minutes had expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. I yield myself 5 more minutes, if 
the Chair will advise me when 5 minutes are up, please.
  This legislation says the balance is changed. Under no circumstances 
will an employer be in a position where he could not settle because of 
economic terms. Otherwise, to get his business going, he has to hire 
everybody back that was there before. I think that this swing in the 
balance goes a little bit too far.
  Proponents claim this is about employee and union rights. This would 
be true if the disagreement were indeed about unfair labor practices. 
But it is not. It is about economic interests in bargaining situations. 
This bill would change the bargaining balance in favor of unions and 
against employers, and, as I see it, against workers in general, and 
against consumers.
  A recent study shows that the length and number of strikes would 
increase, hurting nonstriking workers and their families, and those in 
other firms and industries that depend on businesses remaining 
economically viable. If employment costs end up becoming higher than 
can be competitively justified, obviously we will be moving in the 
direction that I have just described as being festered with ``Euro-
sclerosis.''
  Many do not realize it, but, if we pass this legislation, we will be 
moving more businesses offshore rather than less. We will be making 
ourselves less competitive rather than more. Ultimately, there will be 
less jobs rather than more for American workers.
  Clearly, the chart I have described is a clear indication of a less 
flexible labor market and what will happen. The OECD [the Organization 
of Economic Cooperation and Development] which encompasses the major 
free-market nations of the world, has documented the European problem. 
Net new jobs in the private sector from 1980 to 1988: None, zero. A 
decade-long rising trend of unemployment culminated in a current 10.5 
percent unemployment right within the European Community. Unemployment 
is chronic with nearly 50 percent of the unemployed in the European 
Community out of work 12 months or more in 1991 compared to roughly 6 
percent in the United States OECD cites as a cause poorly functioning 
labor markets. Wages that are set higher than is consistent with the 
productivity of workers has led to rising unemployment. It hurts more 
than it helps.
  OECD says more jobs could be created if there were fewer barriers to 
hiring, to layoffs, to arranging for terminations. Quoting from them, 
``What is needed is to mitigate the unintended side effects of policies 
that were designed to achieve equity objectives. In some cases, this 
may mean a more fundamental radical design of policies, together with 
considerable changes in attitudes and practices, especially in the 
fields of taxation, social policy, and collective bargaining.''
  I think we can all heed what is going on in other countries and is 
not working well. We can try at least in our positions of leadership 
not to repeat the mistakes that are so well known in other countries. 
In the name of doing something good we do not want to do something that 
will make things worse over the long run and for more people.
  The Secretary General of the OECD summarizes the situation this way:

       The only way to achieve long-term success is to embrace 
     change. Trying to slow the pace of change and artificially to 
     protect uncompetitive activities would only make delayed 
     adjustment more painful. All policies should be harnessed to 
     promote adjustments to change while taking care to reinforce 
     social cohesion.

  I could not agree more. This legislation does not do that. It is not 
a job gainer. Ultimately, it is a job loser. While we have had this 
legislation before us on previous occasions, it has failed. Obviously, 
we are going to vote again, perhaps once, perhaps twice. I am hopeful 
that we will defeat it again.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the third time in 2 years Senate will 
vote tomorrow on whether to end the filibuster by which a minority of 
the Members of this body are blocking action on the Workplace Fairness 
Act. I urge my colleagues to invoke cloture and allow us to vote on 
this important measure.
  The basic principle behind the bill has strong public support. In the 
latest poll from Fingerhut Associates, 64 percent of respondents said 
that once a majority of workers have voted to strike, companies should 
not be allowed to hire permanent replacements to take their jobs.
  The American people understand that this is a question of simple 
justice for workers.
  If it's illegal for an employer to fire a worker for exercising the 
right to strike, it should be equally unlawful for an employer to be 
able to deprive a striking worker of his job by permanently replacing 
that worker. It's as simple as that.
  The House has twice passed this bill by substantial margins. 
President Clinton campaigned in support of this bill.
  It is time to get on with the public's business and bring this bill 
to a vote.
  Repeatedly, when we are debating economic legislation and U.S. 
competitiveness in the world economy, Senators from both sides of the 
aisle praise the high productivity of American workers, their excellent 
skills, and their pride in their work.
  Yet, much of the legislation we pass ignores the importance of 
treating American workers fairly.
  This legislation is for the American worker. It will restore the 
balance of power intended between management and labor intended under 
the National Labor Relations Act.
  That far-sighted act, signed into law by President Franklin D. 
Roosevelt in 1935 as a cornerstone of the New Deal, recognized the 
inherent inquality between the bargaining power of a lone worker 
seeking to improve wages and working conditions, and the bargaining 
power of the employer.
  As part of comprehensive legislation enacting the fundamental goals 
of national labor policy, the act guaranteed the rights of workers to 
form and join labor organizations and to engage in collective 
bargaining with their employers.
  As the Supreme Court stated in 1935, in a landmark opinion upholding 
the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act:

       Long ago we stated the reason for labor organizations. We 
     said they were organized out of the necessities of the 
     situation; that a single employee was helpless in dealing 
     with an employer; that he was dependent ordinarily on his 
     daily wage for the maintenance of himself and his 
     family; that if the employer refused to pay him the wages 
     that he thought fair, he was nevertheless unable to leave 
     the employer's employ and resist arbitrary and unfair 
     treatment; that union was essential to give laborers 
     opportunity to deal on an equal basis with the employer.

  Today, as much as ever, employees need the right to organize 
collectively to improve their wages and working conditions, and to 
enter into negotiations with their employers about how work should be 
arranged, so that the firm can achieve its productivity and 
profitability goals, while at the same time ensuring fair treatment for 
workers. But the right to organize and bargain collectively is only a 
hollow promise if management is allowed to use the tactic of 
permanently replacing workers who go on strike.
  No one likes strikes--least of all the strikers, who lose their wages 
during any strike and risk the loss of health coverage and other 
benefits.
  Because both workers and employers have a mutual interest in avoiding 
economic losses, the overwhelming majority of collective bargaining 
disputes are settled without a strike. But the right to strike provides 
a balance which ensures that a fair economic bargain is reached between 
employers and workers.
  The labor laws give workers the right to join together to combine 
their strength, and the union movement has been responsible for many of 
the gains that workers have achieved in the past half century. The 
process of collective bargaining works. It prevents workers from being 
exploited, and it has created a productive balance of power between 
management and labor.
  The cornerstone of collective bargaining is the right to strike. If 
that right is nullified by the practice of permanently replacing 
workers who go on strike, the entire process of collective bargaining 
is undermined.
  Both the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act 
explicitly prohibit employers from firing employees who exercise their 
right to strike.
  But as a result of a loophole created by the Supreme Court half a 
century ago--but seldom used until recent years--the practice of 
permanently replacing striking workers allow employers to achieve the 
same result.
  The ability to hire permanent replacement tilts the balance unfairly 
in favor of business in labor-management relations.
  It is no surprise that business is lobbying hard to block this 
legislation. Hiring permanent replacements encourages intransigence by 
management in negotiations with labor. It encourages employers to 
replace current workers with new workers willing to settle for less--
and to accept smaller paychecks and other benefits.
  S. 55 will restore the balance that has been distorted in recent 
years. It amends the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor 
Act to prohibit employers from permanently replacing employees who 
exercise their statutory right to strike.
  By enacting this legislation, Congress can restore the original 
promise of these statutes that give workers the right to bargain 
collectively and participate in peaceful activity in furtherance of 
their goals, without fear of being fired.
  The Supreme Court's decision in the Mackay Radio case in 1938 is the 
source of the current problem, even though the issue was not squarely 
raised in the case itself.
  In Mackay, the Court ruled that it was unlawful for an employer to 
refuse to reinstate striking union leaders, when the employer had 
reinstated other striking union members. The Court refused to allow the 
employer to discriminate between strike leaders and other strikers. It 
ordered the employer to put the permanently replaced striking union 
leaders back to work.
  In fact, the Supreme Court did not even have before it the issue of 
the legality of permanently replacing striking workers. But language in 
the decision condoning the employer's hiring of permanent replacements 
has been interpreted as permitting the practice, as long as the 
employer does not use it in a discriminatory way.
  This aspect of the Mackay decision had no significant impact on labor 
relations for nearly half a century. Few employers resorted to 
permanent replacements, or even threatened to use the tactic.
  In Mackay Radio, the Supreme Court Justices performed gymnastic 
feats. The Court set common sense and rational judgment right on its 
head.
  The issue before the Court was the discrimination between two 
different types of striking workers. The Court said that strike leaders 
should not be discriminated against. But the Court mused in dicta that 
the law permitted the permanent replacement of striking workers. 
Rational or sensible interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act 
would not have come to that conclusion. But certainly, the Supreme 
Court has, in other instances, provided erroneous interpretations of 
laws the Congress has passed.
  Much later in the mid-1980's after Congress thought it well 
established that we were not going to permit taxpayer funds to be used 
to discriminate against women and minorities in the area of higher 
education.
  That principle was well understood throughout the country. Congress 
had determined that, as a country, we will not permit taxpayers' money 
to be utilized to support and to expand discrimination in education. 
And then the Supreme Court ruled in its Grove City decision. The 
Supreme Court said, well, as long as there was not discrimination in 
financial aid for university students, it did not make any difference 
if there was discrimination in other areas of the university. This was 
a most bizarre interpretation of what the Congress had intended.
  And from that particular holding, we found that there was a whole 
series of conduct that was developing in our society which was moving 
completely contrary to what the American people and the Congress, had 
said. And that is, we were not going to permit taxpayers' money to be 
used to further discrimination in our society.
  We have the aberration in the Grove City case, which Congress 
eventually overturned. Likewise we have this kind of aberration in the 
Court's treatment of the practice of permanently replacing striking 
workers. We are attempting to overturn that decision. Our desire to 
overturn Mackay Radio has the support of the majority of the Members of 
this body, Republican and Democrat, as well as the support of the 
majority in the other body.
  Employers and workers had a mutual understanding that strikes are 
only temporary disruptions in ongoing satisfactory relationships. 
Businesses responded to strikes in various ways--by having supervisors 
perform the work, by hiring temporary replacements, or by shutting 
operations down.
  Employers acted on the basis that their work force was valuable and 
not easily replaced, and that once the temporary labor dispute was 
over, the two sides would resume the collective bargaining relationship 
that brought benefits and stability to each.
  What we have seen, Mr. President, over the recent times, as has been 
pointed out during the debate earlier this afternoon, is that the 
playing field has been changed. Those that want to continue the 
filibuster effectively say, ``Well, it has really not been changed.'' 
But, of course, it has been changed in a very dramatic way.
  One cannot just examine theories of labor-management relationships. 
We must listen to those real people who have testified before our 
committees. They are proud American individuals, hard-working Americans 
who were willing to go out and provide for their families, work 40 
hours a week, and work overtime for 52 weeks of the year. Nonetheless, 
these workers felt compelled to go out on strike because there was 
either an economic right or advantage that was being taken away or a 
health care benefit that was being cut back that would have affected 
their children and their own lives. In some instances, these workers 
went out on strike because they recognized that they were entitled to 
share in some of the extraordinary profits that their employers were 
making.
  Having exercised their right to strike, these workers were then 
effectively thrown out of a job and frequently blackballed from the 
opportunity to work in their own communities after having worked in 
those communities for their lifetimes. Many of the workers who have 
been permanently replaced had worked at their jobs for years, from 
their teens on into their twenties and thirties. Those jobs permitted 
them to have and support their families and they remained loyal workers 
to their companies--only to find that doors of the company nailed shut 
when they exercised their legal right to strike and tried to achieve 
economic justice for themselves and their families.
  Mr. President, a phenomenon that we have recently seen has been a 
decline in unemployment over the last year. Yet, if you were to take a 
reading about the future from working families in my State of 
Massachusetts, they still have rather an ominous sense and feeling 
about the future.
  Usually, if you had unemployment going down one point, people would 
say, ``Things had begun to turn around. There was some hope for the 
future. Maybe my child, who has just graduated from high school, was 
going to be able to get a good job.''
  Then, if it goes down two points, people would say, ``Well, my 
children who have graduated from high school or from a community 
college or have gone to a vocational school are going to be able to 
find a good job. And I know my neighbor down the road, who has worked a 
long time, had been displaced because of downsizing, but, look, we know 
that the total number of jobs available out there is going to be 
larger, there will be a new opportunity and a new era; things are going 
to get better.''
  And when the unemployment rate has gone down three points, as it 
recently has, in the past, people have generally been euphoric.
  But not now, not in my State of Massachusetts, and not in most places 
in our country. And why? Why? I well tell you why.
  It is because the American people understand that the jobs that are 
not there now are not the kind of jobs that were there 20, 30, 40, 
years ago. They are not the jobs that mean good opportunities for 
families to work and to provide for their children and their parents, 
to pay the mortgage, put the bread on the table and send their children 
on to higher education if those young people want that opportunity. 
People understand that the good jobs of a generation ago are frequently 
not available. They have been replaced by part-time jobs. And these 
jobs do not provide the decent kinds of incomes so that Americans can 
work and still stay out of poverty.
  We had a social compact in the period of the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, 
1960's, 1970's, and into the 1980's, supported by Republicans and 
Democrats alike, that people who are willing to work are going to get 
paid and not have to be in poverty. That is going. It is going. It is 
going. It is going and gone.
  People are receiving minimum wages today and in too many instances, 
despite working, they are also eligible to receive welfare benefits. 
That is wrong.
  We are seeing that workers are at risk of losing their health 
benefits. They are frequently unable to upgrade their skills. And they 
know they will have to probably change their employment down the road 
and leave what they thought was a long-term job. They do not ask for a 
handout, but a helping hand up.
  And it is those individuals who have the courage in the workplace to 
be able to stand up and say that this kind of treatment of workers is 
wrong who are responsible for bringing these issues to the public 
debate. It is workers who stand up for their rights who force us to 
confront these changes in our society.
  Well, by not taking this action, it is only a period of time before 
those who are in the board rooms are able to isolate and target those 
individuals who are the leaders for advancing economic and social 
justice, progress, and stability in our society.
  We do not have the great unrest that has existed in many other parts 
of the world. And I dare say a principal--not the only, but a principal 
reason is because of the existence of economic justice in our society. 
And this I must say, Mr. President, the prohibition of permanent 
replacements for striking workers is a fundamental tenet in terms of 
society's commitment to economic justice.
  Finally, Mr. President, I am always interested in seeing what is 
happening in other parts of the world. Certainly we hear a great deal 
on this floor about how we have to have a level playing field with 
other countries; that otherwise, we will not be competitive 
internationally.
  If you just go down the various lists down the various lists of our 
principal competitors--France, Germany and Italy, Belgium, Japan, the 
Netherlands, Sweden, and our closest neighbor, Canada--all these 
countries have variations in the kinds of protection they provide for 
workers' rights. But virtually none of them, none of them, give the 
kind of advantage to the employer to effectively discharge and dismiss 
those workers who are trying to advance their economic futures.
  And the basic reason is because, in this particular instance, those 
societies understand the importance of a real balance, not an alleged 
balance--but a real balance, between the management and workers. Those 
societies understand how important collective bargaining and a real 
right to strike is in order to advance the economic status of those 
countries.
  And so, Mr. President, I will look forward to further debate on this 
issue tomorrow.
  I think this is one of the very important issues of fairness and 
equity. I can remember going back to 1988, when we had the plant 
closing legislation.
  We heard the voices out here on the floor say, ``Well, we cannot have 
that kind of plant closing legislation bill. That is going to interfere 
with the prerogative of the employer.'' There was the belief that it 
was all right for someone to work for 30 years in a plant and then come 
down to that plant on a Friday afternoon and find out that they could 
not come back on Monday because the plant is going to close down. For 
30 years that individual and that family may have been dependent on 
that plant. In other countries, workers were provided notification. But 
in America, employers did not have to provide notification to workers 
of a plant closing.
  Well--we had a great debate here.
  I remember when we tried to get cloture on it. We failed the first 
time, 58, I think, to 35 or 36. Interesting enough, after people cast 
that vote, 6 days later it was 88 to 5 in favor of it.
  Why? Because finally as an institution we understood what was out 
there among the American people and that was the issue of fairness: 
fairness to working men and women in this country.
  Fairness is part of our whole value system. We hear a lot of about 
our value system and we listen to many speeches made on that system. We 
have made clear that part of the value system of fairness for workers 
is to require notice if the employers are going to leave. Another part 
of our value system is that we believe that employers should not expose 
their workers to dangers in the workplace.
  Where I come from, in Massachusetts, we used to go through those 
plants and factories. You try to shake hands with someone who had 
worked on a shoe machine. More often than not, three or four of their 
fingers were gone but they are still back there working. Or they had 
slogged around in the toxic substance on the floor of those plants. The 
acid would eat the sole off your shoe that night. That would make us 
think of what was happening to these workers breathing those poisonous 
gases.
  We say we ought to be able to compete and still have a safe workplace 
free, to the extent we can, from industrial accidents and toxic 
substances. We say that people ought to work at a decent wage if they 
are prepared to work, to work hard. They ought to be free from the 
toxins of subsistence wages. That is economic justice. We say people 
ought to be notified if their employer is going to shut down so at 
least they are able to look for some other work opportunities. They 
should be notified of a plant closing becuase they have loyally worked 
for that particular plant over those many years.
  This issue is a fundamental issue of economic justice, as important 
as many of those matters--in many instances even more so. It is because 
the workers have the right to engage in collective bargaining and in 
strikes that they are able to bring the issues of economic justice to 
the fore.
  Mr. President, I look forward to the cloture vote tomorrow. I am 
convinced that if the American people truly understood the importance 
of this question with regards to economic justice, this would be an 
overwhelming vote. A majority of the American people do support this 
legislation as does a majority of this body.
  This issue, as others, has been distorted and misrepresented. But I 
still am very hopeful that when the final toll is taken, this 
institution will follow that path when it has been at its best, and it 
will vote for economic justice for the American worker.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Baucus). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum can be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, S. 55 proposes sweeping changes in our 
Nation's labor law, overturning more than 50 years of experience and 
case law, and upsetting the fundamental economic balance Congress 
struck between labor and management when it passed the National Labor 
Relations Act--Wagner Act--in 1935.
  Since the Mackay decision in 1938, the threat of business shutdowns 
has been tempered by the fact that strikers may be replaced. The 
National Labor Relations Act puts the players on equal playing field, 
guaranteeing employees that right to strike to enforce their bargaining 
demands while ensuring employers the ability to operate their 
businesses as best they can during a strike. Current law exposes both 
sides to risk.
  The shared risk helps to drive the collective bargaining process 
which should be a shared goal in labor negotiations.
  Proponents of this legislation argue that permanent replacements 
inhibit strikes and the effectiveness of strikes, and thus interfere 
fundamentally with the right to strike. It therefore seems to reason 
that if permanent replacements are banned we will be eliminating the 
only disincentive to strike, and may actually cause labor to look to 
strikes as the weapon of first choice rather than of last resort. 
Clearly this does not serve to foster meaningful negotiations or mutual 
compromise. If the outcome of a strike is guaranteed--Meaningful 
bargaining is virtually eliminated.
  The problem facing labor and management today is not the level 
playing field in the collective bargaining process. It is the level 
playing field that will permit U.S. businesses to survive and to meet 
the challengers of global competition. If an employer cannot meet those 
challenges, then the question of where the balance of power is in an 
economic labor dispute is a moot point. If a business cannot compete, 
it does not pay wages or provide benefits or offer any semblance of 
employment security.
  Employment security should be at the heart of this debate. What the 
bill's proponents fail to recognize is that most companies are far 
beyond the objectives of this bill in looking at the same issue. Talk 
to the most successful businesses in your State, and you will find that 
the hierarchical, authoritarian systems of the past are being abandoned 
and are being replaced by team concepts and total quality management.

  There is a growing recognition that being a world class organization 
in today's economy requires every employee of a company to take 
responsibility for the quality of the product which ultimately reaches 
the customer. It requires that every employee understand that high 
productivity and high quality at the lowest possible cost is essential 
to competitive success.
  To accomplish this overriding goal, businesses--managers and 
workers--are coming to grips with the fact that the job security of any 
individual worker is not tied to the right to strike, but to the 
ability of his or her employer to adapt to an environment characterized 
by constant change. And the ability of an employer to adapt is, in 
turn, dependent in large measure on how well trained and skilled its 
work force is.
  S. 55 is not a job security bill, although its sponsors may want to 
characterize it as such. Its passage would destroy, rather than 
enhance, job security. It would enable labor to shutdown permanently 
many small companies. Such companies are financially unable to cease 
production for a long period of time and are rendered especially 
vulnerable by S. 55. Most press accounts portray this situation as 
involving a large, impersonal, powerful company and a small, weak 
union. However, the reverse is often reality. The company is small and 
struggling for economic survival, and the union is large and powerful 
with many resources at their command. The loss of small companies would 
severely damage our national economy and add to our unemployment. The 
pain created would touch numerous individuals, families, and whole 
communities and would undercut companies' ability to compete in the 
international marketplace.
  But even if we focus on the larger industries in the United States, I 
fail to see how passage of this legislation is in the interest of labor 
or management. If we look at two industries--steel and automotive--what 
we see are major restructuring efforts that seek to create cost 
controls that are vital for their long term viability.
  We need legislation to keep Americans working. However, this bill 
would result in making American products far too expensive to compete 
against Europe and Japan--countries that reject our entire collective 
bargaining system--or anywhere else in the world. S. 55 would literally 
destroy this new spirit of efficiency in American business and put 
us at a competitive disadvantage that would be impossible to overcome.

  Current law maintains the parity necessary to provide incentives for 
both labor and management to negotiate a settlement helpful to both 
parties and to the national economy. S. 55 disrupts this needed 
balance. Labor's incentive to negotiate is lessened by the awareness 
that they can remain on strike indefinitely and at some time in the 
future return to a job that by law must be held open for them. 
Management would have no choice but to give in to employee demands.
  Mr. Chairman, not only does this bill threaten American 
competitiveness, the legislation would effectively punish those who 
fail to join a union or honor a picket line. Workers in this Nation are 
guaranteed the right to strike and the right not to strike. If those 
who choose to honor the right not to strike or the right to refrain 
from union membership are penalized by being displaced by those who 
choose to strike, the right not to strike is invalidated.
  This bill is a solution in search of a problem. There is no evidence 
that the use of permanent replacements has become widespread in the 
1980's. Between 1985 and 1990 only 3 out of 20 strikes involved the use 
of permanent replacements, and in these cases only a small number of 
workers were actually replaced. The hiring of permanent replacements is 
not widespread and thus does not need to be addressed by any bill.
  Rather than create greater rifts between labor and management, ways 
must be developed to increase the partnership between the two. Each 
needs the other. The well-being of our Nation depends on their working 
as a team.
  In 1965, the Warren Court stated:

       The right to bargain collectively does not entail any right 
     to insist on one's position free from economic disadvantage. 
     * * * The right to strike as commonly understood is the right 
     to cease work--nothing more.

  S. 55 works against the development of the needed cooperation and 
team work by destroying the incentives to create an environment where 
bargaining to meet both sets of needs is conducted.
  S. 55 depends the divisions between these two groups who must learn 
to work in tandem in order to meet the new set of demands created by 
the global economy.

                          ____________________