[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

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly oppose S. 55, 
the Striker Replacement Act.
  This legislation could paralyze one of the very fundamental 
cornerstones of our country--the free market. S. 55 fundamentally 
alters over 50 years of labor law by shifting the existing labor-
management balance of power to favor big labor and unions. It would 
guarantee workers that they cannot lose their jobs during a strike, and 
would prohibit employers from hiring permanent replacement workers in 
certain circumstances. In short, it takes the risk out of striking.
  S. 55 runs directly counter to the underpinnings of current law, 
which encourages negotiations and conciliation. Employers come to the 
bargaining table with the knowledge that their employees have the right 
to strike which could cause them losses in profits and market share and 
could ultimately put them out of business. At the same time, employees 
come to the bargaining table knowing that if they do strike they may be 
replaced. These weapons available to both sides provide a strong 
incentive for both parties to negotiate in good faith and resolve their 
differences without resorting to strikes or replacements.
  Unfortunately, the proponents of this bill want to change this level 
playing field. They would have us believe that the mere threat of 
replacement completely nullifies the power of a strike. They would also 
have us believe that union employees are helpless victims of oppressive 
management with no power to negotiate wages or benefits. Mr. President, 
I seriously doubt the AFL-CIO, the United Auto Workers' Union, or the 
National Education Association feel powerless when they are at the 
bargaining table.
  Mr. President, I have heard from numerous constituents in my home 
State on the striker bill, and they are very concerned about its 
detrimental impact. I want to take a few minutes to read from portions 
of some of these letters. This letter is from Nils W. Lindbloom III, 
President of The Tool Shed, Inc. of Greenville, SC. He says:

       Dear Mr. Thurmond. I own a tool store in Greenville, SC and 
     though I've lived here since 1977, I grew up in the steel 
     mill towns of the Midwest (Gary, Cleveland, Pittsburgh). I 
     know personally how unions can negatively affect business as 
     I was threatened by fellow union workers to slow down my rate 
     of work, because I was exceeding the expected production.
       Unions were originally established to protect employees 
     from employer abuses such as child labor, sweat shops, etc., 
     but now the unions run industry and in the long run will 
     continue to hurt the U.S. in the global economy. Let's face 
     it, millions of unemployed people in this land who want to 
     work would love to drive a truck from point A to point B and 
     do so safely for far less than $20 per hour. If I can find 
     someone who can do it for less, I should be allowed to hire 
     whom I choose (isn't that free enterprise)?
       Let the strikers start their own businesses, risk capital, 
     work 70 hour weeks and educate themselves in their spare time 
     if they want to a make a greater income.
       Now you have before you The Strike Bill (S. 55) which will 
     promote more labor/management conflicts and give you unions 
     unfair bargaining leverage. This legislation will give unions 
     unfair advantages in organizing and collective bargaining. 
     There will be increased strike activity if this legislation 
     is enacted and this will lead to disruption of all chains of 
     distribution dependent on the other.
       I urge you to vote NO on cloture, NO on the Strike Bill and 
     vote NO on any amendment or compromise.

  Now, this next letter is from Jim McDonald, Director of Human 
Resources, BI-LO. He said:

       S. 55 would * * * force employers to accept unreasonable 
     union contract demands because they have no other way to 
     continue operations.

  That is just an excerpt from his letter.
  Another letter from the American Furniture Manufacturers Association 
from Joseph G. Gerard. An excerpt is:

       It is also important to note that the legislation is 
     counterproductive to economic stability and job creation. It 
     is ironic that at a time when Congress and the Administration 
     are exploring ways to cut the budget deficit and create more 
     jobs, a bill is being considered that would breed strikes, 
     destroy business operations and create economic uncertainty.

  An excerpt from another letter. And this is from Lockheed 
Aeronautical Systems Co.:

       As you know, S. 55 would destroy the employer/employee 
     balance, which has well served the collective bargaining 
     process for decades, by removing all risk for unions in a 
     strike situation. Current labor law prohibits the hiring of 
     permanent replacement workers in strikes over unfair labor 
     practices--but S. 55 would extend that prohibition to strikes 
     arising out of economic issues. Such an extension would 
     remove the major incentive for unions to negotiate and settle 
     economic disputes, increasing the likelihood of more frequent 
     and/or lengthy strikes with the attendant costs to business, 
     Government and society in terms of competitiveness, lost 
     jobs, and business failures/relocations.
       In over 50 years of collective bargaining with the 
     International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers 
     Lockheed has never used replacement workers. However, passage 
     of this measure could severely jeopardize future negotiations 
     both by Lockheed and other employees, threatening the overall 
     stability, competitiveness, strength, and productivity of 
     business in the United States.

  Another letter from the National Council of Agricultural Employers:

       Although many agricultural employees are not covered by the 
     National Labor Relations Act, the bill would have a serious 
     impact on our ability to bring our products to market. A 
     strike against a grain handling and milling company, a 
     trucking company, a food processing or packaging company, a 
     grocery concern or restaurant ultimately injures those who 
     provide the food itself. If we can't get that food or 
     agriculture commodity to the consumer, we may as well not 
     produce it.

  Another except from the same letter.

       Without the right to hire permanent replacement workers, a 
     harvest time strike leaves no option but to accept 
     economically unreasonable union demands or face financial 
     ruin.

  Another letter from International Paper:

       At our paper mill in Georgetown--

  That is Georgetown, SC--
     we are the largest private employer in the county and we have 
     a strong, positive working relationship with our employees.
       The passage of this bill would lead to more strikes and a 
     decline in U.S. productivity. By forcing an employer to shut 
     down during a strike, it creates greater potential for a 
     company never to go back into business. The paper industry is 
     a global market and this bill will give the advantage to our 
     foreign competitors.

  That is signed by George E. Payton, the manager of human resources, 
International Paper.
  I also wish to point out that over 100 associations and 
organizations--representing a wide variety of interests--oppose this 
bill. Some of these include: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business 
Roundtable, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the 
American Small Businesses Association, the Associated Builders & 
Contractors, the American Feed Industry Association, the National 
Association of Home Builders, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and many, 
many more.
  Mr. President, in the Mackay Radio case in 1938, the Supreme Court 
ruled that when faced with an economic strike, an employer may carry on 
its business with replacement workers. The Court made clear that at the 
end of the strike, the employer is not required to displace any working 
employee that had attained permanent status.
  The Supreme Court reaffirmed this decision in 1990 in the Curtis 
Matheson case. Once again, the Court stated that an employer is not 
required to discharge permanent replacement workers, to make room for 
returning strikers. Rather, the employer must only reinstate strikers 
as vacancies arise. Furthermore, the employer may not discriminate on 
the basis of union activity in determining which returning strikers to 
reinstate. The employer must base all reinstatement decisions upon 
nondiscriminatory factors such as skill or ability. As is evident, 
there are reasonable protections for strikers under existing law, and 
there are provisions for reinstatement as vacancies occur.
  I will not repeat the entire history of the Mackay doctrine, except 
to point out that since that decision in 1938, neither the Supreme 
Court nor Congress has attempted to upset the balance of powers 
established--until now.
  Mr. President, this legislation has been renamed the ``Workplace 
Fairness Act.'' Fairness for whom? Obviously it is not fair for 
American business and those who support it. It is not fair to those 
workers who continue to operate during a strike. It is not fair to the 
American consumer.
  This selected title is not only misleading it is downright deceptive. 
It implies that the employer is engaged in some form of unfair labor 
practice. If that is the case, then there is no reason to proceed 
further with this legislation. It is already unlawful for an employer 
to permanently replace a worker who is striking due to unfair labor 
practices.
  Under present law, the employer who chooses to use permanent 
replacements during an economic strike operates under a heavy 
obligation to insure full compliance with the provisions of the 
National Labor Relations Act or else an economic strike will be 
declared an unfair labor strike. Therefore, the employer must insure 
that it takes no steps or engages in no activity which could convert 
the economic strike into an unfair labor practice strike.
  We must keep in mind that employing replacements is simply not an 
attractive tool for anything other than to keep the business in 
operation while the parties put their proposals to the test of a 
strike. In making judgments on how or whether to continue operations 
during a strike, management factors into the equation the very real 
economic costs of replacements in recruiting, hiring, and training, It 
factors in morale costs such as the possible damage to the collective 
bargaining relationship that will result from the determination to use 
replacement workers. Current law puts very significant restrictions on 
the recruitment of replacements and on what management can offer to 
replacements. Current law also imposes significant penalties, such as 
back pay liability, on employers who violate these restrictions.
  I would like to address a few arguments that the proponents of this 
legislation have raised surrounding this issue.
  First, the proponents maintain that ``a strike is evidence that 
everything has gone awry, that management has failed.'' They place the 
entire responsibility of a strike on the back of management. I wonder 
if the proponents of S. 55 ever think unions make unreasonable 
bargaining demands. I wonder if they have ever seen a strike they did 
not like.
  Second, proponents gleefully argue that no other industrialized 
Nation engaging in rapid productivity growth allows permanent 
replacements. This simply is not true. Many industrialized countries 
permit employers to hire permanent replacements, including Australia, 
Austria, Hong Kong, Ireland, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
  These proponents also frequently cite Germany and Canada as exemplary 
countries that do not permit permanent replacements. In fact, a 
majority of Canadian provinces, including Alberta, New Brunswick, 
Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan, 
permit employers to hire permanent replacements. In Germany, unions may 
not make unreasonable bargaining demands that would grievously wound an 
employer. I doubt the proponents of this bill would support such a 
provision in American labor law. The merits of our system far exceed 
that of other foreign countries.
  I wish those who cite other nations as such great states would stop 
bashing our workers. That is exactly what they are doing. I has been 
proven time and again that our employees produce more than any other in 
the world.
  The proponents say they are only doing it to help our workers. 
However, I fail to see our workers leaving in droves to go to these 
utopian work places. Instead, I see our immigration services having to 
go to a lottery to allow others willing to work in our great Nation.
  Are those who support this bill so shortsighted that they fail to see 
that an increase in strikes actually harms the business that cannot 
continue to efficiently produce and it harms the overall economy?
  Finally, proponents of this bill would have us believe that the use 
of permanent replacements became a standard practice during the 1980's, 
and that Ronald Reagan was the first to ever contemplate the use of 
permanent striker replacements. This simply is not supported by the 
data. In a recent report by the General Accounting Office [GAO] 
requested by the bill's sponsors, the GAO found that, in 1985, only 4 
percent of striking employees were replaced by Mackay case 
replacements. This decreased to 3 percent in 1989. The GAO data even 
includes as permanent replacements those strikers who returned or will 
return to their jobs either as a result of vacancies, a strike 
settlement, or a National Labor Relation Board order in the case of an 
unfair labor practice strike. The GAO study clearly demonstrates that 
this practice is not widespread.
  Proponents of this bill would also have us condemn President Reagan 
for using permanent replacements in 1981 during the air traffic 
controllers strike. I would remind my colleagues that the PATCO strike 
which we have heard so much about in this debate was an illegal strike. 
Those PATCO employees decided to strike. Thereby putting American lives 
at risk. This was in direct violation of the law, and those who would 
make their actions heroic are simply condoning criminal activity.
  Mr. President, the whole point of this legislation is to prop up the 
unions. The proponents see the decline in organized labor--their 
political supporters--and they want to keep it alive.
  The chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor admits this fact when he 
stated that ``the future of the American labor movement depends on 
restoring the right to strike as an effective economic weapon.'' Again, 
it is already unlawful for an employer to permanently replace a worker 
who is striking due to unfair labor practices. The effective economic 
weapon the chairman refers to is the ability of organized labor to 
drive our entrepreneurs to their knees during a strike which has no 
consequences to the employee.
  The existing collective bargaining climate represents an appropriate 
and acceptable balance between labor and management. It has generally 
resulted in equitable contracts and relative labor peace. Any change in 
this current structure, in the absence of compelling need, is 
unwarranted. The proposed legislation would guarantee workers that they 
cannot lose their jobs during a strike, and would prohibit employers 
from hiring permanent replacement workers. This bill will have very 
negative effects on the general public and on all of the parties 
engaged in collective bargaining--not only on the picket line, but also 
at the bargaining table. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose S. 55.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that copies of the letters I 
previously referenced appear in the Record immediately following my 
remarks.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                          The Tool Shed, Inc.,

                                   Greenville, SC, April 26, 1994.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Thurmond: I own a tool store in Greenville, SC and 
     though I've lived here since 1977 I grew up in the steel mill 
     towns of the Midwest (Gary, Cleveland, Pittsburgh).
       I know personally how unions can negatively affect business 
     as I was threatened by fellow union workers to slow down my 
     rate of work, because I was exceeding the expected 
     production.
       Unions were originally established to protect employees 
     from employer abuses such as child labor, sweat shops, etc., 
     but now the unions run industry and in the long run will 
     continue to hurt the U.S. in the global economy. Let's face 
     it, millions of unemployed people in this land who want to 
     work would love to drive a truck from point A to point B and 
     would do so safely for far less than $20 per hour. If I can 
     find someone who can do it for less I should be allowed to 
     hire whom I choose (isn't that free enterprise)?
       Let the strikers start their own businesses, risk capital, 
     work 70 hour weeks and educate themselves in their spare time 
     if they want to make a greater income.
       Now you have before you The Strike Bill (S. 55) which will 
     promote more labor/management conflicts and give unions 
     unfair bargaining leverage. This legislation will give unions 
     unfair advantages in organizing and collective bargaining. 
     There will be increased strike activity if this legislation 
     is enacted and this will lead to disruption of all chains of 
     distribution dependent on the other.
       I urge you to vote NO on cloture. NO on the Strike Bill and 
     vote NO on any amendment or compromise.
           Sincerely,
                                            Nils W. Lindbloom III,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                                  Dixie-Narco,

                                    Williston, SC, April 26, 1994.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond: I understand that a vote on S. 55, 
     the ``Workplace Fairness Act,'' may come up soon in the 
     Senate. We at Dixie-Narco again urge you to oppose this bill 
     in any form.
       By prohibiting employers from granting permanent 
     replacement status to individuals who work during a strike, 
     this bill upsets the delicate balance in labor law that has 
     prevailed for five decades. It does this by removing the main 
     risk strikers--the possibility that their employer could 
     operate with permanent replacements. If this bill becomes 
     law, it would greatly encourage strikes and would 
     fundamentally alter labor-management relations. If these 
     long-established principles of fairness are overturned, 
     Dixie-Narco will be faced with higher costs and a diminished 
     ability to compete in international markets.
       You should be aware that this bill would allow unions to 
     call risk-free strikes over almost any issue. In addition, 
     companies like Dixie-Narco and our 850 union-free South 
     Carolina employees will be affected by this bill in two ways: 
     first, the resulting strikes against our unionized suppliers 
     will eventually affect our ability to run our business; and 
     second, this bill can only support the illusion fabricated by 
     union organizers that unionization equals job security--
     raising the odds of a successful union organizing campaign in 
     our Williston facility.
       The favorable labor climate in South Carolina was a big 
     factor in Dixie-Narco's 1989 decision to relocate to 
     Williston, and we have been proud to be among the Governor's 
     Award winners as a top job creator ever since. S. 55 
     represents a direct threat to the position from a Federal 
     level. Labor organizers already operate on bushels of false 
     promises--always promising to get more--even though they know 
     they can't deliver anything that a company won't agree to 
     give. Why give them yet another means of creating false 
     hopes? Why tip the balance to such an absurd degree?
                                                     ------ ------
                                  ____



                                                  Bi-Lo, Inc.,

                                      Mauldin, SC, April 29, 1994.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond: I am the Director of Human Resources 
     at BI-LO, Inc., which employs over 17,000. I am writing you 
     to urge you to vote against S. 55 anti-striker replacement 
     legislation.
       Over the past fifty years, federal labor law has crafted a 
     delicate balance between employers and employees in labor 
     negotiations which encourages both parties to settle their 
     disputes at the bargaining table, not through disruptive 
     tactics. S. 55 would effectively eliminate this balance and 
     force employers to accept unreasonable union contract demands 
     because they have no other way to continue operations.
       Because S. 55 eliminates risk for both sides to find an 
     accord in labor disputes the bill would substantially 
     increase the number of strikes, adversely affecting the 
     overall economic performance of the nation. Current labor law 
     places a risk on both employers and employees for failing to 
     reach an accord in a labor dispute. Employers risk the cost 
     of losing valuable, skilled workers and incurring excessive 
     costs during a strike to hire replacements. Unions risk the 
     loss of jobs for their members. This bill, S. 55, would 
     remove the risk to Unions for their failure to reach an 
     agreement.
       S. 55 would also harm innocent employees within the 
     affected companies who have no dispute with the employer. 
     They may permanently lose their jobs when employers are 
     forced to shut down in the face of unreasonable demands for 
     increased wages and benefits.
       The true impact of S. 55 is contrary to the goal of the 
     President's economic plan to restore and strengthen the 
     nation's economy. I urge you to VOTE AGAINST S. 55, to 
     support a filibuster of the bill and to accept no compromise. 
     No compromise would be acceptable on this issue, because any 
     changes made in the Senate version would no doubt be lost 
     when House and Senate representatives meet to finalize the 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jim McDonald,
                                      Director of Human Resources.
                                  ____

                                                American Furniture


                                    Manufacturers Association,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 1994.

                               Memorandum

     To: All Members of the U.S. Senate.
     From: Joseph G. Gerard.
     Subject: AFMA Key Vote--S. 55, Striker replacement 
         legislation.

       The American Furniture Manufacturers Association (AFMA) is 
     the largest furniture industry trade association in the 
     United States. Over eighteen billion dollars in sales are 
     produced annually by domestic furniture manufacturers, and 
     sales by AFMA member companies make up the vast majority of 
     that figure. Also, the AFMA members have home offices or 
     facilities in almost every state and employ approximately 
     500,000 workers.
       I am writing to express my strong opposition to any 
     supposed ``compromise'' on S. 55, the striker replacement 
     legislation. The vote on S. 55 will be an AFMA key vote for 
     this election cycle.
       The AFL-CIO is pushing for provision that would ban the use 
     of replacement workers for four to 10 weeks following the 
     start of a strike. Calling such a moratorium a ``cooling off 
     period'' is preposterous--the only side doing the ``cooling'' 
     is the business forced to shut down!! The ``compromise'' 
     would avoid a few strikes since most strikes last less than 
     10 weeks. And short strikes for highly competitive businesses 
     like the American furniture manufacturing industry are 
     devastating because most of the industry is comprised of 
     small companies with very narrow profit margins.
       Even with the supposed ``compromise'' S. 55 would play 
     havoc with industry by overturning 50 years of labor law 
     precedent that permits employers to replace economic 
     strikers. By removing the risk that they may be replaced, 
     even for shorter strikes, workers would have little incentive 
     to bargain in good faith.
       It is also important to note that the legislation is 
     counterproductive to economic stability and job creation. It 
     is ironic that at a time when Congress and the Administration 
     are exploring ways to cut the budget deficit and create more 
     jobs, that a bill is being considered that would breed 
     strikes, destroy business operations and create economic 
     uncertainty.
       I strongly urge you to oppose striker replacement 
     legislation and any sham compromise!!
                                  ____



                            Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co.,

                                      Charleston, SC, May 2, 1994.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond: I am writing on behalf of Lockheed 
     to express our strong opposition to S. 55, the Striker 
     Replacement bill. Your past opposition is appreciated, and I 
     urge you to maintain this position as the issue comes before 
     the Senate again in the next few weeks, where it faces a 
     likely filibuster.
       As you know, S. 55 would destroy the employer/employee 
     balance, which has well served the collective bargaining 
     process for decades, by removing all risks for unions in a 
     strike situation. Current labor law prohibits the hiring of 
     permanent replacement workers in strikes over unfair labor 
     practices - but S. 55 would extend that prohibition to 
     strikes arising out of economic issues. Such an extension 
     would remove the major incentive for unions to negotiate and 
     settle economic disputes, increasing the likelihood of more 
     frequent and/or lengthy strikes with the attendant costs to 
     business, government, and society in terms of 
     competitiveness, lost jobs, and business failures/
     relocations.
       In over 50 years of collective bargaining with the 
     International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 
     Workers, Lockheed has never used replacement workers. 
     However, passage of this measure could severely jeopardize 
     future negotiations both by Lockheed and other employers, 
     threatening the overall stability, competitiveness, strength, 
     and productivity of businesses in the United States.
       I respectfully urge you to vote ``NO'' on any compromise, 
     ``NO'' on cloture, and ``NO'' on S. 55. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Blair Maddock,
                                         Charleston Plant Manager.
                                  ____

                                                  National Council


                                    of Agricultural Employers,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 1994.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond: We the undersigned agricultural 
     organizations are writing in strong opposition to S. 55, the 
     Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act, which would prevent 
     employers from operating during a strike by hiring permanent 
     strike replacements. We would also oppose any so-called 
     ``compromise'' that may be offered to this bill, since any 
     change in current law would alter the necessary balance 
     between labor and management.
       Although many agricultural employees are not covered by the 
     National Labor Relations Act, the bill would have a serious 
     impact on our ability to bring our products to market. A 
     strike against a grain handling and milling company, a 
     trucking company, a food processing or packaging company, a 
     grocery concern or a restaurant ultimately injures those who 
     provide the food itself. If we can't get that food or 
     agricultural commodity to the consumer, we may as well not 
     produce it.
       Those of us involved in the production and processing of 
     food are especially susceptible to strikes. History has shown 
     that a well placed strike at a food processor/canner during 
     the peak of harvest places both the grower and processor in a 
     disastrous position. Because of the perishability of many 
     agricultural commodities, a strike at a packing or processing 
     facility places the entire crop and livelihood of the grower 
     and packer/processor at risk. Without the right to hire 
     permanent replacement workers, a harvest-time strike leaves 
     no option but to accept economically unreasonable union 
     demands or face financial ruin.
       We urge the Senate to forego any further consideration of 
     this damaging legislation.
       National Council of Agricultural Employers.
       American Farm Bureau Federation.
       Agricultural Affiliates.
       Agricultural Producers.
       Agricultural Retailers Association.
                                  ____



                                          International Paper,

                                    Georgetown, SC, June 14, 1994.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     217 Russell Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond, the striker replacement bill, to be 
     discussed on Thursday, is an important issue to International 
     Paper. I request that you continue to oppose this bill and do 
     what is possible to keep this bill from passing.
       At our paper mill in Georgetown, we are the largest private 
     employer in the county and we have a strong, positive working 
     relationship with our employees.
       The passage of this bill would lead to more strikes and a 
     decline in U.S. productivity. By forcing an employer to shut 
     down during a strike, it creates greater potential for a 
     company never to go back into business. The paper industry is 
     a global market and this bill would give the advantage to our 
     foreign competitors.
       Vote against the striker replacement bill.
                                                 George E. Payton,
                                          Manager Human Resources.
                                  ____



                                            Cooper Industries,

                                    Greenwood, SC, April 25, 1994.
     Senator Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond: As an employer of 200 employees of 
     Cooper Power Systems' Greenwood Capacitor Products plant, I 
     am writing to express strong opposition of S. 55, the striker 
     replacement bill. In our view, this measure is unwarranted 
     and will fundamentally change core principles of U.S. labor 
     law. It will overturn more than 55 years of well-settled 
     legal precedent and, in the end, lead to more strikes.
       National labor policy, beginning with the Wagner Act of 
     1935, balances the rights of employers and employees. Unlike 
     many of our international competitors, American workers have 
     the unconditional right to strike. The Wagner Act also 
     contemplated that employers could continue operations during 
     economic strikers using permanent replacements, which was 
     affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1938. This balance has 
     encouraged successful negotiations and served the interests 
     of employers, employees and the nation for more than half a 
     century.
       As written, S. 55 removes all risks to unions in a strike 
     situation. Employers, on the other hand, would no longer have 
     any effective recourse to strikes other than to accede to a 
     union's demands or cease operations. Looking to the 
     experience of Canada, where some provinces ban the use of 
     permanent replacement workers, we believe S. 55 would lead to 
     longer, more frequent strikes in the United States. A 
     University of Toronto study in 1989 found that in provinces 
     that prohibited striker replacement, the strikes were of 
     greater frequency and duration than in other provinces.
       The use of replacement workers has been relatively rare. 
     The General Accounting Office and International Labor 
     Organization concede there is no data to support the 
     conclusion that replacement workers are frequently being used 
     to resolve labor disputes.
       We believe in fairness but feel that S. 55 would only 
     benefit the less than 12 percent of workers represented by 
     unions at the expense of the majority of employees and 
     employers. A Congressional mandate that unions win every 
     strike will unfairly advantage union organizing efforts. 
     Accordingly, we respectfully urge you to vote ``NO'' on 
     cloture, ``NO'' on any compromise, and ``NO'' on S. 55.
           Sincerely,
                                                   R. G. Rocamora,
                              General Manager, Capacitor Products.
                                  ____



                                                   Winn Dixie,

                                   Greenville, SC, April 28, 1994.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond: As you are aware, Senate Bill 55 has 
     been introduced in the Senate which will lead to more 
     strikes, resulting in increased unemployment and community 
     disruption. This legislation is designed to make the strike a 
     lethal weapon, tilting the balance at the bargaining table. 
     At a time when job creation and economic growth are our 
     nation's top priorities, it makes no sense to adopt a policy 
     that will cost jobs and stifle growth.
       As an employer in South Carolina, I urge you to work toward 
     the defeat of Senate Bill 55.
       (1) Vote no on the Striker Replacement Bill--This is a 
     crucial issue that will affect the business environment and 
     economy for years to come.
       (2) Vote No on Cloture--The cloture votes will be the key 
     votes on this bill. If you oppose the bill, you must vote No 
     on Cloture.
       (3) Vote No on any political compromises--Phony Compromises 
     suffer from the same faults as the bill itself. The House has 
     already passed the bill, and it is doubtful any compromise 
     would survive the House-Senate Conference.
       We appreciate your help in defeating Senate Bill 55.
           Sincerely,
                                                    D.L. Whitford.
                                  ____



                                         Pepperidge Farm Inc.,

                                         Aiken, SC, April 7, 1994.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond: Once again, Pepperidge Farm, Inc. 
     urges that you vote NO on cloture and NO on final passage of 
     S. 55, the Striker Replacement Bill. Pepperidge Farm is well 
     aware the Senate is preparing to vote on this legislation, 
     whether as a stand-alone measure or as an amendment to other 
     legislation awaiting Senate approval. Pepperidge Farm, which 
     manufactures Premium Baked Goods, has strongly opposed this 
     legislation in the past and will continue to do so in any 
     form!
       For the wholesale baking industry, the issue is abundantly 
     clear--if union employees have the right to leave their jobs 
     over unresolved economic issues, then the employer has every 
     right to protect the economic interests of the company and 
     its shareholders by hiring permanent replacement employees. 
     The option of using permanent replacements is every bit as 
     essential to the nation's labor policy as the right of 
     employees to strike. This change in the current ``balance of 
     power'' between labor and management would render employers 
     virtually helpless in the face of unreasonable union demands. 
     The basic structure of labor-management relate as has worked 
     well for more than 50 years. The baking industry's reasons 
     for vehemently opposing a dramatic shift in that structure 
     are clear, employer rights, like employee rights MUST be 
     protected. As the Supreme Court said in 1938, ``The right to 
     strike is not unconditional. It must be balanced with the 
     employer's right to stay in business.''
       Pepperidge Farm urges you to think carefully about the 
     long-term ramifications of this legislation by opposing S. 55 
     in any form and voting NO on cloture.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ernest R. Allen,
                                                    Plant Manager.
                                  ____



                                            PYA/Monarch, Inc.,

                                                   April 21, 1994.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond: I am writing of behalf of PYA/
     Monarch, Inc. to express our strongest opposition to the 
     Striker Replacement Bill, S.55. If enacted this legislation 
     will have a devastating effect no only on my company, but on 
     the food distribution industry as a whole.
       Our labor laws recognize two equal rights: my workers' 
     unconditional right to strike and my company's right to stay 
     open during a strike by hiring permanent replacement workers. 
     The Striker Replacement Bill would destroy that balance by 
     removing all risks for workers in a strike situation. My 
     company, on the other hand, would no longer have any 
     effective recourse to strikes other than to give in to 
     workers' demands or shut down operations.
       A ``risk-free'' strike bill would encourage employees to 
     strike first and negotiate later, resulting in more strikes 
     and more businesses closing their doors. The bill is a 
     serious threat to my company. It would make us less 
     competitive and would have a ripple effect on my non-striking 
     customers, suppliers, workers, and also consumers.
       I strongly urge you to oppose the Striker Replacement Bill. 
     Please contact me if you have any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                 James R. Carlson,
                                                President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                          Burlington Menswear,

                                  Bishopville, SC, April 26, 1994.
     Re Opposition to S.55, striker replacement legislation.

     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond: It is my understanding that the so-
     called Striker Replacement Bill (S.55) could be considered by 
     the Senate at any time. I am very much opposed to this 
     legislation because it removes the current balance that 
     exists in collective bargaining and provides unions with 
     virtual immunity to job loss should they strike. Employers 
     would be left with the choice of giving in to a union's 
     demands or going out of business.
       Further, there is ample evidence from studies of countries 
     where such laws exists that they contribute to more and 
     longer strikes. How can a law which would cause this to 
     happen be good for our country's economy? Clearly, it 
     wouldn't.
       Please do not support the above bill or allow any 
     ``compromise'' bill to reach a conference committee where it 
     can then be revitalized. This is bad law in any form.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  William R. Hill.
                                  ____

  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], 
is recognized.

                          ____________________