[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 89 (Tuesday, July 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 12, 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 Senate continued with the consideration of the motion.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                        striker replacement bill

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to S. 55, the striker replacement bill. I am opposed to this 
legislation because it would disrupt the careful balance between labor 
and management as provided for under current law. I am opposed to this 
bill because, in my view, it is bad for economic policy and growth. 
Above all, I am opposed to this bill because of the severe impact it 
could impose on the smallest members of the American business community 
and their employees, such as those comprising 99 percent of South 
Dakota's businesses.
  As the ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I work 
with entrepreneurs every day. I have heard their concerns and know 
their limits. Everything I have learned from business men and women 
tells me they cannot handle the day-to-day uncertainty this legislative 
proposal would impose of them.
  Under current law, employees have the ultimate collective bargaining 
tool--the right to strike. In turn, employers have the right to use 
permanent replacements during strikes as long as they do not violate 
the unfair labor practices laws administered by the National Labor 
Relations Board. This has remained a well-established principle of 
labor law since 1938, when the U.S. Supreme Court recognized 
management's right to hire replacement workers.
  Mr. President, I might at this point insert in the Record a progeny 
of American labor law.


                     Progeny of American Labor Law

  The National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] is the principal law that 
provides our basic labor policy. The two major components of the NLRA 
are the Wagner Act of 1935 and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.
  The Wagner Act of 1935 was the first comprehensive Federal measure 
protecting union organizing and collective bargaining activities in 
private industry. The act established broad rights for collective 
actions by employees.
  The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 limited union power by preventing 
secondary boycotts. Further, it allows States to adopt right-to-work 
laws.
  The Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959, increased union democracy by 
imposing financial disclosure requirements on unions.
  Mr. President, I thing it is important to note the Wagner Act did not 
specifically address the issue of whether employees who strike for 
economic reasons are guaranteed return to their former positions at the 
end of the strike. This principle of hiring permanent replacement 
workers was established by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1938 in the 
case of NLRB versus Mackay Radio and Telegraph Company. That decision 
established a distinction between two types of strikes--unfair labor 
practices strikes and economic strikes. The court ruled that employers 
may hire permanent replacements in cases of economic strikes, but 
banned the hiring of permanent replacements for strikes over unfair 
labor practices.
  I think it is fascinating how we have maintained a balance between 
unions and management and how that balance is working to create jobs. I 
recall as a high school student studying the Landrum-Griffin Act of 
1959 which is part of that progeny. I think these acts have provided 
our country with job growth and opportunities, with flexibility in 
decisions by employees and employers, and with benefits to employees. 
The American worker is, in many ways, the best in the world. Our 
workers have the most choices, are the most mobile and have the most 
training opportunities available in both the public and private 
sectors, when all other things are considered.
  Employers currently are barred from hiring replacement workers during 
strikes over unfair labor practices. The proposed striker replacement 
bill would extend that ban to economic based strikes, such as those 
regarding wages, hours, and benefits. The result would be a substantial 
shift in the balance of power between labor and management. It 
effectively would guarantee that unions would win every strike. Unions 
could call virtually risk-free strikes over any issue. In short, 
employers, both large and small, would be left powerless to union 
demands.
  Enactment of S. 55 would severely limit the ability of a business to 
operate during a labor dispute--perhaps forcing the business to fold. 
This would be true especially for businesses that produce perishable 
products. The striker replacement bill could affect packing, 
processing, transportation, distribution, and the retail sale of 
hundreds of agricultural goods, severely impacting production and 
sales.
  Mr. President, small businesses have several special characteristics 
that leave them especially vulnerable to this striker replacement bill. 
First, many small firms operate on a razor-thin profit margin, which 
quickly can be legislated into nothingness. They do not enjoy the wide 
profit margins or the diversity of their large competitors. As a 
result, the bread and butter of small firms lies in their day-to-day 
operations. If daily operations are shut down for even a short time, 
their doors are in danger of closing forever. Not only would the 
employer be affected, but the employees also would face losing their 
jobs. If business operations are terminated, jobs are lost. Thus, 
enactment of the striker replacement bill would hurt not only 
businesses, but also the very workers it claims to protect.
  Second, small businesses often are highly labor intensive. If only a 
few key employees walk out, production could grind to a halt. Small 
firms do not have the luxury of multiple-layered workforces. They do 
not have the middle management resources necessary to keep production 
running. Small firms in high-technology industries are especially 
vulnerable. Our Nation's best innovations are coming from small 
entrepreneurs, but their productive creativity will not continue if 
they are denied access to a highly skilled work force.
  Hiring temporary workers is not a viable option for these small 
businesses. Small firms have neither the financial nor the personnel 
resources to locate and train employees, only to release them at a 
moment's notice. It also is highly unlikely the skilled workers needed 
would cross a picket line to join a small business on a temporary 
basis.
  Third, small businesses that are not directly impacted by striking 
workers can be put out of business indirectly. This ripple effect is 
felt in several ways. Small firms cannot afford to stockpile inventory 
as retail giants can. Therefore, any breakdown in supply lines can 
seriously affect their day-to-day operations. Further, in communities 
dependent on a single, large employer, strike effects ripple throughout 
the local mom and pop operations. Local restaurants, drugstores, gas 
stations, and movie theaters can be put out of business by a strike at 
a large plant. The encouragement of strikes at any level will come back 
to haunt small business employees and employers.
  Fourth, this bill would become an unfair union organizing tool that 
could be used to threaten small, nonunionized businesses. The 
legislation gives unions a distinct advantage by allowing them to 
guarantee nonunion employees a job if they join. Nonunion employers 
simply could not compete with a promise like that. This would leave 
even small nonunion firms with good labor track records susceptible to 
union disruption.
  The bill gives even more power to unions by allowing them to 
represent nonunion employees who have not yet voted for union 
representation. Under S. 55, striking nonunion employees could not be 
replaced if a slim majority of them have signed union authorization 
cards. These cards often are signed in the presence of union 
representatives without any benefit of hearing the pros and cons that 
are aired during an election campaign. In other words, this bill would 
allow the union to represent all employees without a Government-
sponsored secret ballot election, leaving democracy in the workplace 
open to coercion and intimidation.
  Mr. President, I have described current law concerning the hiring of 
replacement workers and the impact of S. 55 should it be enacted. 
However, we also should consider current practices by management 
regarding the hiring of replacement workers. Are employers typically 
hiring replacements as a means to avoid negotiating with organized 
labor? Not according to a 1991 General Accounting Office [GAO] study.
  The GAO study, Strikes and the Use of Permanent Strike Replacements 
in the 1970s and 1980s, estimates that employers announced they would 
hire replacements in about one-third of strikes in 1985 and 1989. 
However, the study also estimates that of the strikes for which 
permanent replacements were hired, only 4 percent of the striking 
workers were actually replaced in 1985, and only 3 percent in 1989. 
Does the replacement of 3 or 4 percent of striking workers demonstrate 
a need to jeopardize overall business stability?
  Quite simply, current legal protections for strikers are adequate. 
This bill would encourage strikes and removes existing incentives to 
engage in a fair collective bargaining process. The right to strike is 
a well established principle of labor law. The right of an employer to 
stay in business during a strike is an equally important right. As I've 
already mentioned, these principles have been upheld by the Supreme 
Court for over 50 years.
  Mr. President, the striker replacement bill effectively would end the 
ability of many small employers to stay in business. I cannot support 
legislation that could endanger small businesses and their employees in 
such a manner. I am committed to small business economic growth and job 
creation in South Dakota and across the Nation. I will continue to 
oppose legislation that would create more obstacles to their success. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose further action on this shortsighted 
striker replacement bill.
  I might add, Mr. President, that employees would be hurt by this bill 
because there would be less jobs and because they would be forced to 
join a union, which some of them do not wish to do.
  But I think if we look at the overall picture of U.S. labor, we will 
find that the U.S. worker has more flexibility, better wages and 
conditions, and more benefits than other countries of the world. U.S. 
employees are not frozen into one company or one job forever. That is 
something to remember.

                          ____________________