[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. PELL addressed the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell].
  Mr. PELL. During the past few months, Mr. President, many of my 
fellow Rhode Islanders have taken the time to share their thoughts with 
me on S. 55.
  Many of the business men and women who have expressed their 
opposition to the bill have told me they are concerned the bill will 
tilt the balance of power in favor of labor. They are afraid they will 
be faced with only two choices; Acquiesce to union demands or go out of 
business. One person remarked that he considered this legislation to be 
blackmail.
  I view this legislation differently. Currently, an employee must 
accept the wage and benefit increases their boss offers or be 
permanently replaced, an interesting synonym for being fired. That's 
not much of a choice, Mr. President. Once passed and signed into law, 
this measure will restore an appropriate balance to labor negotiations, 
a balance that has been in place for 58 years. As in strikes for unfair 
labor practices, those who strike for economic reasons will have their 
right to strike preserved and protected and employers will have the 
right to hire temporary replacements.
  Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that in the near future, labor-
management relations will change from confrontation to cooperation. If 
the companies of this nation are to compete in the fast-paced global 
economy of the future, they will have to draw the very best from all 
portions of the company; including the men and women in the shop or on 
the production line. That change cannot take place however, without 
this bill becoming law.
  As one who customarily votes for cloture, I have no hesitation in 
urging my colleagues to join me in voting for cloture.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I think that yesterday and today we 
have had a good debate both pro and con on S. 55. There are some other 
speakers who wish to come down to the floor. But since they are not 
here yet, I would like to use an example which I think is illustrative 
in helping us understand some of the things that have been mentioned in 
the course of this debate.
  The proponents of S. 55 argue that labor has lost the right to 
strike. They contend that allowing permanent replacement undermines 
collective bargaining and therefore undermines the right to strike. I 
would suggest that this is not the case. I would like to speak a bit 
about a good example of that.
  The Teamsters national trucking strike illustrates why this 
contention is false. The Teamsters recently engaged in a 24-day work 
stoppage against 22 major trucking companies. Seventy-five thousand 
workers went on strike for over 3 weeks.
  Teamsters President Ron Carey and his bargaining team negotiated a 
tentative agreement, which he characterized as a fair contract that he 
strongly recommended. The contract called for wage and benefit 
increases of $3.20 per hour over the 4-year term. According to a New 
York Times report, Teamsters typically make about $17 per hour. Carey 
told reporters:

       Our members can go back to work proud of what they've done 
     for themselves, for their communities, and certainly for 
     future generations. Our members won on the key issue, which 
     was job security. * * * We stood up for the American dream. 
     We drew the line, not just for Teamster members, but for all 
     American workers. We said to the companies, ``You're not 
     going to destroy all full-time jobs in this country,'' and we 
     made that point stick.

  Mr. President, I take Teamster Ron Carey at his word when he says 
that through their strike, they drew the line and made that point 
stick. The trucking companies did not hire permanent workers to replace 
the striking workers. Ron Carey, the head of the Teamsters, believed 
that the strike was a success. And by the union's own admission, the 
workers won the strike. This was under current law, which those of us 
who oppose S. 55 would argue is balanced in ways that allowed both the 
employees and the employers to negotiate and engage in collective 
bargaining.

  How then can S. 55 supporters claim that the right to strike is 
meaningless?
  Our country just recently went through a prolonged national strike 
for over 3 weeks, and the union president claimed that the union beat 
management. The union successfully negotiated a contract, and no 
permanent replacements were threatened or hired.
  But I suggest, Mr. President, that the strike had an impact and there 
was damage done on all sides. I heard from Kansas constituents who were 
members of the Teamsters Union who wanted me to do something about the 
strike. They said the union leadership was out of touch, and they were 
concerned about what they were being asked to do. Retailers lost 
customers, and suppliers could not move their products.
  Some might say the strike produced too much economic pressure. 
Churchill Truck Lines, which is based in Missouri, was one of the 22 
companies struck by the Teamsters. The company went out of business as 
a result of the strike, and more than 2,000 employees lost their jobs. 
In business since 1926, Churchill operated 96 terminals in 26 States. 
The company president indicated that ``the economic impact of the 
strike and the economic impact of increased costs once the strike was 
settled led us to the decision that we could not operate.''
  I think, Mr. President, this strike severely strained Churchill Truck 
Lines. The strike worked so well, it put so much pressure on this 
particular company, that the company went out of business. This clearly 
refutes supporters of this bill who argue that the strike is no longer 
an effective weapon. Indeed, it certainly was in this instance. Tell 
that to the 2,000 workers at the Churchill Truck Lines who lost their 
jobs. They will tell you firsthand how well an economic strike works.
  Those of us who have opposed S. 55 do not point to Churchill Truck 
Lines and conclude that unions should no longer have the right to 
strike. Unions use their economic strike weapon and sometimes--on rare 
occasions--it can wipe out the employer. But that is a decision for the 
parties to make themselves, and they should have that ability on both 
sides to make that decision.
  We do not believe that simply because unions have the power to drive 
employers out of business, we should repeal the right to strike, even 
though I urge, Mr. President, as has been done during the course of 
this debate, that what we want to see in the American workplace is the 
ability for employees and employers to get together. That is what the 
whole purpose of labor law has been, not to cause aggravation and 
dissension and adversity, but to try to work together for the best 
interests of all involved.
  I really wish that the supporters of S. 55 would recognize the irony 
of bringing striker replacement legislation to the Senate floor after 
we endured a successful national economic trucking strike that worked 
so well that it put a major truck company out of business.
  This is why, Mr. President, I feel that for those of us who have 
opposed S. 55, we have done so in the belief that there is a better way 
to address the difficulties that one does encounter in the workplace. 
It only harms all concerned if we cannot do it in ways that address the 
future without trying to put companies out of business and create a 
further atmosphere of coercion and dissent and fear.
  It has been said many times during the course of this debate that, 
indeed, what we need to strive for is balance and fairness. That, to 
me, is what this debate has been all about and why when we talk about 
S. 55 as the ``workplace fairness bill,'' we miss the point 
completely and would only create an imbalance that does not allow the 
forces that are at work there, as illustrated by the strike of the 
Teamsters against the trucking industry, to work their will. But it 
takes a toll. It is not to say that we are trying to stop that process 
from working, but it is important to recognize the hardships that 
affect everybody when we handle disputes in such a way that we cannot 
resolve them to the benefit of all concerned.
  I know that there were others who wished to speak. I just say that I 
think the vote recently taken indicates that there are many who have 
deep reservations about S. 55. But I hope that, in the course of the 
debate, we have recognized that there is much at stake here. There is 
much at stake for the labor force and for the competitiveness of our 
industries.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________