[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND RAILWAY LABOR ACT AMENDMENTS

  Mr. EXON. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the striker 
replacement issue. It has been laid to rest at least for this year. But 
we have to look to the future. We have to continue to discuss what is 
right and what is wrong, what can be accomplished and what cannot be 
accomplished. I simply say that this is a time for reflection. This is 
a time for all of us on the floor of the Senate on both sides of the 
issue to realize and recognize that this issue is not going to go away.
  I salute the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Iowa and others 
who have taken a leading role in this issue. I hope that the remarks 
that I am making might have a receptive ear in the Labor Committee, so 
that they might begin to work toward a compromise proposal that can 
address what I feel are the legitimate issues that have been advanced 
by the majority of the U.S. Senate and a majority in the House of 
Representatives--that something must be done on this issue other than 
sitting back and saying no, no, a thousand times no, no changes 
whatsoever.
  I strongly agree with the bill's fundamental premise, and I continue 
to support the concept. But today I would like, in a few moments, to 
try to place some of this in perspective in accomplishing something in 
the future.
  It pains me to see and hear much of the same old invective on this 
issue. The question on the use of permanent replacement workers has 
been a lightning rod, attracting virulent opposition from those 
spouting the worst-case scenarios, which seldom come to pass. The issue 
has, in some instances, been twisted into a type of referendum on the 
labor movement. The issue is not whether we like organized labor or 
not; the issue is whether we believe in the fundamental fairness of the 
longstanding structure of Federal labor law which allocates the rights 
and responsibilities of labor and management in this country.
  I think it is true, if we look back in history, Madam President, to 
see that, as is frequently the case, the pendulum swings way far to the 
right and way far to the left. I would hope that with the attitudes of 
this Senator from Nebraska, and others, we can bring that pendulum 
swinging in the middle ground rather than far to the right or left.
  Throughout my years, I have had experiences on both sides of the 
labor-management line. That is why I believe that the best thing that 
the Federal Government can do is to construct a fair system of labor 
and management and then to step out of the way. That is why I also 
believe that it is time to do some essential maintenance to that 
structure and repair one of the pillars that has rotted, I suggest, 
from neglect. Even though both labor and management have rights and 
responsibilities under the Federal law, labor's right to strike has 
been weakened and is no longer structurally sound. Many think that is 
exactly the way it should be. I suggest that the advancements in this 
country over the years, our standard of living, the world position that 
we have as the only remaining superpower, the good life that we all 
enjoy, is a combination of the efforts of management, business, and the 
capital that they put into the free enterprise system, along with the 
skills of the laboring people of the United States of America.
  It is true, then, that both labor and management have rights and 
responsibilities. The Federal law previously has tried to dictate that. 
Labor's right to strike has been weakened beyond any reasonable 
interpretation of that right. There are some, however, who care little 
about whether that pillar of the right to strike is sound, because they 
would rather see the entire structure collapse. I reject that mindset, 
and I reject those destructive tactics and motives.
  Madam President, the use or threat of use of permanent replacements 
is a massive rock that looms over the bargaining table, threatening to 
crush negotiations and to scatter support for labor. Tell me what a 
worker is supposed to do when an employer presents no feasible offer, 
pushes a union to the brink, and then places ads for permanent 
replacement workers, sometimes even before the strike takes place? How 
will that worker vote on a strike vote when the employer refuses a 
union's offer? Meager strike pay will soon be depleted, the family is 
relying on a single health plan, the worker will be immediately 
replaced, or possibly immediately replaced, if he or she does indeed go 
out on strike, and employers can dangle bonuses to entice strikers to 
leave the picket line? Is it any wonder that the business community, 
not all of it but parts of it, has worked so feverishly to bottle up 
and destroy this bill and maintain the upper hand that they have now 
that they are enjoying?

  I have heard many arguments against this bill. Nonunion businesses 
have said, even though the bill does not apply to them, that any strike 
along the chain of distribution would kill the entire chain. 
Specialized businesses have said that they could not recruit skilled 
temporary workers, even though that difficulty often is not reflected 
in their efforts to retain their skilled union workers. Other 
businesses speak about the sense of obligation that they feel to their 
workers, not to the strikers, but to the newly-found replacements. Some 
companies even seem to be seeking a Federal guarantee that they will 
never be struck under any circumstances.
  Madam President, I do not think there is any question but what cases 
can be cited, and rightfully so, of the abuse of the strike by some 
unions. That is not to say that just because of that, though, we 
should, in effect, eliminate the right to strike which has long been 
recognized as an important segment and part of the collective 
bargaining process.
  Madam President, the House has passed a bill. The Senate has the 
votes, obviously, to pass the bill. The Senate just does not have the 
votes to bring the bill to the floor to a vote.
  Had we been successful in ending the filibuster it was this Senator's 
intention to offer an amendment that I thought might have brought all 
the warring parties together so that we could have gotten 50 votes to 
pass some kind of a revised, moderated bill.
  Madam President, I have always tried to bring a little pragmatism 
from the plains of Nebraska into my work in the Senate. Even though 
both sides have been firmly entrenched on this issue, I have always 
felt that there is some middle ground and that it was certainly 
possible to construct a workable solution. I put forward an idea over 
the last several months that I believe could have broken the impasse 
and deflated the filibuster.
  I do not believe, Madam President, that unions should have a free 
hand to break a business by striking forever. That makes no sense for 
business or labor. It is time for reason and a workable compromise.
  I have called for a modification to the bill which would have created 
a short-term ban on permanent replacements, say 60 days, or something 
in that area. After that time permanent replacements could be phased-in 
over several months until an employer could have a work force made up 
entirely of permanent replacements, say, possibly in a year or so.
  I believe the phase-in would be less disruptive than an all-or-
nothing deadline that has been sought by both management and labor 
today. I believe also that it retains the fundamental premise of the 
bill, curtailing the big hatchet of permanent replacement, while 
retaining all the other means by which an employer can respond to a 
strike, including even good faith bargaining.
  My approach also provides an incentive for both parties to get back 
to the bargaining table. An employer has an immediate incentive to 
bargain. Unions, however, know that with each passing day their 
position is being undermined by more permanent replacements and that 
the clock continues to run.
  In closing, Madam President, just let me say that even though I feel 
that this gradual phase-in approach may have provided a solution, I 
regret to say that the idea did not catch on because the two sides were 
involved in trench warfare, neither really seeking a workable 
compromise, both wanting to have the vote count, to see who voted how, 
on an issue for whatever purpose that might later be used.
  The current state of labor law in this country is decidedly in favor 
of management. That was my earlier reference to the pendulum swinging 
back and forth. I think at one time the laws of the United States of 
America swung too far to the labor side. Obviously, that is not the 
case today as a result of the recent votes that we had on this issue 
yesterday and again this morning.
  I do not fault labor nor do I fault management for fighting to keep 
their advantage. That is understandable. We in the Congress of the 
United States, though, should look at ourselves as more of a referee to 
try and work out something constructive rather than just choosing sides 
between labor and management.
  I look forward to the day when the business community will tire of 
its efforts to break the back of labor and direct its resources into 
cooperative efforts with labor. Our business community has more 
important things to do, like staying competitive in a global economy, 
than being preoccupied with excoriating labor.
  Madam President, likewise I say to the labor movement in the United 
States of America that they likewise have a responsibility, and I do 
not place all of the blame for this impasse on management. I say that 
to those in labor and I say that to those in management, with hope that 
they could come to recognize that the long-term interest of the United 
States of America, their businesses and their unions, must come to a 
place where we work together in cooperation, not one continuing to try 
to outdo and get an upperhand on the other.
  Madam President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order the motion to proceed 
to S. 55 is withdrawn.

                          ____________________