[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 117 (Thursday, August 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          THE BASEBALL STRIKE

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, there are a lot of games being played 
here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but there are not many games 
being played on the baseball fields in America. There just ``ain't no 
baseball being played in the major leagues these days.''
  The strike in major league baseball is now 1 week old. There is no 
sign that millions of baseball fans are likely to see their favorite 
teams play any time in the near future.
  As a matter of fact, the rest of the season, the playoffs, and the 
World Series are all in serious jeopardy.
  We must bring this strike to a speedy resolution. Last week, Senator 
Hatch and I introduced legislation to do just that. As you would 
expect, the owners told the media that the Metzenbaum-Hatch bill would 
not do any good. But the players said nothing. So I called Don Fehr, 
head of the players association, and asked him what he thought. Last 
night I received Fehr's response. The way I read this letter it 
represents a strong indication that this strike could be brought to an 
early conclusion, and the season could get underway very shortly after 
we act.
  Here is what he said:

       Had S. 2380, the Metzenbaum-Hatch bill, become law prior to 
     the strike, it would have been a major step forward. Indeed, 
     it might well have had a beneficial effect on the 
     negotiations because the owners would have understood that 
     they could not unilaterally impose the salary cap free from 
     antitrust scrutiny. Moreover, the players would have options 
     to consider other than going on strike.
       Although one cannot know for certain, it is my best 
     judgment that had S. 2380 been law, it is much less likely 
     that players now would be on strike.

  The same letter, I believe, was sent to Senator Hatch.
  The players believe that the Metzenbaum-Hatch bill provides the key 
elements to end this strike. What the bill lacks is a way to protect 
the more than 600 major league players who could have their pay cut 
arbitrarily because they do not have contracts for next season while 
the players challenge the owners in court. The players have a good 
point which, I am frank to say, we did not consider when crafting this 
legislation. I do not see any reason why we could not amend our bill to 
protect players from these arbitrary salary reductions while their 
labor dispute is worked out in court. According to the players, if 
Congress passes the Metzenbaum-Hatch bill with this slight modification 
they are likely to go back to work. Fehr promised that:

       If * * * these critical and fundamental problems can be 
     addressed, we would seriously consider asking the players to 
     return to the field while negotiations continue.

  This is clearly good news. The head of the players association is 
telling us that if we pass a bill that applies the antitrust laws when 
any unilateral conditions are imposed, and protects against automatic 
salary reductions during an antitrust lawsuit, he might recommend that 
the players take the field and complete the season.
  Our task is obvious. at the appropriate point in time, the Senate 
should set aside the health care bill just for a few hours--because 
certainly the national health care bill has far more importance and 
priority than this matter--but for a few hours to move a bill that 
would put an end to the baseball strike. I will continue working with 
Senator Hatch and any other Senator interested in fine-tuning our bill 
so that we can move quickly.
  Frankly, this is the best hope the fans have to preserve the 
remainder of the baseball season, the playoffs, and the World Series 
for America's baseball fans.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. Fehr 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      Major League


                                 Baseball Players Association,

                                    New York, NY, August 17, 1994.
     Hon. Howard Metzenbaum,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Metzenbaum: It was with great interest that I 
     reviewed the bill, S. 2380, the ``Baseball Fans Protection 
     Act of 1994'', which was recently introduced by you and 
     Senator Hatch in an effort to bring baseball back to the 
     field, and save this season for the fans. More than anyone, 
     the players regret that the owners left them no choice but to 
     strike, and to interrupt a season a great as this one, 
     disappointing fans everywhere, and, unfortunately, affecting 
     individuals employed at or around major league stadiums 
     during the season. The players understand and appreciate very 
     much the ongoing efforts by you and Senator Hatch to bring 
     this matter to resolution as soon as possible.
       You have asked that I give you the views of the Major 
     League Baseball Players Association with respect to S. 2380. 
     Moreover, you have asked what legislation would cause the 
     players to consider ending the strike without reaching a new 
     collective bargaining agreement with the owners.
       As you know, there has been a strike or lockout in major 
     league baseball every time the MLBPA has negotiated with the 
     owners over the last 22 years. The strike which began last 
     Friday, 12 August, is the eighth consecutive work stoppage in 
     that period. S. 2380 is significant, because it directly 
     addresses the relationship between the owners' antitrust 
     exemption and their collective bargaining relationship with 
     the players. Without question, the unique exemption from the 
     antitrust laws enjoyed by baseball's owners has been, and in 
     the current dispute continues to be, a major contributing 
     factor to this sorry history. The owners are a legal cartel; 
     it is no surprise that they act like one.
       Simply put, the owners' position in this year's talks, as 
     it is in every bargaining round, is to insist that the 
     players accept substantial restraints on the free market for 
     employment of players, designed to limit players' freedom to 
     seek employment and to artificially depress the free market 
     value of players. And the owners so insist because they are 
     secure in the knowledge that, due to their exemption from the 
     antitrust laws, no terms or conditions of employment that 
     they can force upon the players, or unilaterally impose 
     following an impasse in bargaining, may be challenged under 
     the antitrust laws, no matter how unreasonably 
     anticompetitive those terms and conditions may be.
       It is this freedom from the antitrust laws--the antitrust 
     laws are in place everywhere else except in highly regulated 
     industries--which gives the owners the incentive to continue 
     to act as they have. They have monopoly power; why should 
     anyone expect them not use it? In other industries, and in 
     particular in the other professional team sports, this is not 
     the case. Rather, as those owners know, and indeed, as the 
     NFL owners recently learned, sooner or later their actions 
     are subject to antitrust review. Baseball's owners have no 
     such worries.
       In the ordinary circumstance under our labor laws, should 
     bargaining fail, management can lock out or, assuming a valid 
     impasse in bargaining, unilaterally impose terms and 
     conditions of employment consistent with its bargaining 
     position. Should that occur, the employees can strike and/or, 
     if the terms would otherwise violate the antitrust laws, seek 
     court review. In the current situation, the owners have made 
     it clear that they intend to impose their salary cap in the 
     off-season. Needless to say, the players can neither strike 
     in November nor challenge the cap under the antitrust laws. 
     Hence, as in past years, the players' only option was to 
     strike.
       Had S. 2380 become law prior to the strike, it would have 
     been a major step forward. Indeed, it might well have had a 
     beneficial effect on the negotiations because the owners 
     would have understood that they could not unilaterally impose 
     the salary cap free from antitrust scrutiny. Moreover, the 
     players would have options to consider other than going on 
     strike. Although one cannot know for certain, it is my best 
     judgment that had S. 2380 been law, it is much less likely 
     that players now would be on strike. If the owners had been 
     required to consider the antitrust laws when they formulated 
     their proposal to the union, and if the players had known 
     that they had protection under the antitrust laws, the result 
     might well have been different.
       We are, however, not at that point. S. 2380 is not law; the 
     owners are committed to the salary cap, and clearly intend to 
     impose it after the season; and a strike has begun. Even were 
     S. 2380 to be now enacted, it would be very difficult to ask 
     players to end the strike without an agreement. That would 
     permit the owners to impose the salary cap in the off-season, 
     with the players' only remedy being a suit of indefinite 
     duration filed after the cap was imposed, leaving the players 
     stuck with the cap during the pendency of the litigation 
     (unless they determined to go on strike next season). In the 
     interim, all of the new player contracts would be negotiated 
     under the owners' unilaterally imposed rules. (There are more 
     than 600 major league players who do not have contracts for 
     next season.) One cannot expect the players to put themselves 
     in that position. Moreover, S. 2380 would apply only to this 
     current dispute, leaving the players--and the fans--in the 
     same boat next time.
       If, however, these critical and fundamental problems can be 
     addressed, we would seriously consider asking the players to 
     return to the field while negotiations continue. Absent the 
     assurance that new contracts will be signed under the 
     provisions of the prior agreement, rather than under any 
     unilaterally imposed terms and conditions, the players will 
     not give up, even temporarily, the only recourse that the 
     Congress has provided for them. And the players are fully 
     prepared to stay on strike as long as is necessary to secure 
     an appropriate new agreement.
       Finally, I note that several fan and consumer groups (such 
     as Sports Fans United and the Consumer Federation of America, 
     among others) have today once again indicated their view that 
     the Congress should act to eliminate the owners' antitrust 
     exemption, and that in their view, the exemption is a major 
     contributing cause to the current strike. It is worth 
     remembering that, so far as I am aware, no fan, consumer or 
     public interest group takes a different view.
       Needless to say, I would be pleased to answer any further 
     questions you may have, and to work with you and Senator 
     Hatch on the precise details of any such legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Donald M. Fehr.

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I say to my colleague and friend from 
New York, I am very grateful for him permitting me to have a few 
minutes for the interruption of a more important debate on the health 
care bill.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader suggests the absence of a 
quorum.
  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 call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________