[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.
____________________