[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                                BASEBALL

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I come from Minnesota, the 
Minneapolis-St. Paul area, what used to be the home of the North Stars, 
almost was not the home of the Timberwolves, and I have what I might 
characterize as a personal and parochial interest in the proposal of my 
colleague from Ohio.
  My State is what they call a small-market State--lots of people, if 
you stretch the geography all the way to Colorado, but not a lot of 
people if you are looking at a television market. We lost our NHL 
hockey team. We are close to losing our NBA franchise. We came real 
close and somebody rescued it and Lord knows how long it will last. The 
damage to my State, if we lose baseball to a large market, would be 
substantial. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio will make that much 
more likely.
  Baseball has regulated itself for the protection of smaller markets, 
like the twin cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul, and the Senate ought to 
respect that process.
  Although the Senator from Ohio may deny it, the enactment of his 
legislation would represent direct intervention by the Government in a 
private collective bargaining negotiation. Even worse, by passing this 
legislation, the Senate would be choosing sides in the very midst of a 
private labor dispute. This legislation is a significant precedent for 
every other union to seek the same special treatment now being sought 
for the major league baseball players by the Senator from Ohio.
  Our system of labor-management relations has been built on the 
principle of free collective bargaining. That is, private labor 
disputes are best resolved by the Negotiations of voluntary agreements 
through good-faith bargaining by the parties to the dispute. Free 
collective bargaining is the principle theory behind not only the 
Norris-LaGuardia Act, but also the Wagner Act, and the Taft-Hartley Act 
as well as the labor provisions of the Clayton Act. Government 
intervention in the collective bargaining process is against the 
principles of free collective bargaining. Congress repeatedly has 
concluded that the Federal Government should not intervene in or 
dictate the resolution of private labor disputes. Even in areas of 
national security or national economic emergencies, such as railroad 
strikes, Congress has provided for substantial hurdles before the 
Government can intervene in the collective bargaining process.
  The baseball players' strike is neither a national security threat 
nor a national economic emergency.
  The proposal by the Senator from Ohio would change the existing law 
now available for all employers to implement a settlement after a 
bargaining impasse by denying this right only to the 28 owners of major 
league baseball teams. In a nation with millions of employers, this is 
the very epitome of special interest legislation. Even worse, the 
Senator from Ohio is proposing that the Senate enact this special 
interest legislation in the midst of an ongoing collective bargaining 
negotiation.
  The Senate would be appalled if legislation were introduced to 
legislate away the employees' right to strike during the middle of a 
private collective bargaining dispute. Senators undoubtedly remember 
how the railroad unions have denounced Congress whenever it has 
legislated the end to one of their strikes under the national economic 
emergency provisions of the Railway Labor Act.
  The same thing is true of airline strikes. Stripping away an 
employers' right to implement a settlement at impasse is the legal 
counterweight to the employees' well established right to strike. While 
we all miss baseball and wish that the players had elected to continue 
collective bargaining rather than striking, the cure of the Senator 
from Ohio would destroy the principle that private collective 
bargaining should be free from Government intervention.
  The legislation of the Senator from Ohio attempts to give 750 major 
league baseball players more rights than those enjoyed by football, 
basketball, and hockey players and every other group of unionized 
employees in the Nation. The legislation provides that the antitrust 
laws shall apply to any term or condition unilaterally implemented by 
the Major League Baseball owners.'' The Federal courts have held that 
the Federal Labor laws and not the antitrust laws apply to unilaterally 
implemented terms and conditions of employment as long as there is an 
ongoing collective bargaining relationship. As a result, the labor 
exemption to the antitrust laws, which governs all unionized employees 
and employers shields such terms and conditions from challenge by the 
antitrust laws. My colleague's legislation would strip the 28 major 
league baseball owners of the protection enjoyed by every other 
employer in the Nation, giving league baseball players far greater 
rights than any other group of unionized employees.

  It is clear that the Senate should not insert itself into this 
private labor dispute nor should it choose sides in any labor disputes, 
as it would do so by favoring the players union with this special 
interest legislation.
  Lets urge the owners and players to resolve their differences through 
the collective bargaining process and avoid rushing into something that 
undermines the principles of collective bargaining that have served 
this Nation so well for over 60 years.
  Mr. President, I want to add a personal and parochial argument as 
well. My State has lost an NHL hockey team. We are close to losing an 
NBA team. The damage to my State if we lose baseball to a large market 
would be substantial. This amendment will make that more likely.
  Baseball has regulated itself for the protection of smaller markets 
like the Twin Cities and the Senate ought to respect that process.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] is 
recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Minnesota leaves 
the floor, I wish to say just one remark in summation.
  It has been a great honor to serve in this body, where one has the 
opportunity to serve with persons of great moral and political 
strength. Of such persons I have known none such as he, the Senator 
from Minnesota, a man of perfect honor, an incredible capacity for 
listening and trying to reach solutions. He has graced this Chamber, 
and I hope we will not be without his advice or at least his prayers in 
the years to come.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I am most grateful to my colleague 
from New York, and I may say I will certainly see him on November 30 
and December 1.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. That is right.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. But on a subject near and dear to both of us, the 
income security of people of this country, including health care 
reform, I plan to be around as long he needs me. I am grateful to him 
for his comments and thank him very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

                          ____________________