[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8258-S8259]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                THE SHAW'S SUPERMARKET LABOR CONTROVERSY

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the past 2 days, 6,500 workers have 
been on strike at the Shaw's Supermarket chain in southeastern 
Massachusetts and Rhode Island. These workers are members of the United 
Food and Commercial Workers Union. For months, they negotiated in good 
faith with their employer in an effort to reach a collective bargaining 
agreement fair to both sides.
  But no agreement could be reached. The company insisted on cutting

[[Page S8259]]

health care benefits and requiring the employees to pay part of the 
premium. The company also proposed to reduce sick leave and cut back on 
job security protections. In addition, the company would not even 
consider the wage increase that the workers are seeking.
  The company left workers no choice but to go on strike when their 
current contract expired--and at midnight last Sunday they did so.
  Many of the affected employees earn less than $6 an hour. All of them 
count on health benefits for themselves and their families. These 
employees include Marilyn and Donnie Henderson, a husband and wife from 
Methuen, MA. They began working at Shaw's over 15 years ago, when the 
company was a family-owned business. Now it is owned by a corporation 
based in Britain. Donnie Henderson suffers from emphysema. He needs the 
health insurance. So do the couple's children, one of whom is disabled.
  The Hendersons and thousands like them are hardworking, dedicated 
employees of Shaw's. They went on strike only as a last resort, because 
they can't afford to take the cuts the company demanded.
  Today, it appears that the company and union have reached a tentative 
settlement of their dispute. Union members will vote tomorrow on 
whether to ratify the agreement. Employees could be back on the job by 
this weekend.
  All of us agree that labor disputes are best resolved when the 
parties themselves can reach agreement. I am hopeful that this is what 
has happened between Shaw's and its employees.
  But, if the matter is not resolved, and workers are forced to 
continue to walk picket lines, I am concerned that the company might 
again turn to the use of replacement workers. Shaw's used replacements 
from the beginning of this strike, and I regret that. This tactic is 
hostile to loyal workers like the Hendersons, and hostile to the 
collective bargaining process. In strikes where permanent replacements 
are used, workers lost the most, but studies show that everyone else 
loses as well. Employers suffer, too, because strikes are prolonged.
  According to a study of the period from 1935 to 1973, the average 
duration of a strike was seven times longer in cases where permanent 
replacements were used.
  Another study found that, where employers neither announced an 
intention to hire permanent replacements nor actually hired them, the 
average length of strikes was 27 days, but it soared to 84 days when 
permanent replacements were hired.
  The ability to hire permanent replacements tilts the balance unfairly 
in favor of businesses in labor-management relations. Hiring permanent 
replacements encourages management intransigence in negotiating with 
labor. That practice encourages employers to replace current workers 
with new workers willing to settle for less--to accept smaller 
paychecks and other benefits.

  This tradeoff is unacceptable for the 6,500 striking workers at 
Shaw's Supermarkets, and it is unacceptable for working men and women 
across the country. Therefore, if the tentative settlement between 
Shaw's and its employees breaks down, and Shaw's tries to hire 
replacement workers again, I intend to offer legislation to prohibit 
this practice. The Workplace Fairness Act will ensure that the right to 
join a union and bargain over wages and employment conditions remains a 
meaningful right, instead of a hollow promise. The bill reaffirms our 
commitment to the collective bargaining process, and to a fair balance 
between labor and management.
  I am hopeful that employees and Shaw's management will resolve all 
their differences this week. But if they do not, and replacement 
workers appear at the supermarkets again, I intend to offer a bill to 
outlaw that tactic, and will urge my colleagues to approve it.

                          ____________________