Statement of Administration Policy: S. 55 - Workplace Fairness Act "Striker Replacement Legislation"

(SENT 6/9/92)
(Senate)
(Metzenbaum (D) OH and 36 others)

The Administration strongly opposes S. 55. If it were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend a veto.

S. 55 would prohibit employers from offering permanent jobs to replacement workers during labor disputes over economic demands, thus reversing over fifty years of experience in labor law. Evidence indicates that our Nation's labor laws and policies have been effective ln reducing labor strife and encouraging voluntary dispute settlement. S. 55 would destroy a prime component of the economic balance between labor and management in collective bargaining. By upsetting this balance, S. 55 would remove an important incentive for both parties to negotiate and compromise. It would promote labor unrest and expose our economy to the disruption of commerce and to the deleterious effects of anticompetitive collective bargaining agreements. In addition, it would create a hardship for small and struggling businesses and would result in fewer new job opportunities.

The provision in S. 55 that purports to remove non-union employees from coverage of the bill does not change the major thrust of the legislation. Thus, it does not diminish the Administration's policy objections to the bill. It would establish an unacceptable double standard for union and non-union workers. Moreover, it would not diminish the adverse economic impact of S. 55 on non-union suppliers and American consumers. Further, this provision is intended to prohibit non-union employers in some circumstances from using permanent replacement employees in the face of recognitional picketing by union supporters. Employers needing workers with hard-to-find skills and small or marginal firms would likely be forced to surrender their legal right to test the majority support of the union through a secret ballot election. In short, the choice would be between voluntarily recognizing the union or permanently closing their doors.

The Administration also opposes amendments that propose any type of moratorium that bars employers from offering permanent employment to replacement workers during a labor dispute over economic demands. This approach would represent equally ill- advised economic policy for this Nation. Like a total ban, a moratorium would upset the current economic balance in the collective bargaining system and exacerbate labor unrest. Ironically, a moratorium provision might in fact prolong labor disputes. A moratorium would almost guarantee that, unless an employer surrenders to a union's economic demands, the strike would continue at least the length of the moratorium.