Labor Bills: Paved With Good Intentions

Asimple question was asked of a random sample of American in a Time/CNN poll: Do you favor a federal law that would prohibit employers from hiring permanent replacements for striking workers? By a margin of over 2 to 1, the over-whelming response was no.

Congress, however, has decided to ignore public sentiment. On June 15, by a vote of 239 to 190, the House passed a bill doing exactly what most Americans oppose, and the Senate is now debating the bill.

But supporters realized that with a mere 29 percent of the American people's backing, they need every bit of moral cover they can find. Their solution was to name the bill the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act, and have Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.,) proclaim that the bill was "a statement...about our fundamental values in this country."

This bill claims to ensure "workplace fairness" and bolster fundamental values, and it is named after a famous social activist, so it must be great for the country, right? Wrong! Despite the name, the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act is still a terrible piece of legislation which could have disastrous repurcussions on the economy.

The Workplace Fairness Act does not strengthen fundamental values. It does not safeguard workplace fairness. It has nothing to do with either. Quite simply, the bill prohibits companies from hiring permanent replacements to keep their operations going. This bill provides labor unions with unprecedented powers and enlarges their ability to bring business to their feet.

Currently a delicately-woven balance of power exists between employees and employers, developed and fine-tuned through a half a century of labor laws and court decisions.

Workers can strike over wage and health benefits, but employers can maintain their operation by hiring permanent replacements. Both sides have a potentially powerful weapon, but will use it only as a last resort. Both must take into account the other's power, thereby compelling them to negotiate fairly.

By insulating workers from the risks associated with strikes, this act would grant unions almost absolute control over the bargaining process, with little if any reason to keep their demands reasonable. The right of workers to withold their labor is an essential right.

But there must be a counter-weight to this immense power. The striker replacement bill would destroy the delicate balance, depriving businesses of their only defense against unreasonable union demands. Although those on strike lose wages, businesses would be hurt even more. Their business would grind to a halt, because, in many cases, it is nearly impossible to hire temporary replacements.

Finding workers to replace strikers is already a difficult task. Strikers often jeer at new workers, call them scabs, threaten them with physical abuse, and sometimes even engage in bullying tactics such as physcially and verbally attacking replacements.

It is not hard to see why workers are hesitant to work in such an environment. If this act passes, an already unattractive job will be made even less appealing. Because they will be guaranteed to lose their job at the end of a strike, few will want to work as temporary replacements.

In addition, the high cost of training will prevent many companies from hiring temporary workers; they would not be able to afford the cost. Businesses would find themselves in a lose-lose situation: cave in to whatever the union demands or stop production.

Proponents of the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act claim that employers provoke strikers so they can replace them with cheaper workers. Representative William L. Clay, D-Mo., the original sponsor of this legislation, claims that "employers provoke strikes to exploit the weakness in the law." He goes on to say that "intentional promotion of labor disputes by employers in order to bust unions undermines labor-management relations, the basic rights of workers, and the stability of our communities."

It makes sense that the employer's right to hire permanent replacements should be limited. For example, business should not be allowed to engage in "union-busting" or unfairly exploit workers. Current law prohibits both practices, and places limits on the situations in which a company can replace its strikers.

During strikes organized against illegal employment practices, such as union-busting and refusal of the company to negotiate fairly, workers are guaranteed their jobs. If employers do not bargain in good faith, the National Labor Relations Board can step in and order back pay also. Businesses cannot abuse their right to permanently replace workers.

Supporters of the striker replacement act claim that the power to hire replacement is too great and employed too often. But the truth is that replacement workers are rarely hired during strikes; this happens only if workers are unyielding and unreasonable in their demands. The General Accounting Office, in a 1991 study, found that only 3 percent of striking workers were permanently replaced.

It is important to remember that it is none other than organized labor unions who champion this anti-competitive, pro-union bill.

Their goal is not to ensure their right to strike; that right is already well-protected. They desire to force businesses to accede to union demands, reasonable or unreasonable. Union membership as a percentage of the labor force has declined over the past three decades, and union leaders see this as a way of bolstering their strength and attracting new members.

Critics of the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness bill label it the "strike breeder bill." This title is probably more accurate then the official one. Increased number of strikes, deterioration of the employer-employee negotiation process, and the disintegration of management-worker replacements are all likely results of such an act.

The Senate began debate on this issue earlier this month, but many senators are hesitant about doing away with 50 years of labor law, promoting strikes and tipping the scales too far in favor of strikers. A filibuster of the striker replacement act, which seems more and more likely with each passing day, would be great for the country. Now is certainly not the time to impose additional burdens on the economy.