Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 21, 1993 TAG: 9303220381
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: B-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: GERALD MEADOWS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
REVERSING REAGANISM
THERE IS something terribly wrong and fundamentally unfair with the U.S. labor law.While the law says that workers cannot be fired for going on strike, they can be "permanently replaced." What's the difference? There isn't any. Sounds unfair? It is.
But that's what has happened and continues to happen to tens of thousands of working men and women throughout the country who put their jobs on the line to improve their working conditions.
The right to strike is fundamental to any notion of democracy. We must not forget that it was former Solidarity union leader Lech Walesa and Poland's striking workers who brought democracy to that country. Almost all of the Eastern bloc countries, having thrown off the yoke of communist rule, have adopted right-to-strike laws that prohibit the permanent replacement of workers.
Canada, Japan, France and Germany - our most successful economic competitors - all ban permanent replacement workers. The United States has the dubious distinction of standing with South Africa - certainly not a paradigm of good government - in permitting this practice. How can this have happened?
In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act and made it clear that the right to strike was a protected right of American workers. Congress understood that this was essential to maintaining a "level playing field" between workers and employers. The right of workers to withhold their labor was fundamental, and essential to any system of collective bargaining.
In 1938, however, the U.S. Supreme Court created a legal loophole, effectively gutting this right. In the Mackay Radio decision, the court ruled that although an employer is prohibited from firing a worker during a legal strike, the employer can, nonetheless, "permanently replace" that worker.
For decades, employers did not take advantage of this loophole, as most Americans viewed the permanent replacement of workers during a strike as totally reprehensible and unacceptable employer conduct. But then Ronald Reagan changed that.
Seven months into his first term, Reagan set the ultimate example when he "permanently replaced" some 11,000 striking air-traffic controllers. That unprecedented action sent a loud and clear signal to employers all around the country that it was OK to trample on workers' rights.
Employers have been following his lead ever since. Today, anti-union employers are actually provoking strikes, and then using the Mackay loophole to get rid of union workers. In many instances, they are loyal and experienced workers who have been with the company for many years. Too many employers, however, are more interested in slashing wages and benefits for the new hires.
Let's be honest. No one ever wants to go out on strike. But often it is a last-ditch effort that must be made when all other attempts to come to a fair compromise have failed.
Workers know too well that if they strike, they'll have a hard time meeting their house and car payments, and they may have to rely on soup kitchens and food banks for groceries. But despite these hardships and the severe sacrifices involved, strikes are often the only way workers will be listened to by management.
We cannot forget that all working Americans continue to benefit from improvements in working conditions - including holidays, paid vacations, pensions and health insurance - that have been hard-won as a result of collective bargaining and workers who have put their jobs on the line.
During the '80s, almost four out of five strikes were over employers' attempts to cut health-care benefits. The Mackay ruling allowed these employers to fire those striking workers who simply were trying to maintain their health-care coverage for themselves and their families - rather than shifting these costs onto an already overburdened public system and the U.S. taxpayers.
Legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Congress to restore the balance of power between labor and management by protecting workers when they exercise their fundamental right to strike. Thankfully, we now have a president in the White House who understands the importance of this legislation. President Clinton has said he will sign The Workplace Fairness Act.
It's time to change the law and plug the loophole that allows employers to sidestep the most basic of worker rights. Let's let the U.S. Congress know that it's time to send this bill to the president's desk.
Gerald Meadows of Roanoke is president of International Union of Electronic Workers, Local 161.