Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5 - To Amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Participation in Labor Disputes — "Striker Replacement Legislation"

(House Rules)
(Clay (D) MO and 210 others)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5. If it were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend a veto.

H.R. 5 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 suggests that our Nation's labor laws and policies have been effective in reducing labor strife and encouraging voluntary dispute settlement. H.R. 5 would destroy a prime component of the economic balance between labor and management in collective bargaining. By destroying this balance, H.R. 5 would remove an important incentive for both parties to negotiate and compromise. It would promote labor unrest, disrupt the flow of commerce, create a hardship for small and struggling businesses, and expose our economy to the anti-competitive effects of inflationary collective bargaining agreements.

The language in H.R. 5 that purports to remove non-union employees from coverage of the bill does not change the major thrust of the legislation, and thus 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 H.R. 5 on non-union suppliers and customers of unionized businesses. Further, the "union-only" provisions could be interpreted to prohibit non-union employers from using permanent replacement employees to continue their operations in the face of recognitional picketing by union supporters.

We understand that amendments may be offered to H.R. 5 to place a time-specific "moratorium" barring employers from offering permanent employment to replacement workers during an economic strike. This approach also would represent 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 increase labor unrest. A moratorium would almost guarantee that, unless an employer surrendered to a union's economic demands, the strike would last at least the length of the moratorium.