OCR Text |
Show Standard-Examiner Editorials oe ROGRESEREEEHRP REET ERR Ree eee ee OPINION ATURDAY ATTIRE MAYBEIF YOU AT __ CONCENTR ~* ON ONE AT ATIME.. Independent counsel lawis not necessary sae , Standard-Examiner - ew weer ane ‘ ~ Ss | a4 , ee ——We VoTeD FoR THeM | 7 2 SI t. L7G Fa , A. . MN -_ . ! THe CLINTONS! \ A>. ; uST Like reclinG one ONE THNG LAr Sor TH| extecliNe THem? BUT We GoT SomeTHine v ENTIRELY DIFFeReNT! &S Soon AS THeY Took PoWeR THeY Revealep THeiR TRue SéLves. Janet Reno's agenda as attorney general is to resuscitate the independent counsel act that was declared deadlast Decembet! When ae eee mau a Reno becameattorney general, she must have inkling that on someoccasion she might be called upon to Oversee a criminal investigation of some Clinton administration official. But by advocating renewal of the independent counsel law » She seems lo be saying that the Justice Department cannot be trusted to carry out this function. Reno a gu Committee that WHATS THE MOST IRRELEVANT QUESTION T COULD ASK YOU ? AND I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. before the Senate Government Affairs while “there are legitimate concerns about the costs and burdens associated with the act, I have con- cluded that these are far, far outweighed by the need for the act and the public confidence it fosters.” Nonsense An attorney general is accountable, at least, to some higher authority — the president. The independent counsel, on the other ha 1 and, is accountable to no one. Once appointec ah 1 dy a court panel, a special prosecutor l has almost limitless power to go after anyfederal official charged with wrongdoing. oh PaR ea Mace alisoadeterze heres ao” | obit lated the Arms Export Control Act or the Boland Amend- ey A classic exampleis the Iran-Contra probe. Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh spent six years and $40 million ; to determine whether Reagan administration officials vio- SWIM TEAM, SOCCER CAMP LIBRARY READING CIRCLE, PIANC LESSONS... WHAT SUMMER VACATION? ment, which forbade U.S. military aid to the Nicaraguan Contras. When Walshfailed to make any conviction stick, he drummed uphighly questionable charges against such respected figures as Caspar Weinberger. Walsh’s modus operandi was to threaten his prey with felony charges unless they provided information that would incriminate former Presidents Ronald Reagan or George Bush. Those who cooperated were promised a reduction of charges to misdemeanors. It is doubtful that an attorney general would be so overzealous in an inv esugation. £ U +e = R ‘THIS ONE IS FOR SURVIVING GRENADA, THIS ONE IS FOR SURVIVING DESERT STORM, AND THIS ONE |S FOR SURVIVING THE LATEST MILITARY BASE CLOSINGS |” For, unlike an independent counsel, who1s inclined to Omipapasaa Si) justify the time and expense ofan investigation by obtain- ing convictions, an attorney { — Par LBRO SBRBRERAS HR BES general is held accountable by his or her boss in the White House. D> | | | History validates that attorneys general can be trusted io prosecutefaithfully members of the executive branch whobreak the law. The independent counsel law was a dinosaur. It is in its grave where it belongs. Let it rest in peace. POINT/COUNTERPOINT Employees ha ve right to strike, and not risk being fired For Scripps Howard News Service — ot et oe If Congress really wants to move the countrytoward greater labor-management cooperation — genuine cooperation, that is — then it can begin by passing the Workplace Fairness Act, legislation to prohibit employers from “permanently replacing” workers who exercise their legal right to strike. Thebill is designed to correct a long-standing, judicially created anomaly in the law that says: “You have a right to strike, You cannot befired for it. But you can be permanently replaced.” Needless to say, the distinction is lost on working people who losetheir jobs forever because they exercised what they thought was alegally protected right. For more than 50 years, America’s national policy has been to promote good faith collective bargaining as a means of providing for the peaceful and orderly resolution of disputes over wages and working condi- tions between employers and workers. At the very core of this policy is the express right of working people to engage in concertedactivities without fear of employer reprisal. Indeed, the National Labor Relations Act states clearly and unequivocally that nothing in it shall “be construed so as either to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike.” LANE KIRKLAND ments even before negotiations begin. Often, workers are taking a stand against cutbacks is genuine and cannot be subjugated by management. America’s competitor nations recognize this, and in health care, wages, or pensions. One study showed that’s why nearly every one of them outlaws the This employee right helped provide some balance that more than two-thirds of all workers who were to offset management’s economic power and is the permanently replaced in 1990 were striking over foundation for a system under which management health care as a major issue. and trade unions faithfully represent different and sometimes opposing interests. Described with the somewhat misleading and pejorative term ‘‘adversarial relationship,” this system helped produce steady economicgrowth and improved living standards for the bulk of America’s work force. That is, until the 1980s. Though the permanent replacement loophole has existed since a 1938 Supreme Court decision, employers rarely used it until a decade ago, when an increasing numberof them saw it as an opportunity to bypass the collective bargaining system andestablish unilateral control of the workplace. It’s happened at Eastern Airlines, International Paper, Greyhound and at hundreds of lesser-known companies. For some employers, the use of permanent replacements has become an incentive to pro- voke strikes. Rather than bargain in good faith toward a mutually acceptable agreement, they instead seek to rid themselves of the union. In many cases, employers have advertised for permanent replace- The net result is to signal the employer’s intent to destroy the union, to harden bargaining stances on both sides, and to lengthen strikes for months and even years. These long and bitter disputes have a devastating effect on the lives of thousands of workers. They have destroyed once-profitable companies and shattered the communities in which they operate. These are precisely the consequences that the labor laws end our systemof collective bargaining are designed to prevent. Nowalong come the opponents of the Workplace Fairness Act, who proclaim that such “adversarial relationships” are outdated. Employers must be able to permanently replace strikers, they say, in order to compel American workers to be more “cooperative” — as if compulsion and cooperation were in any way comparable. In order to achieve the type of cooperation that will help propel the U.S. economyinto 21st century world leadership, workers must be given a voice that practice of permanently replacing striking workers. The Workplace Fairness Act would not prevent employers from operating during a strike with supervisors and temporary replacement workers. It would not promote strikes, as some have claimed, but rather would encourage reasoned compromise and the settlement of labor disputes through the system of collective bargaining that has served this nation well for decades. There is no balance and no genuine cooperation when one side can come to the bargaining table with the message: “Accept our terms or you'll be out of a job.” Yet that is the case when permanent replace- ments are threatened. For America’s workplaces and America’s economic future, the choice is clear — labor and management working together with mutual respect for one another or management by intimidation and fear. By passing the Workplace Fairness Act, Congress would take acritical first step toward making the right choice. (Lane Kirklandis president of the AFL-CIO, which includes 85 unions with 14 million U.S. members.) Companies require the right to replace striking workers ripps Howard New vice Imagine: a manufacturer in a small Midwest town is closing its doors after 30 years of business dueto a protracted labor dispute that leaves the company bankrupt. During the weeks of agonizing negotiations there was no oneto operate the factory machinery, leaving the company unable to continue business, The employer would havetried to hire permanent replacement workers to keep operations going during the strike — but that would beillegal — and, hiring, ; | / ; r temporary workers is easier said than done So the company was left to choose between the lesser of two evils: accede to unreasonable union demands and face the slower death of lost competitive ness or shut down the company altogether. Rather way the effect would be the same hundreds of workers left jobless in a small town wheretheir com pany was the largest employer True Story? It will be if the AFL-CIO convinces Congress to pass a bill that would disrupt more than 50 years ofestablished labor law to prohibit employ- ers fromhiring or threatening to hire permanent re placements during any labor dispute Employers would beleft with no recourse during an JERRY JASINOWSKI can replace workers. These “economic weapons” have contributed to economic strike but to surrender to union wage(or successful negotiations in nearly all instances. In fact, the 1980s sawincreased labor-management cooperation leading to a 45-year low in major work stop- other economic) demands or cease operations. Labor unions, with everything to gain and nothing to lose, will have no reason not to strike. Whydo some want to dismantle more than 50 years of proven labor law? Proponents of this bill claim our collective bargaining system worked well from the 1935 enactment of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) until the 1981 air traffic controllers’ strike spurred a newtrend in labor relations. Thefact is, the air traffic controllers were dismissed for breaking the law; it is illegal for government employees to strike, After repeated warnings to return to the jobs, they were fired — not replaced, No new precedent was set and the incident has nothing todo with the current debate Current law, as set forth in the National Labor Relations Act, encourages management and labor to reach agreement at the bargaining table, But in the rare occasion when a settlement is not easily achieved, each side has powerful ammunition to use as a last resort workers can strike, management pages — 35 in 1992, Now, the AFL-CIO wants to turn back the clock to a time when bitter disputes between labor and management prevailed. They want to tie management's hands by stacking the cards in favor of the unions. Their message is clear — they prefer strikes over cooperation, knowing this bill would provide the necessary weapon to force the hand of employers and vastly increase their ability to organize, Thecurrent system for handling labor disputes continues to work extremely well, Ata time when American businesses are facing increasingly stiffer domestic and foreign competition, employers use permanent replacement workers infrequently and only as a last resort For example, the congressional General Accounting Office found that in 1985 only 4 percent and in 1989 only 3 percent of striking workers were permanently replaced. In addition, a Bureau of National Affairs study found that the majority of replaced workers were ultimately reinstated, The truth is that the use of permanent striker re- placements has been relatively constant for half a century and eventhe International Labor Organization concluded that there is no reason tobelieve it was used more frequently in the 1980s. But it is often essential to the health of the business for a manufacturer to continue operations during a strike by using replacements — temporaryif possible, permanent if necessary. The AFL-C1IO’s so-called Workplace Fairness Act would only serve to increase the numberof strikes and undermine business’ abili- ty to be competitive. Beyondthe question of legitimacy of this issueis the question of timing. The Secretaries of Labor and Commerce recently appointed a commission to study labor law and report their findings in one year. Isn't this issue a cornerstone of labor law? Therefore, shouldn't the commission be allowed to study the matter prior to any congressional action? It is ironic the administration has on the one hand created this commission yet on the other hand supports expedited passage of this harmful: bill Jerry: Jasinowski is president of the National Asso dhon of Manulacturers) |