Reference no: EM131462439

Question: Strikes are costly to both the union members walking the picket line and the company whose employees are off the job. Companies may lose business and struggle to get things done properly and on time. Often, they try to minimize the disruption by assigning managers and hiring workers to fill in. Meanwhile, those on strike don't earn what they would if they were at work. But can striking workers be replaced? In general, U.S. companies can legally replace workers temporarily or permanently during a strike. Consider what happened when the union representing 1,730 nurses at Stanford University Medical Center and Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital wanted to get members a raise in the next contract. The union asked for more than 17 percent, but management initially offered 8 percent. The two sides couldn't agree on the size of the raise, so the union notified the hospitals that a strike was imminent. The hospitals quickly arranged for U.S. Nursing Corp. to fly in hundreds of temporary replacements. "We're not strikebreakers; we're not scab nurses," said Daniel Mordecai, who founded U.S. Nursing. "We're a company that performs an emergency staffing service. If we didn't, the hospital would not be able to care for its patients and the community."

The American Nurses Association, an organization of unions representing nurses around the country, countered that the company "undermines the nurses who go out on the picket line, and it encourages lengthy strikes" because the hospitals are less motivated to continue negotiations. In this case, the nurses went back to work after a seven-week strike ended in a new contract with pay raises of up to 12 percent. Although companies are allowed to hire permanent replacements for employees on strike, few actually do so. Northwest Airlines decided to hire permanent replacements when its mechanics went on strike to protest the financially ailing airline's demand for significant pay cuts. As the dispute dragged on, Northwest intensified its cost-cutting efforts and finally filed for bankruptcy reorganization. The airline kept its jets in the air even as it continued to hire permanent replacements for the striking mechanics. Opponents say that companies should not be allowed to hire permanent replacements because the practice puts unions at a severe negotiating disadvantage. The unions have far less bargaining power if companies simply can replace workers who strike. Moreover, the striking workers suffer because they lose their jobs-not by being fired but by being replaced.

Critics also observe that companies in Canada, Mexico, and many other countries are not legally allowed to hire permanent replacement workers. If so many nations outlaw this practice, should it be legal in the United States? Until U.S. legislators take action on this issue, unions are looking more closely at other ways of pressuring companies without prolonged strikes. One approach is to hold demonstrations and publicity strikes to call attention to the situation and to try to gain public support. Another approach is to strike intermittently or strike different facilities at different times. Instead of striking, some unions may use slowdowns or file large numbers of grievances to put pressure on management without endangering workers' jobs. Professor Richard Lippke of James Madison University cites four alternatives to a total ban on permanent replacements. One option is to use permanent replacements only after a strike has lasted for a certain period. A second option is to enact laws discouraging but not forbidding permanent replacements, such as disqualifying companies from receiving government contracts for a specified period. A third option is to ban the practice but permit a company to ask an independent arbitrator to make an exception if warranted. A fourth option is to force both sides to go to arbitration and have both pay penalties for each day they fail to reach an agreement.14 For more information about this topic, go to www.nursingworld .org and www.usnursing.com.

1. How might management and the public react to a union publicizing a company's use of temporary or permanent replacement workers during a strike?

2. Should U.S. lawmakers forbid all companies from hiring permanent replacements for striking workers? Support your answer.

3. Should U.S. lawmakers forbid all unions from striking unless mediation and arbitration fail to resolve their disputes with management?