Essay On Permanent Replacement Workers

A strike is the most powerful weapon that Unions and employees have to convince employers to meet their demands when it comes to improved wages, working conditions and hours. Due to employees striking, employers are in some cases forced to use permanent replacement workers. Should Congress step in and outlaw the use of permanent replacements during strikes? Some are in agreement with employers stating that if they are not able to replace the striking workers they, the employer, could face financial hardship; even go out of business. Smaller companies usually are not able to weather a strike without hiring replacement workers. On the other hand, what leverage would the employees have if they are not able to strike and return to their previous positions once the issues at hand are resolved? The issue of permanently replacing workers during strikes was a hot topic of discussion for the unions in the 1980’s and 19990’s. The unions asserted that employers were using replacement workers and the threat of using replacement workers to …show more content…
Supreme Court decision if the workers strike for economic reasons, such as better wages. This is known as the Mackay Radio rule: The Basic right to Hire Permanent Replacements. A few examples of companies that have actually hired permanent replacement workers in the past are Greyhound, the New York Daily News, Eastern Airlines and the International Paper Company. (Twomey , 1991) Employers are opposing the ban of using permanent workers because it would give employees less of an incentive to cross the picket lines and return to work. Workers would stay on the picket line as long as needed if they knew their jobs would be waiting for them when they returned. On the other hand, if permanent replacements were to be continued employees would think twice before striking and/or cross the picket the picket line at the sight of permanent replacements (Lippke,