N.Y. Post Did Right With Unions

The ugly battle that erupted last week at the New York Daily News proves that there is still a large segment of American management that wants all-out, no-holds-barred wars to destroy unions.

The struggle at the New York Daily News shows the strength of the anti-labor forces and reveals the “permanent replacement” tactic that union-busting attorneys are perfecting and peddling for big money to more companies.

But a countervailing trend, however, will be celebrated at a huge party Thursday in Washington portending better things.

More than 1,000 of the nation’s most prominent corporate executives, union leaders, government officials and others will join in a rare public tribute to the American system of collective bargaining and to former Secretary of Labor Bill Usery, whose career symbolizes a rational approach to labor-management relations.

His long and prosperous career is still devoted to the peaceful resolution of labor disputes and to his conviction that given good faith on both sides, management and unions can thrive together with a minimum of friction.

Many--but not all--corporate leaders at the party already engage in successful, cooperative relations with unions. Like most employers, some at the party don’t want their workers to join unions and generally support anti-labor legislation.

Still, the number of corporate leaders celebrating our collective bargaining system clearly indicates that the move toward labor-management peace is far from dead.

But the hope for the future is dimmed by the Daily News battle. Two weeks ago, owners of the newspaper finally succeeded in provoking a walkout that they expect will kill off unions there so management can slash wages and benefits, and unilaterally establish working conditions.

Management has a well-calculated fallback position it really seems to prefer: Weather the walkout long enough to legally blame the unions for the firm’s almost-finalized plan to shut down the money-losing newspaper anyway.

The decision is being made by Tribune Co., whose subsidiaries include the New York Daily News and the Chicago Tribune.

If the company can succeed in claiming that the unions’ walkout killed the paper, it may be able to save the Tribune up to $200 million in severance pay, certain pension expenses and other closing costs that Tribune Co. would incur if it shuts down the Daily News because it’s losing money.

The unions fell into management’s carefully set trap that required the company to first provoke a strike workers didn’t want and resisted for months.

Daily News management began building the trap at least two years ago when the company declared psychological war against its employees. Initially, it just taunted its workers by brandishing the company war plan.

Then it began hiring and training hundreds of strikebreakers and brought in uniformed armed guards with dogs to march around company facilities. Remember, there was no strike then; union contract talks had not even begun.

Next, the company made an offer the workers could and did refuse: Accept a new contract that would cut wages and benefits by more than $150 million and give the company complete authority to operate without union contract protections that limit management’s authoritarian rule.

Workers were told they would be not be fired if they went on strike, but they would be permanently replaced.

The firm was to use our unfair labor law that protects workers’ right to strike without fear of being fired, but, irrationally, also allows them to be permanently replaced--as if there were a difference.

The company hoped for a quick strike, but the workers rejected the company’s harsh demands and still refused to strike, knowing hundreds of strikebreakers were prepared to replace them.

The stalemate was nerve-wracking for employees because the company made it clear that their jobs would be eliminated if they struck or cut to ribbons if they accepted the company offer.

The innocuous spark the company wanted so desperately was ignited when a management foreman ordered one worker to stand as he monitored the operation of a conveyor belt.

The employee continued working while sitting, complaining of torn cartilage that he suffered on the job last June. The worker was immediately suspended for insubordination.

A union agent protested, asking that the minor incident go to arbitration. The company refused and “escorted” him out of the plant. Some 60 other workers walked out in a protest that management quickly labeled a strike.

Within 45 minutes, the protesters were permanently replaced by waiting strikebreakers and a day later almost all other workers joined the protest walkout.

The company plot seems to be succeeding, although the battle goes on and the ultimate outcome may be decided in court.

In happy contrast was the recent settlement of a labor contract between the New York Post and the same unions battling furiously at the Daily News.

It took only five days for the unions to reach contract agreements with the Post.

Post managers showed good faith by opening the firm’s books to verify financial troubles and then together union and company officials developed a compromise that included substantial wage and benefit reductions, but gave employees a 20% interest in the company and a seat on the board.

It seems clear that it makes sense to follow Bill Usery’s cooperative labor relations style whenever possible, as exemplified at the Post.

But it is even more obvious that Congress must pass a pending bill to make a reality of workers’ right to strike, not only without fear of being fired but without fear of being permanently replaced if they exercise that right.