Reply: The Need for Real Striker Replacement Reform

Authors

Rafael Gely, University of Missouri School of LawFollow
Leonard Bierman, University of TexasA & M Mays BusinessFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

Spring 1996

Abstract

Introduction In a recent article in the North Carolina Law Review, Louisiana State University Law Professor William R. Corbett proposes an innovative solution to the contentious issue of the right of employers to permanently replace economic strikers pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”). Professor Corbett's proposal is based on two arguments. First, he argues that the current legal distinction between “economic” and “unfair labor practice” strikes -- whereby employers are prevented from permanently replacing employees striking over employer unfair labor practices but may permanently replace employees striking over economic issues -- is a useful one and should be maintained. Second, Professor Corbett contends that the basic rule set forth in the United States Supreme Court's seminal 1938 decision in NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. -- allowing an employer to hire permanent replacement workers for economic strikers -- serves as a market check on union bargaining demands and should, therefore, also be preserved.

Recommended Citation

Leonard Bierman & Rafael Gely, Reply the Need for Real Striker Replacement Reform, 74 N.C. L. Rev. 813 (1996)