A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to prevent discrimination based on participation in labor disputes.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 14, 1995
Amends the National Labor Relations Act to make it an unfair labor practice for an employer to promise, threaten, or take other action to hire a permanent replacement for an employee who: (1) at the beginning of a labor dispute was in a bargaining unit in which a labor organization either was the certified or recognized exclusive representative or was seeking to be so certified or recognized, on the basis of written authorizations by a majority of unit employees; and (2) in connection with that dispute has engaged in concerted activities for collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection through that labor organization. Makes it also an unfair labor practice for an employer to withhold or deny any other employment right or privilege to such an employee who is working for or has unconditionally offered to return to work for the employer, out of preference for any other individual based on that individual's performing, having performed, or having indicated a willingness to perform bargaining unit work for the employer during the dispute. Allows employers to hire permanent replacements for such employees in gradually increasing proportions after specified durations, beginning with ten percent after 60 days of the dispute and ending with 100 percent after 360 days of the dispute. Amends the Railway Labor Act to prohibit any carrier or its officer or agent from discriminating against an employee in a craft or class in any of the above ways prohibited to employers under the National Labor Relations Act. Allows hiring of permanent replacements in similar proportions after similar durations of the dispute.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.550 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.550 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.550 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.550 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.