On March 19, 1993, Robert Reich gave a talk at a National Association of Manufacturers "issue breakfast." Here is Reich's account of the episode, followed by the transcript of the meeting (prepared for the association by a professional court reporter). We pick up Reich's account starting with a question asked by "John" (all italics and ellipses are in the original):

Rising from the shadows is an ample belly with wide shoulders, arms crossed, head topped with thin strands of white hair. "Mis-ter Secretary"—he spits out each syllable—"is the administration planning to introduce legislation that would prevent us from replacing striking workers?"

The tension that I had carefully swept out of the room is instantly sucked back in. I hesitate. "Your answer, Mr. Secretary?" Jasonowski [sic—Jerry J. Jasinowski, president of the NAM] turns to me, all smiles. It's clear that he and John have planned this.

"Yes." My mind tells me to end it there, but my mouth keeps going. "No one wants to strike, but it's often the only way to get employers to the bargaining table. If employers are free to permanently replace striking workers, then strikes are worthless."

The room erupts. "Wrong!" "Bullshit!" "Go back to Harvard!" So much for step one of the Grand Bargain.

"Please, please, everyone ..." Jasonowski motions for quiet, a seemingly magnanimous gesture, placing him above the fray. A regular statesman, this Jasonowski.

I have taken the bait. John now begins to reel me in. "But Mister Secretary, surely you are aware that in 1938 the Supreme Court said it was perfectly legal to replace striking workers?"

"Yes, technically legal, but rarely done—at least until the nineteen-eighties." I can't win this argument in this room. I want to get out of here. The cigar smoke is making my eyes water. I feel dizzy.

"You've got your facts wrong, Mister Secretary." John won't let go, and Jasonowski is absolutely de-light-ed. He promised his members a good show today, and he's delivering.

I try to remember my coaching for the confirmation: Avoid public confrontations. Tell them what they want to hear without committing yourself. Tell them you look forward to working with them. But I'm hooked.

"As a matter of fact, I'm right. Here are the facts. ..." I'm sliding into professor mode, patronizing, pompous. The audience begins to hiss. "Between 1938 and 1981 there are only five cases on record of companies that permanently replaced striking workers. But since 1980, there have been almost a dozen, including notorious ones like Eastern Airlines and Greyhound. And hundreds more have publicly threatened to do so in order to deter strikes." The hissing is becoming so loud that I'm not sure anyone can hear me. I yell, "and that's just plain wrong."

John shouts his response: "In the nineteen-eighties American manufacturing made a comeback!" He's delivering a prepared speech now. "They said we were dead, we couldn't compete. But we're the best in the world. Government should stay the hell out of our business!" Cheers. We're in a boxing arena, John's the champ, and the crowd is loving every minute.

Now here is the real "John," from the transcript.

Reich has finished his formal remarks and is taking the first question:

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary—

REICH: Could you introduce yourself?

QUESTION: Yes. My name is John Irving.

REICH: Hi, John.

QUESTION: And I am a management attorney, and I was the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board from 1975 to 1979. And I think you would agree with me that one way to promote better understanding between labor and management, and between management and government, is accuracy in information that we exchange, and I would like to know—I was hopeful that your quote that was reported in the Post yesterday was a misquote, but you've repeated it here, again, today. And it's very, very fundamental.

It is this idea that, somehow, before 1981, no employer would have considered hiring permanent replacements for economic strikers. I'd like to know what your basis is for that, because I know for a fact that a management study was done that shows that 230 times, before 1981, in NLRB cases, that the hiring of permanent replacements was involved. And, indeed, after 1981, there were only 20 cases. And I know, from my personal experience, that the hiring of permanent replacements, or the threat of hiring permanent replacements, is a key element in our economic system of collective bargaining, where there are risks for both sides, and so on.

But, for somebody to say that, "No employer would have considered hiring permanent replacements before 1981," in my own experience, is simply not the case. If there is some study that shows that, if you're privy to some information that the rest of us don't have, we'd certainly like to see that.

1981 tends to be a watershed year that people point to, because it's the time when Ronald Reagan replaced—they like to say "replaced"—air traffic controllers which, again, is really not the case. Those are people who were violating federal law by striking. They were not "permanently replaced"; they were fired for violating federal law. There really is no parallel between the hiring of economic replacements, and what Ronald Reagan did, back in the early eighties.

REICH: John?

QUESTION: But there is no study, that I know of, that says that employers, before 1981, did not consider the hiring of permanent replacements.

REICH: John, I will get back to you with all the information on it. That was the information I have. You have different information. The point I was trying to make, and we will compare empirical information, but I can tell you that was the information I have. But also, in addition to, maybe, the empirical information I have—and I'm interested in your information—I have talked to many employers who say to me that they would never hire replacement workers, and that the culture did change, after 1981.

(Reich's answer continues. Then he takes a few other questions, all the questioners polite and respectful, and the meeting ends. The transcript indicates a sprinkling throughout of laughter and applause.)