[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 18 (Monday, January 30, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E220-E221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


         INTRODUCTION OF TEAMWORK FOR EMPLOYEES AND MANAGERS ACT

                                 ______


                          HON. STEVE GUNDERSON

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, January 30, 1995

  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, one of the visible issues in the 104th 
Congress is how we as a nation can develop and maintain a competitive, 
motivated, and involved workforce. This is particularly important today 
because we now live and compete in the global market. As the global 
market has expanded, successful American companies of all types have 
learned that cooperation between employees and managers is vital to 
staying competitive both domestically and internationally.
  Unfortunately, the employee involvement programs across the country 
are legally threatened. Under the National Labor Relations Act, 
employee involvement programs have been disbanded because of 
inconsistencies between the purposes of the act when written, and the 
realities of the modern workplace. Two recent decisions by the National 
Labor Relations Board in particular, the Electromation and DuPont 
decisions, refocused attention on the act, calling into question 
virtually every current employee involvement program in the Nation.


                what are employee involvement programs?

  Employee involvement [EI] programs have no set formula or structure, 
although they are referred to by many different names--quality circles, 
self-managed work teams, employee involvement committees, etc. 
Flexibility is essential. It allows employers and employees to 
construct a program which makes the most sense in the context of their 
particular workplace.
  Through involvement programs, employees voice their opinions in the 
decisionmaking 
[[Page E221]] process and therefore have a greater stake in the success 
or failure of the company. Likewise, managers receive vital information 
from the people who have the most knowledge about detailed workplace 
operations--the employees. These programs often drive decisionmaking 
down the lowest level possible and open up the flow of information in 
the workplace, creating much more cooperative atmosphere.


                              who uses ei

  Currently, well over 30,000 companies are using some form of employee 
involvement structures, from large to small, unionized to nonunionized 
firms. A 1994 survey performed by four business groups found that 75 
percent of employers responding had incorporated employee involvement 
to some extent. Among employers of 5,000 or more, 96 percent of 
surveyed companies used it. The survey also found that the most growth 
in EI occurred in small companies, defined as those with less than 50 
employees, 60 percent of which had instituted their EI program within 
the last 3 years.
  Two years ago, in a survey my office conducted of companies in my 
rural western Wisconsin district, we found that 40 percent of the more 
than 100 companies that responded used EI. Among the respondents using 
it were a drug store with 10 employees and a radio station with 26 
employees.


                         Do Employees Want EI?

  A survey just finished by the Princeton Survey Research Associates on 
behalf of Profs. Richard Freeman and Joel Rogers indicates that 
employees want more involvement in decisions affecting them in the 
workplace. For example, the survey demonstrates that employees believe 
that joint worker-management committees are the best way to increase 
employee influence. In fact, such committees are preferred to unions or 
union-like employee organizations by a 2-to-1 margin, and much 
preferred over additional legal mandates from Washington.
  The survey indicates that the majority of employees also believe that 
by using Employee Involvement structures and pushing decisions to the 
lowest possible level, their company would be more competitive, the 
effectiveness of EI structures would increase; and the effectiveness of 
problem solving would improve.


                         Why A Change is Needed

  Employee involvement structures are a recent development relative to 
the passage of the original National Labor Relations Act, also known as 
the Wagner Act. The Wagner Act was written in the 1930's--a very 
turbulent time in labor-management relations. At that time, it was 
common for companies to create management-dominated or sham unions to 
prevent employees from forming independent unions. The National Labor 
Relations Act included a vary broad proscription on company dominated 
unions. There is no doubt this section worked--companies stopped 
creating sham unions. But the same section of the act which prevents 
sham unions, also acts as a barrier to legitimate workplace 
cooperation.
  In the past 20 years, the use of employee involvement has expanded 
dramatically. Organizations from the most prestigious of the Fortune 
500 down to the local drug store have successfully used cooperative 
programs to empower their employees. However, section 8(a)(2), the 
pertinent section of the Wagner Act, has never been amended, and it 
certainly did not contemplate managers and employees cooperating for 
mutual gain. At the present time, companies that have legitimate EI 
programs are always subject to sanctions by the National Labor 
Relations Board. In the wake of the Electromation decision, it has 
become painfully obvious that it is extremely difficult to apply a 
1930's law to a 1990's workplace.


                   The TEAM Act Would fix the Problem

  The bill which will be introduced in the House and Senate today, the 
Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act, would amend the National Labor 
Relations Act by adding a provision to section 8(a)(2) to allow 
legitimate employee involvement programs. As long as the programs were 
not created for the purpose of collective bargaining or to establish a 
sham union, they would be presumed not to have violated the act. The 
bill leaves intact the prohibition against company dominated unions, 
and in no way reduces the right of employees to form a union.


                               Conclusion

  America's greatest economic challenges will not be overcome in 
Washington. They will be met and overcome in American workplaces by the 
creativity of American workers and managers. Our task must be to 
nurture that creativity, not stifle it. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to move this initiative 
forward. Clearly, it is in the interest of our companies, our workers, 
and our competitive ability to pass the TEAM Act as soon as possible.


                          ____________________