[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 118 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1483]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                LET'S DEBATE THE TEAM ACT ON ITS MERITS

                                 ______


                          HON. STEVE GUNDERSON

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, July 20, 1995
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, as U.S. manufacturers have reorganized to 
compete in the global marketplace, they have turned more and more to 
employee involvement to motivate their work force and improve 
productivity. Employee involvement consists of a structure in which 
employees and managers seek joint solutions to workplace problems 
through cooperation. Employees and employers alike agree that involving 
employees in workplace decisionmaking has several positive effects, 
including giving employers a greater voice in workplace decisions and 
increasing productivity.
  I have advocated employee involvement in all types of workplaces for 
over 4 years. However, this management approach is only legal in 
unionized workplaces under current law. Section 8(a)(2) of the National 
Labor Relations Act makes employee involvement in nonunion settings 
illegal. It is an ultimate irony that in nonunionized companies, the 
employer can dictate the safety clothing employees wear and even the 
type of food in the cafeteria, but employers and employees cannot 
address these issues and arrive at a consensus. This restriction may 
have made sense in 1935, but in 1995, when 88 percent of the work force 
is not unionized, it should no longer apply. As the recent study by 
Princeton Survey Research Associates shows, workers of all stripes 
prefer cooperation 3 to 1 over unions.
  In January, I introduced the Teamwork for Employees and Managers 
[TEAM] Act along with Bill Goodling, Chairman of the Economic and 
Educational Opportunities Committee, and Harris Fawell, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations. The bill makes a technical 
change to section 8(a)(2) to allow employee involvement in nonunion 
settings. The TEAM Act does not seek to eviscerate the representational 
role of unions, but to give nonunion employees the same ability to 
communicate with management as unionized employees. The business 
community has supported this bill through the TEAM Coalition, a group 
of many different employers and associations.
  About a week ago, the International Association of Machinists and 
Aerospace Workers [IAMAW] sent a letter to several companies that are 
TEAM Coalition members and whose employees the union represents. The 
letter uses thinly veiled language to threaten ongoing employee 
involvement programs between the company and the union unless the 
company leaves the TEAM Coalition. I find such implicit threats 
appalling, contrary to the spirit of employer-employee cooperation, and 
detrimental to workplace harmony.
  Instead of promoting employee involvement for all workers, one 
organization has threatened to end it for those workers who can 
legitimately cooperate with employers in the
 workplace. This raises opposition to a new level of absurdity. It 
makes no sense for the IAMAW to threaten the very programs that the 
union has helped and has itself sanctioned, in the only legal type of 
employee involvement available today. This action is truly antiworker 
because it only affects union members. These are the very programs that 
are empowering workers and providing them more control over their job, 
and over the direction of the company. I wonder what the reaction of 
line workers would be to this tactic.

  Throughout the debate on the TEAM Act, I have tried very hard to 
promote the TEAM Act as a proworker initiative that expands legal 
employee involvement without being antiunion. I have asked my 
colleagues to temper suggested legislative language. I have tried to be 
responsive while promoting legitimate employee involvement in nonunion 
settings.
  The Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee has responded as 
well. When many in organized labor believed that the TEAM Act would 
allow employers to bypass existing unions, Representative Tom Petri 
offered, and the committee accepted, an amendment to make clear that 
employers cannot circumvent existing unions when starting employee 
involvement programs. The companies must receive agreement from the 
union. The committee has also entertained other possibilities for 
improvement suggested by our Democratic colleagues. But organized labor 
continues to argue the TEAM Act is explicitly antilabor.
  I would hope that companies and organizations that have joined the 
TEAM Coalition would resist pressure tactics such as the one raised by 
the IAMAW. Congressional action should be premised on honest debate 
over legislation. All interested parties should undertake vigorous and 
open debate on the merits of this legislation and let the chips fall 
where they may. But if pressure is applied to squelch one view, then 
the debate becomes a game of underhanded tricks. Employer-employee 
cooperation is very effective in union settings. Because a competitive 
work force is vital to U.S. economic success, we should at least 
investigate the merits of applying meaningful cooperation to the 
nonunion work force as well.


                          ____________________