[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 27, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9523-H9550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


            TEAMWORK FOR EMPLOYEES AND MANAGERS ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Everett). Pursuant to House Resolution 
226 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 743.

                              {time}  1415


                     IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
743) to amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow labor 
management cooperative efforts that improve economic competitiveness in 
the United States to continue to thrive, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Kolbe in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Clay] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the author of the legislation and a member 
of the committee.
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Chairman Goodling, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, last week we talked about improving the work force 
through the CAREERS Act. Today we have a chance of improving the 
workplace. Now, I know we are all busy, we are consumed with 
reconciliation and everything else, so let us not make this an 
intellectual debating society. Let us make this as simple as we can.
  The facts are that today management in a nonunion setting can tell 
employees to do whatever they want and it is legal. Today, if 
management in a nonunion setting sits down and, voluntarily working 
with employees, reaches a mutual conclusion on how to make changes 
within the workplace, it is illegal. It is that simple.
  Management can do it, but if they work with the employees it is a 
violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Why is that the case? 
Take a look at these two lines: The definition of a labor organization 
under existing law is any organization of any kind in which employees 
participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of 
dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, 
rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.
  Now, what is 8(a)(2), this whole issue we are talking about; when 
does an employer dominate a labor organization? It shall be an unfair 
labor practice for an employer to dominate or interfere with the 
formation or administration of any labor organization.
  Well, if any group that meets to talk about any of these conditions 
is a labor organization, then you have got a problem if management is 
involved in any way, shape, or form.
  Many people do not remember how labor law was developed in this 
country 60 years ago. It was actually in 1933 under the National 
Industrial Recovery Act, during the Great Depression, when Congress 
created the right for employees to organize and bargain collectively. 
But in the process of doing that, we found out over the next couple of 
years that management could create 

[[Page H 9524]]
that collective bargaining unit within the company, and it became what 
we call sham unions.
  So in 1935, to prevent that, we defined what is domination of labor 
organization to prevent employers from using company unions to avoid 
recognizing and collectively bargaining with independently organized 
unions.
  Let me read from that report, literally 60 years ago. The object of 
prohibiting employer dominated unions is to remove from the industrial 
scene unfair pressure, unfair discussion.
  Why are we here this afternoon? Well, in December 1992, the National 
Labor Relations Board unanimously ruled that Electromation, Inc., from 
Indiana, had violated section 8(a)(2) of the act. Why? Because 
Electromation, Inc., had created five what are called action teams 
between management and employees to discuss, of all things, a 
nonsmoking policy, absenteeism, internal communications, and the like.
  The National Labor Relations Board ruled that these committees were 
indeed by definition labor organizations under (2)(v), and get this, 
because the company dictated the size of the action teams, the 
responsibilities of the action teams, the goals and agendas of the 
action teams, it was somehow dominating the committees, and therefore 
it was an illegal company union.
  I do not need to tell anyone in this place, and I hope no one in 
America, about the need for employee-employer joint management and 
cooperative teams in 1995. Members have all heard about total quality 
management, they have heard about quality circles, they have heard 
about quality of life, quality of work programs, self-directed work 
teams, productivity teams, and all the like. As we try to deal with 
these issues to be competitive in an international arena, it is 
essential that in nonunion settings they may occur without being a 
violation of law.
  Every one of us in our district has some kind of company, as small as 
they are, that try to deal with this today, and they simply do not know 
they are illegal. So today we bring you H.R. 743. We eliminate no 
existing language in the National Labor Relations Act, we do not 
redefine labor organizations, we do not allow sham unions or nonunion 
collective bargaining and we do not allow employee involvement teams in 
organized labor workplaces. Rather, we simply say it is not a violation 
of the law for employees and employers in nonunion settings to work 
together. That is all this is. Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members' 
support.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 743. Not only is 
this so-called TEAM Act ill-conceived and unwarranted, those problems 
alone would be sufficient reasons for me to oppose the bill. My 
opposition goes far deeper. This bill undermines workplace democracy 
and threatens the very foundation of collective bargaining. I applaud 
President Clinton for promising to veto this misnamed bill.
  H.R. 743 is the latest installment in the campaign by the new 
Republican majority to eradicate protections afforded our work force. 
At a time when millions of workers and their families see the real 
value of their wages declining; at a time when millions of workers and 
their families struggle to exist on minimum wage pay; at a time when 
the working poor desperately need help to boost their standard of 
living, the Republican majority puts forth legislation that is contrary 
to the needs and aspirations of working families. They promise a tax 
break for the most wealthy while wiping out the earned income tax 
credit for the most needy. Today, they call up a bill that will tip the 
scales of collective bargaining heavily in favor of employers.
  Mr. Chairman, proponents of the so-called TEAM Act argue that the 
bill is needed to promote worker-management cooperation. Who could 
argue against the goals of greater employee participation and greater 
cooperation between employers and employees? But, the measure before us 
runs completely counter to those laudable goals. This so-called TEAM 
Act would hinder, not foster, development of genuine labor-management 
cooperation. It places in grave jeopardy the right of workers to 
organize independently and bargain collectively.
  This bill would destroy one of the most essential protections 
provided under the National Labor Relations Act: the protection against 
company-dominated, sham unions. As noted labor historian Dr. David 
Brody has written: ``Abhorrence of company domination is a corollary to 
the principal of freedom of association central in our labor law.''
  Mr. Chairman, no change in the law is needed to promote greater 
labor-management cooperation. Lawful employee involvement programs are 
flourishing in both union and nonunion settings. They will continue to 
flourish without this Congress sacrificing the right of workers to 
choose their own independent representatives.
  My colleagues, you will hear proponents of this legislation complain 
about the so-called Electromation problem. Do not be confused by their 
strawman arguments. As Edward Miller, former Chairman of the National 
Labor Relations Board and a noted management attorney, testified 
recently before the Dunlop Commission:

       The so-called Electromation problem . . . is another myth . 
     . . it is indeed possible to have effective (employee 
     involvement) programs . . . in both union and nonunion 
     companies without a change in the law. If 8(a)(2) were to be 
     repealed I have no doubt that in not too many years, sham 
     company unions would again recur.

  Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it; H.R. 743 would effectively 
repeal section 8(a)(2). It would permit management to negotiate with 
itself while claiming that it is carrying on discussions with 
representatives chosen not by those they purport to represent, but by 
management itself.
  It is indeed ironic that many of those who today will call for 
passage of this so-called Team Act opposed the Workplace Fairness Act. 
They claimed then that it would have upset the delicate balance in our 
labor laws. How ironic that they would have us consider this bill that 
without question will upset that balance.
  When this bill is open for amendment, I urge my colleagues to support 
the Sawyer substitute. His proposal truly and fairly responds to 
legitimate concerns about the legality of employee involvement programs 
by creating safe harbors for workplace productivity teams. If the 
Sawyer substitute fails, join me in opposing final passage of this 
misnamed and blatantly unfair proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], the subcommittee chairman who had the 
hearings on this legislation.
  (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, all this bill does is to simply allow teams of 
employees in a nonunion setting to freely interact with management 
regarding terms and conditions of their employment. It should be called 
a Freedom of Employees Act.
  The debate today involves the interesting question of why employers 
are being charged with setting up sham or company unions simply because 
they are increasingly interacting with new and innovative employee 
involvement teams.
  The basic reason is because of a broad and archaic definition of the 
words ``labor organization'' passed back in 1935, and the 
understandable intent of Congress back in 1935 to stop employers from 
organizing employer-sponsored unions, called sham or company unions, 
which were all too common before the passage of the NLRA. The story 
goes like this.
  The NLRA was passed 60 years ago and section 8(a)(2) was drafted to 
make it clear that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to 
form a sham union, that is, to dominate or interfere with the formation 
or the administration of any labor organization or to contribute 
financial or other support to the labor organization.
  Well, so far, so good. However, the drafters of the NLRA also added 
section 2(5) to that act which defines labor organization so broadly 
that it includes any group of employees ``which exists for the purpose, 
in whole or in 

[[Page H 9525]]
part, of dealing with employers concerning,'' among other things, 
``conditions of work.''
  Since employee involvement teams usually, of course, deal at least 
partially with conditions of work, the National Labor Relations Board 
has ruled that such employee teams fit the 1935 definition of a labor 
organization, if the employer is involved to any significant degree.
  Hence, an employer who supports employee involvement teams, in order 
to product greater workplace quality, healthy and safety or production 
quotas, for instance, is deemed guilty, ipso facto, of spawning a 
company union.
  What we have here, of course, is a fossilized 60-year-old definition 
of labor organization colliding head-on with dynamic new concepts of 
doing business in today's fast evolving, information-centered economy 
and society.
  H.R. 743 therefore says the obvious: that teams of employees which 
interact with their employer, with the goal of improving quality and 
conditions of work, are excepted from that 1935 definition of a labor 
organization. The bill thus allows employees and employers to 
participate in employer involvement groups in a nonunion setting 
without that employee team being called a sham union. On the other 
hand, the bill also makes it clear that no such employee team can claim 
to be a union or seek authority to be the exclusive bargaining 
representative of its employees.
  H.R. 743 also protects the existing rights of employees to seek 
formal union organization whenever they may choose. The law also 
continues to proscribe an employer from creating a sham labor 
organization, as well as in any way interfering with the right of 
employees to freely choose union representation.
  Mr. Chairman, in the final analysis, one must understand that the 
world has changed a lot since 1935. Employers no longer rely on top-
down decision making. We live in a global economy. And employee 
involvement teams are obviously not sham unions. Nor should they be 
looked upon as such, or God help us, regulated and regimented as mini-
unions within the nonunion setting, as some suggest. They are teams of 
employees who, under an infinite number of methods, are freely 
experimenting, usually quite informally and successfully, with new and 
exciting ways of pursuing quality, and greater productivity and 
satisfaction at the place of employment. They were unimagined in the 
thirties and are a win-win phenomenon in all segments of our industrial 
policy. This bill is 21st century stuff. It's employees and employers 
cooperating and doing their thing in the nonunion setting. It is a 
threat to no one except to those who fear happier and more productive 
employees.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, let me see if I've got this straight. Over 
the past 9 months, the Gingrich Republicans have voted to make it 
easier for employers: to ignore the 40-hour work week; to get away with 
health and safety violations; to ignore environmental safeguards; to 
ignore the National Labor Relations Board; to raid pension funds; to 
permanently replace workers; and all in all, to give away the store to 
special interests and wealthy corporations.
  At the same time, they've voted to: put employee pensions at risk; 
cut job training; slash school-to-work; raise taxes on low-income 
workers; cut student loans; cut Medicare; and all in all, do everything 
they could to tip the balance against working families.
  And yet today they come to this floor and say they want to promote 
teamwork in the workplace?
  Sure they do, as long as workers agree to play with both hands tied 
behind their backs.
  I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Don't come to 
this floor today and talk about teamwork. Because we all know that 
under current law employers can already do exactly what you say you're 
trying to do here today.
  They already can set up worker teams.
  They already can promote cooperation.
  And the vast majority of companies already do.
  The only thing corporations can't do today is decide who is going to 
speak for employees. The only thing they can't do is hand-pick the 
people who represent employees at the bargaining table.
  Because as a nation we have always believed that it was in the best 
traditions of freedom and democracy that people ought to have the right 
to elect the people who speak for them.
  But under this bill, not only would employers have the right to hand-
pick employee representatives, they would have the exclusive right to 
appoint team members, set their agenda, terminate people at will, 
bypass democratically elected representatives, and undermine agreements 
negotiated in good faith.
  This bill is nothing but a back-door attempt to silence working 
people, crush unions, undermine collective bargaining, and give 
corporations free reign.
  But after watching Speaker Gingrich's top-down assault on working 
people the past 9 months, it really comes as no surprise that this is 
your idea of teamwork.
  We should be promoting real cooperation in the workplace. This bill 
not only undermines the traditions that made this country great, it 
undermines the democratic principles that this Nation was founded upon.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of this bill, I 
am pleased to speak in support of H.R. 743 the Teamwork for Employees 
and Managers Act. When my colleague from across the aisle, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], asked me to sign on this 
bill, I quickly agreed because I knew the gentleman was sincere in his 
desire to address this issue in a fair and constructive manner. The 
ability of our country's work force to successfully compete in the 
international arena is too important an issue to fall victim to the 
partisan politics of business as usual.
  My own experience as the manager of a rural electrical cooperative in 
west Texas convinced me of the wisdom of this legislation. Nothing 
should restrict employers and employees from talking about their 
workplace and making plans to improve the product or services they 
offer. The cooperative I managed was far more effective because the 
employees and I enjoyed open dialog on all matters.
  We can argue in this Chamber about the necessity of this measure, but 
we cannot argue with what we are hearing from the folks working in the 
factories, shops, and other small businesses back home. Mr. Chairman, 
employees from the 3M plant in Brownwood, TX, and the Goodyear Proving 
Grounds in San Angelo, TX, support this measure. It is with these 
workers in mind that I plan to cast my vote for the future of the 
American work force and vote for the TEAM Act. They want this 
legislation.
  It all comes down to this: This is not a bill for employers. It is 
not a bill for employees. It is a bill for employees and employers. In 
the modern international marketplace, people all across the country are 
losing their jobs because their employers are trying to stay 
competitive. We read every week about another 2,000 or 4,000 or 8,500 
who have been laid off.
  Are employees interested in keeping their company's competitive? 
Absolutely they are. They have the mortgage and the car payments and 
the child care and the health care and the groceries to think of. 
Keeping their company strong means keeping food on their tables. 
Employees have a vested interest in the passage of this legislation. 
They want to be part of their future.
  Mr. Chairman, confrontation is destroying jobs in America. I urge 
Members to support this legislation.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)

[[Page H 9526]]

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
TEAM Act because it would undermine the current successful balance 
between employers and employees. The National Labor Relations Act was 
designed to make companies more productive and efficient by ensuring 
employees independence and freedom, and the National Labor Relations 
Act is working.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last decade American workers have become the 
most productive workers in the world. In every industry, large and 
small, American workers today are the most productive in the world. The 
increased productivity is partially the result of managers and 
employees working together in teams at companies like Nabisco, Saturn, 
Boeing, Chrysler, Xerox, Levi Strauss, and United States Steel. All of 
these companies, and many, many, many more small companies, have 
successful labor-management teams today under the current law.
  The essential ingredient in their success, Mr. Chairman, is the 
ability of the employees to have an independent voice on issues that 
impact the conditions of their employment. Because conditions of 
employment, such as work time, wages, health, safety issues, 
dramatically impact the lives of the employees. These issues must 
continue to be left to independent employee organizations to deal with 
without employer control.
  That is what this bill seeks to do, Mr. Chairman, to take away the 
independence of those employee organizations and insert employer 
dominance. Where the employer can set up an organization that is the 
fundamental equivalent of an independent organization, then employees 
lose that independent voice and, instead, we now have an adversarial 
system where once again we are dictating top-down from the employer to 
the lineworkers what is best for them.
  Under the TEAM Act, the employers would be free to exclude from a 
labor-management team individuals who want to express an independent 
voice through a union. Employers would be able to start up a team 
whenever they want to stop a union drive. This is not employee 
empowerment. This is employer domination. Management can now set up 
worker organizations to deal with productivity and efficiency.
  If that is all the Republicans care about, then the current law 
should not be changed. If they want more, if they want employer 
domination, then we must change the law. If there is a perception that 
the law is unclear whether labor-management teams can sometimes deal 
with the conditions of employment, then those can be dealt with under 
the Sawyer substitute. But the TEAM Act should be rejected because it 
ends the cooperative arrangement and it creates the adversarial 
arrangement.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is, if we look at the Dunlop Report, and we 
look at the others, the thousands and thousands of American 
corporations now deal, and workplaces deal, with team relationships 
with the workers, but they are working with independently chosen worker 
organizations as opposed to those dominated, and we ought to reject the 
TEAM Act and reject that kind of one-sided domination of the American 
workplace.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the distinguished chairman, for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Chairman, the TEAM Act is not about the return of company unions, 
as my colleagues on the other side would like you to think. It is about 
moving the National Labor Relations Act from the Depression-era 1930's 
to 1990's. It is about telling American workers they are a valuable 
resource, and their input is vital to the success of American business. 
Above all, it is about keeping American companies competitive in the 
global economy.
  Without TEAM Act, we are in effect saying to the American worker, 
``we don't believe you can make managerial decisions on how to make a 
product better.'' We are saying ``work, don't think.''
  Mr. Chairman, it is 1995 not 1935. Adversarial labor-management 
relationships were unavoidable 60 years ago, but today, it is time to 
move employee relations into the 21st century. Vote for H.R. 743. It is 
a solid step in the right direction.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, this is not an exercise in conflict 
resolution for a Sunday school, this is the opening shot in a 
blitzkrieg against organized labor in America. The gentleman from 
Georgia, Speaker Gingrich, has said that politics is a war without 
blood, and the war is on against labor. The campaign against labor 
begins here in the context of the move to destroy the National Labor 
Relations Board, the curtailment of the functions of OSHA and MSHA, the 
reduction in overtime, and the National Labor Relations Act. There is a 
whole battle plan where the panzers and the dive bombers and all of 
that will be released against organized labor.
  Organized labor must be wiped out because in this politics war that 
the Speaker talks about, labor is a strong resisting force. There are 
not many forces out there that can resist the remaking of America the 
way Speaker Gingrich and the Republican majority wants to remake it 
against organized labor.
  The goal is Chinese capitalism. Chinese capitalism means that we have 
public policies, government policies which control the labor market. 
They control the workers so that the workers are manipulated for the 
benefit of the entrepreneurs and the management in order to produce a 
return suitable to the government and the entrepreneurs and the 
corporation. That is what we are talking about, a war against labor 
that begins today.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had the guerilla warfare, we have had the 
sabotage, the black bag stuff in the appropriations bills and the 
budget bills, now it is open war. This legislation will undermine 
employee protections in two major ways: One, by allowing nonunion 
employees to establish sham unions; and, two, by allowing other 
employees to establish company-dominated alternative organizations 
while employees are in the process of democratically deciding whether 
to be represented by a labor organization.

                              {time}  1445

  Neither of these possibilities are permitted under current law. You 
get rid of current law, and the way is open. The points I have raised 
against the bill I assure you do not overstate the truth. Edward 
Miller, a former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, said 
in testimony before the Dunlop Commission ``If 8(a)(2) were to be 
repealed, I have no doubt that in too not many years sham company 
unions would again recur.''
  We cannot forget that the collective bargaining brought about by the 
National Labor Relations Act has helped bring prosperity to the Nation 
by increasing the wages of workers. Without equality of bargaining 
position, recurrent business recessions would be aggravated by the 
depression of wage rates and worker purchasing power.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow sham unions to carry the day once more 
and strip workers of the independence they earned through blood, sweat, 
and tears. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, which gives 
management an overwhelming advantage over American workers. We do not 
need Chinese capitalism in America.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Houghton].
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I wonder sometimes about the arguments in 
this House floor. We tend to put such a fine point on our issues. We 
tend to marshal our forces and it is team A against team B. I hope this 
is not going to be the case here.
  Mr. Chairman, I will say in all candor, and I think I am right, I 
have probably, with the exception of one or two people, helped organize 
more unions and helped put more unions into plants than anybody in this 
House. I believe in unionism. I put them in all the plants that I have 
had anything to do with and have urged others to do this.
  But I find now that all the sudden it is union versus nonunion. It is 
management versus people, and I think that is a shame.

[[Page H 9527]]

  The argument is that employers can do now what the bill already says. 
That is true, if it is interpreted properly. But it has not been 
interpreted properly.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons that I have felt that this is so 
important, because of the concept of working together, we have lost 
that in this country. I remember when I first started to work, somebody 
said, ``Do not you forget, just because you are out of management 
school, that you are going to make the big decisions. You are not. The 
people on the floor who make the product are going to make the big 
decisions.''
  And so, therefore, I have always realized the potential of bringing 
people together and working in teams.
  If my colleagues would take a look, and I am not going to wax 
eloquent about this country, but if the value of the currency, if the 
value of a piece of America is to be solidified and straightened out, 
it is going to be because of increased productivity and that is going 
to be because of what we are talking about here.
  The role of management is to make decisions, but they cannot make 
decisions on their own. They must go to a variety of different people, 
the critical people they must go to. They must go to the people who do 
the work. That is the critical issue here.
  In a union shop, the protection against abuse is the union. In a 
nonunion shop, the protection here is if a management abuses this 
privilege, it will become unionized. So, therefore, I think there is 
sort of a self-correcting process that goes on.
  In a company there are stockholders, there is management, there are 
employees, and there are the unions. Frankly, this is not a 
stockholder, not a management, not a union. This is an employee's bill. 
I see it work. I think there is protection here, and I would hope that 
H.R. 743 would be approved.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOUGHTON. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] 
talked about the benefits of people working together, and we are all in 
agreement on that. But the gentleman cannot deny that over the last 20 
years, corporate America has been hitting the working people of this 
country over the head.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not have any 
time to reply. Maybe I can do this individually afterward. I do not 
agree with that statement.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in measured opposition to H.R. 743.
  Mr. Chairman, last year the Dunlop Commission, a bipartisan panel of 
labor law experts, cited the principal danger of altering section 
8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act--that such action might 
adversely affect employees' ability to select union representation, if 
they so desire.
  This panel went on to reaffirm the basic principle that: employer-
sponsored programs should not substitute for independent unions. 
Employee participation programs are a means for employees to be 
involved in some workplace issues. They are not a form of independent 
representation for employees, and thus should not be legally permitted 
to deal with the full scope of issues normally covered by collective 
bargaining.
  At the appropriate time today, I will offer a substitute which 
embodies the principal recommendation of this Commission in the area of 
employee involvement. It is intended to promote workplace cooperation 
without either jeopardizing workers' rights or leaving open to question 
the legality of legitimate employee involvement programs under section 
8(a)(2).
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal in recent months about laws 
and programs which were enacted with the best of intentions, but which 
had--in the view of some--unintended--and serious--side effects. In 
crafting this law, we must consider not only what we have is the 
intended good that may come of it, but also what potential dangers it 
may cause. I urge my colleagues to support my substitute, and to oppose 
this well-intentioned, but dangerous, bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez].
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I was interested in what the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Houghton], my friend, had to say. And I understand 
the sincerity. But I say to the gentleman, listen very carefully.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill was written to suppress the rights of 
workers. What is worse is that the one case that they cite as an 
example of the need for this legislation, electromation, was one of the 
most glaring abuses of workers' rights that has come before the NLRB in 
a long time--so glaring that all five of the Reagan-Bush appointed 
board members voted against the company, a decision confirmed by the 
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  There is nothing in the law or the policy of the NLRB that threatens 
or discourages employers from forming work improvement teams. The law 
does allow, and there do exist, employee groups for those purposes in 
both unionized and nonunion workplaces.
  This amendment to the National Labor Relations Act, however, would 
change that and would give employers greater capacity to discourage 
employees from organizing themselves.
  That fits in with the notion that some employers and some Members of 
this Congress have that unions are inherently evil and must be 
destroyed.
  Mr. Chairman, I was the owner of a small business before coming to 
Congress--one where I was quite successful, and where I had assembled a 
cadre of employees with whom I worked closely to ensure that they were 
successful as well. Before I created that business, I was an ordinary 
worker--both in union and nonunion settings. As a business owner and as 
a worker, I recognized the benefits of cooperation in the factory.
  Cooperative approaches to day to day work leads to more acceptance of 
the rules and less contention in the shop.
  If workers are offered the opportunity to make suggestions, 
communicate their concerns, and explore their ideas, both workers and 
management will benefit.
  And, we are told, since the 1970's, the number of cooperative working 
arrangements that exist in America's workplaces has exploded--over 
30,000 employers, 96 percent of the country's largest companies, use 
some form of teamwork in their operations.
  To say that there is a chilling effect on the formation and continued 
operation of these cooperative working groups because of the very few 
cases that have arisen in the past 20 years is simply not supported by 
the facts.
  Remember the avowed purposes for this act? Quote ``To protect 
legitimate employee involvement programs, from governmental 
interference,'' unquote.
  Well, I submit that the bill goes well beyond those purposes.
  Legitimate employer involvement programs--those that do not abridge 
the rights of employees under collective bargaining agreements, are 
already legal under the National Labor Relations Act.
  There is no need for this bill to protect legitimate programs.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall].
  (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in 
support of H.R. 743, Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 743, the 
Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995. The TEAM Act will 
clarify the legal ambiguity surrounding the use of worker-management 
teams in nonunion companies like many in my district. These teams 
provide the opportunity for development and improvement through an 
employee/manager relationship.
  Several of my constituents from the Texas Instruments Sherman plant 
testified in support of this legislation before the Economic and 
Educational Opportunities Committee. One of those testifying was Mike 
Mitchell, who stated that ``teaming efforts within our company are 
merited with improvement strategies and actions resulting in cost 
savings of literally millions of dollars annually.'' Shane Jackson, 
another constituent, said, ``Without being able to have our teams, I 
feel we will cease to be competitive and fade away.''
  I personally believe that the teaming concept will result in 
successful advances and will 

[[Page H 9528]]
enable a company to remain competitive. Teaming does make a difference. 
Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 743 and urge my colleagues to approve this 
legislation.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to tell a story and to address the 
last gentleman's comments that in forming these teams, that management 
would only choose the people that were in support of that management.
  Mr. Chairman, when I was in the private sector, the National Labor 
Relations Board had not interpreted these activities to be violating 
the National Labor Relations Act. But under current conditions and 
under the current board, they would interpret this as a violation of 
the law.
  Mr. Chairman, we formed several teams in the company that I was 
working in. The way that we formed those teams is that management would 
submit some names to the team and the workers would submit some members 
to the team. We would vote on those from labor side. We would vote on 
it from management side, and we got together and we formed some of the 
most productive teams that helped efficiency, that helped scheduling, 
that helped all kinds of ways to improve the worker's lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the bottom line that we have to look at here is 
who is looking out for the worker? That is the question that we have to 
ask. Who is looking out for the worker? This bill will help the worker. 
Period.
  That is what we are trying to do here. If I thought that this bill 
would be against the worker, I would not do it. I would not vote for 
it. That is why, when I formed the teams in the company that I was 
working in, I was looking out for what was best for the worker, what 
was better for the employee, better for the management, and ultimately 
better for the customer.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
the so-called TEAM Act, H.R. 743. This bill amends section 8(a)(2) of 
the National Labor Relations Act, the portion which prohibits the 
establishment of company unions, and it eliminates employee 
protections.
  Mr. Chairman, in an earlier life, before I was elected to Congress, I 
actually helped manage a business. But I was also a union member at the 
same time. In small businesses, we have been using the team idea for 
many years. We did not know that is what it was called. But we also 
recognize that there were protections that were provided by Federal 
law.
  Mr. Chairman, the intent of this legislation may be good, but its 
impact is to dismantle employee organizations and possibly set up sham 
unions or sham employee groups. I strongly favor a comprehensive labor 
reform bill, but not at the expense of the protections of the American 
workers. We should be fair not only to employers, but also to 
employees.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], wants to 
resolve the question of whether workplace teams are legal under 
8(a)(2). However, there is nothing under the NLRA, or any decision by 
the National Labor Relations Board or the courts, which prohibits teams 
or workplace cooperation.
  The entire point of the National Labor Relations Act is to encourage 
employee empowerment. Employee empowerment is a creative and successful 
way to manage a business and increase productivity, as the gentleman 
from New York said, if it is done right. But there are no protections 
in this bill to keep someone from coming in and saying, ``We are going 
to empower our employees, but we are going to select them. We are going 
to let them decide, but we are going to select who is going to make the 
decision on your pay.'' That is not what labor law is about.
  Under current law and NLRB decisions, employers are free to use 
methods of production which rely on work teams. In 1977, the NLRB held 
that an employer has the right to set up a method of production which 
delegated significant managerial responsibilities to employee work 
teams.
  This bill is a bill whose time has not come. Under current law and 
NLRB decisions, employers are free to use employee committees to 
consider issues. And, again, I support the idea of the team effort, but 
this bill actually takes away protections that we have enjoyed for 50 
years.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], a member of the committee.
  Mrs. MEYERS. Mr. Chairman, last week I sent around a ``Dear 
Colleague'' which described a situation which could occur in any small 
business--an employee made a suggestion about summer hours to her 
supervisor, and the supervisor though it was a good idea. The 
supervisor liked the idea, and asked the employee to get a group 
together to discuss the matter, and found a room for the group to meet.
  Unfortunately, under current law, this kind of situation could lead 
to problems for the employer. We aren't living in a vacuum anymore--
globalization has taken over, and we need a team approach in the 
workplace to meet the challenges of the next century. We can't continue 
to isolate management and labor, as we have in the past.
  This legislation simply allows team participation, on a voluntary 
basis, in the workplace. It would address the above situation by 
allowing employees to meet to discuss whether or not changes in the 
hours of work during the summer months would help them care for their 
family. It does not allow sham unions to be set up by an employer, and 
it is not an attempt to undermine legitimate union organization.
  Let's give our workers the tools they need to compete and to 
determine their future. Support this bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Rose].

                              {time}  1500

  (Mr. ROSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding time 
to me.
  I come to the floor today to speak in opposition to H.R. 743, the 
Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995. Let me begin by saying 
that I support employee teams. This issue hits close to home for me. I 
represent a congressional district in a right-to-work State where many 
companies are on the leading edge of employee-manager teams. I have 
seen first hand that in the globally competitive economy of the 1990's, 
employee participation and cooperation in running a business is 
absolutely essential.
  This is true throughout the economy. Statistics show that employees 
and employers are taking advantage of labor-management cooperative 
strategies. It is estimated that as many as 30,000 employers have some 
form of employee team or committee. In fact, 96 percent of large 
companies have them. Just today I heard from more than three of the 
major employers in my district who told me that they have long utilized 
employee teams with great success. After hearing how well these 
employee teams are working, I was left with a fundamental question: Why 
do we need to change the law that has allowed employee teams to 
proliferate so widely throughout the economy? The fact is we don't.
  Whether or not this legislation passes, companies will still have the 
legal right to have a legitimate employee participation organization 
that deals with issues of productivity and quality. The question we're 
confronted with today is whether or not we want to expand this 
capability to allow company dominated committees that could discuss 
issues involving terms and conditions of employment? In my opinion this 
would be a mistake. Doing so would allow unscrupulous companies to 
allow these committees, hand picked by company management, to act as a 
bargaining agent with their employees. This would be a slap in the face 
to the working men and women who have already seen their wages and 
benefits stagnate over the past decade.
  During the 104th Congress, I have cooperated with my Republican 
colleagues on many pro-business initiatives. I have done so because I 
believe that Congress has too long shackled American businesses with 
unnecessary and burdensome regulations. However, I 

[[Page H 9529]]
cannot support this attempt to repeal a principle tenet of our Federal 
labor laws that has served both employees and management well for the 
last 60 years.
  Let's not turn back the clock on 60 years of labor-management 
relations. Let's not change a law that has allowed employee-management 
teams to spring up in almost every major company in the country. Let's 
reject H.R. 743 when it comes before us later today.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], a member of the committee.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the TEAM Act, and want to thank 
Representative Gunderson for all his good work on this important 
legislation.
  My colleagues, if we are truly concerned about our ability to 
successfully compete globally in the 21st century, the TEAM Act should 
pass. The House passed the CAREERS Act last week which assisted in 
preparing our national workforce; today, we will pass the TEAM Act 
which will help modernize the workplace.
  Global competition has caused many American companies--including 
those in the State of Delaware--to abandon top-down decisionmaking in 
favor of giving employees a greater voice in the company's operations. 
Unfortunately, employee-employer cooperation is illegal under current 
law--section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations AcT. The TEAM Act 
enables our companies to compete in the world marketplace that demands 
and requires the intellectual engagement of everyone involved--
especially the employees. Employee empowerment in the workplace is not 
just a luxury, but a necessity.
  To be sure, America's businesses will face great challenges from our 
global competitors as we move into the integrated marketplace of the 
21st century. We will face these tests head-on. But, we cannot afford 
to remain encumbered by perhaps the biggest rival of all, Depression-
era labor laws that inhibit productivity, cooperation, and the ability 
to promote employee job security.
  Let's pass a commonsense act which will make today's often practiced 
employee-employer cooperation legal.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago my friend, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Houghton], talked about the need of people to work 
together, and he is right. If this country is going to succeed, we all 
need to work together. But that is not what is happening in America 
today. The fault for that is not the working people, it is not the 
unions, but it is to a very large degree corporate America. It is not 
working together when companies replace striking workers with permanent 
replacement workers. And that is happening. That is not working 
together.
  It is not working together when CEO's of large corporations pay 
themselves now 15 times more than what the workers are earning and give 
themselves huge bonuses at the same time as they cut back on wages and 
health benefits for their workers. Corporate profits are soaring. 
Wages, incomes are in decline. That is not working together.
  It is not working together when corporate America says to its 
workers: Thank you for 30 years of your effort but we are taking the 
company to Mexico or China because we can get workers there for 20 
cents an hour or 50 cents an hour. That is not working together. That 
is greed.
  It is not working together when companies get in new automation and 
then throw their workers out on the street, as large corporations are 
doing by the millions all over America, rather than developing a plan 
to rehire and retrain their workers. It is not working together when 
corporate America fights those of us who are trying to raise the 
minimum wage from the starvation level of $4.25 an hour. The only 
effective way that workers have to protect their interests is to join a 
union. This law would help weaken unions. It is bad. Let us defeat it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent], a member of the committee.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I too want to congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson] on his fine work on this bill, which is a bill that frankly 
should be passing more easily than it is evidently going to pass. Let 
me give a concrete example of why we need this bill. Maybe we need to 
bring it down to concrete examples.
  Suppose there is a workshop today, fairly small size, does not 
matter, 30 or 40 people. They have been doing a lot of overtime work. 
They have been busy, which is a good thing. The supervisor goes to the 
plant manager and says, some of the people are complaining about the 
scheduling. We are doing all this overtime. It is interfering with 
people's ability to pick up their kids. Maybe when the day care at the 
end of the day care day or some people want to go on a couple day 
hunting trips they have been planning because deer season is starting 
and some of the people want to get together and talk about it. What are 
their options under current law? One of them the employers could form a 
union. They had that option under current law. They would have that 
option untouched, unchanged under this legislation.
  The other is for the manager to decide what he is going to do and 
just do it. And if he did that, by the way, there is no problem with 
the National Labor Relations Act. He can be as dictatorial as he wants. 
There is no problem.
  But if the manager says what we hope people would want to say in 
those circumstances, which is, sit down with a couple of your line 
supervisors, sit down with these folks and talk it over, come up with a 
couple of proposals, then come to see me about it and let us see what 
we can do, he is quite probably violating the National Labor Relations 
Act and we ought to change that. That is going on in tens of thousands 
of work places around the country and is quite probably illegal by 
virtue of several decisions, recent decisions of the National Labor 
Relations Board. That is why we need this bill.
  The argument on the other side seems to be several-fold. I talked 
about a few of them earlier. One of them is, there is really no 
problem, we do not need to do anything.
  Here is what Chairman Gould, the Chairman of the National Labor 
Relations Board, appointed by President Clinton 2 years ago said. Let 
me read this real slowly, specifically addressing this issue. He says: 
``The difficulty here is that Federal labor law because, it is still 
rooted in the Great Depression reaction to company unions through which 
employers controlled labor organizations, prohibits financial 
assistance by employers to any labor organization that might affect 
employment conditions and additionally''--here is what he said the 
additional problem was--``the term `labor organization' has been 
provided with a definition so broad as to include, potentially, 
employee quality work circles, other employee groups, `teams,' and the 
like. Amendments to the NLRA that allow for cooperative relationships 
between employees and the employer are desirable.''
  That is what we are trying to do with this legislation.
  People say there is not any problem, take it up with the Chairman of 
National Labor Relations Board. He says there is a problem and so do 
the employees and the employers and the consultants who came and 
testified at these hearings.
  The other objection to this was pretty well highlighted by my friend, 
the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]. He said basically: Look, the 
employers of this country are big corporations, and they are going 
after the people, and we cannot trust them. I think there is a mind-set 
on the part of some of my distinguished colleagues in this body that 
really we cannot ever have cooperation, that it is a sham, that 
employees cannot protect their own interests, that the alternative of a 
union is not good enough for them and that we have to keep people from 
cooperating like this because really it is not a good thing and it will 
only result in bad things.
  I understand that mind-set and the sincerity of it. It does not 
reflect modern America. It does not reflect what people want to do. Let 
us let people do something that has increased employee satisfaction, 
that has made our economy more competitive with economies abroad and 
competitors abroad. Let us just allow people to do this without a fear 
that a 60-year-old statute may come in and stop them from doing 

[[Page H 9530]]
something that they like and that is good for America.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let us try to make sure one thing is clear 
in this debate, both those who support and oppose the bill. No one 
objects to employee involvement committees. In fact, I think everyone 
would agree that, if we are going to remain the supreme economic force 
in this world, we must promote harmony between employees and employers. 
That is not the issue here.
  The issue is how you look at section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor 
Relations Act. Most folks do not take the time to read it, but if we 
take a close look, what we will realize is that section 8(a)(2) has 
been the pillar protecting American workers against sham union 
companies created by employers. Maybe that is not a problem now, but 60 
years ago that was.
  Now to eliminate that protection under 8(a)(2) concerns a great 
number of people, not because we have companies that are doing this the 
right way with their employees, it is because we still have companies 
that are not doing it the right way.
  Do we need H.R. 743? No, we do not. We do not need H.R. 743 because, 
as the majority, the sponsors of this bill admit in their own 
legislation, 80 percent of all large employers are already using 
employee involvement committees and over 30,000 workplaces already use 
them.
  We have them. They have been growing even after the case that has 
been cited so often, Electromation, as the cause of H.R. 743. What we 
do find, however, is that, if we provide an allowance to an employer, 
he or she may begin to deal with employees on issues of wages, of 
working conditions, of benefits, health care, for example, that why 
should the employer go to a union or to employees that want to be 
unionized when in fact they can create its own committee and claim that 
it is now dealing with an employee organization. Then we get into the 
situation of a sham union. That is what concerns so many of us.
  We do not need to change section 8(a)(2) to allow for employee 
involvement committees. We have them. And we have them flourishing even 
after the Electromation case that is the supposed reason for this 
legislation. But what we do find is that there is an undercurrent to 
try to undo the protection for workers.
  If a worker knows that there is an employee committee out there, the 
worker probably wants to participate. But if the worker cannot decide 
who will serve on that employee committee, cannot decide what the basis 
of consideration will be for that committee's work and cannot decide 
when and if someone can be removed because that committee is no longer 
representing employees, we find ourselves working with not an employee 
committee but an employer-created employee committee. That is what we 
want to avoid.
  Working men and women have never said: Let us make the decisions for 
this company. We are the workers. But let us be productive and let us 
to the degree we can work together in making this company productive.
  Do not let section 8(a) go. It has been the pillar of protection for 
workers against sham unions.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], a member of the committee.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of 
the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, this is one of 
the many areas that we have taken a look at. It is absolutely true that 
perhaps this was a problem 60 years ago. But today it is not a problem.
  Today what we actually need to be doing is updating American labor 
law to not only enable American corporations and American employees to 
be competing in 1995, but we need to be laying out and creating the 
framework that these individuals and these corporations are going to be 
successful and are going to be creating world class jobs in America in 
the year 2000 and the year 2010.
  Corporations and companies are participating in participative 
management. They are now doing it at their peril. Corporations in my 
district have been recognized consistently as being some of the best 
managed and the most innovative corporations in America. They have been 
recognized as some of the most innovative and some of the best world 
class corporations in the world because of this partnership that they 
have developed between employees and management.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Chairman, when we go into these corporations, and we talk to 
management, they would like to do much more, their employees would like 
to do much more, but they are being constrained by the National Labor 
Relations Act. We need to make changes. This is a step forward, this is 
progress, this is going to help corporations and employees around the 
country.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, much has been made today about a statement made that 
was uttered by the Democratic Chairman of the National Labor Relations 
Board. I would like to read into the Record what a former Chairman, 
Republican Chairman, of the National Labor Relations Board has said, 
and I quote. He says, and this is Mr. Edward Miller:

       If section 8(a)(2) were to be repealed--

  And that is what this legislation would do--

       I have no doubt that in not too many months or years sham 
     company unions would recur again.

  He also said, Mr. Chairman, and I quote:

       . . . the so-called Electromation problem . . . is another 
     myth. It is indeed possible to have effective [employee-
     involvment] programs . . . in both union and nonunion 
     companies without the necessity of any changes in current 
     law.

  Mr. Chairman, I think that speaks accurately to this bill today. It 
tells us why it is not necessary, because it will permit those sham 
company unions.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to indicate that what the 
whip said and what my good friend from North Carolina said is 
positively incorrect. There cannot be a cooperative committee at the 
present time, not particularly because of the law, but because of the 
interpretation of that law, and we believe that 85 percent of the 
employees who are nonunion should have the same opportunity to develop 
a cooperative workplace agenda with management as the other 15 percent 
do under organized labor.
  Now it is very clear at the present time the interpretation is it is 
legal if employer management calls all the shots in the workplace. That 
is legal. It is legal if management wants to abdicate their 
decisionmaking responsibility and have employees call all the shots. 
That is legal. The interpretation, however, of the board at the present 
time is it is illegal if management and labor want to cooperate through 
a committee process to improve the quality, the safety, and the 
productivity of the workplace.
  As it was mentioned before, and I quote Chairman Gould:

       But, whether it be financial or otherwise, assistance to 
     any groups that are involved in employment conditions ought 
     not to trigger an unfair labor practice proceeding under the 
     National Labor Relations Act. Amendments to the act that 
     allow for cooperative relationships between employees and the 
     employer are desirable.

  Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize just as much as I possible can that we 
do not, I repeat we do not, eliminate section 8(a)(2). Section 8(a)(2) 
is still there to stop sham unions. My colleagues have heard that 
mentioned over and over again.
  Opponents of H.R. 743 argue that the bill would undermine unions or 
impede the ability of workers to organize. Mr. Chairman, the 
legislation we are considering today does neither of these things. H.R. 
743 is very narrowly crafted to eliminate any threat to the well-
protected right of employees to select 

[[Page H 9531]]
representatives of their own choosing to act as their exclusive 
bargaining agent. As reported by the committee, the bill specifically 
provides that it does not, I repeat ``not,'' apply in unionized 
workplaces thus ensuring that unions, and only unions, will speak for 
employees in those workplaces that are organized. This bill does not 
create any opportunity whatsoever for employers to avoid their 
obligation to bargain with unions.
  Even in nonunion workplaces, the reported bill contains many 
provisions designed to protect the right of employees to elect union 
representation should that be desired. The bill provides that work 
teams or committees may not negotiate collective bargaining agreements, 
nor may they act as exclusive representatives of employees. Thus, 
employees who want independent representation through a union always 
retain that right no matter how many committees or teams exist in the 
workplace. No employee is denied the right to democratic 
representation, as many critics charge, under this bill. Beyond the 
provisions dealing with the role of employers in workplace 
organizations, the bill retains every protection in current law 
designed to safeguard the access of employees to independent 
representation.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, when we look at what is happening with the 15 
percent, and I can think of a company in my district where these 
committees work beautifully, management and labor together, as was 
mentioned over and other again, and of course they mention many of the 
big corporations which, in many instances, are unionized; the beauty of 
that operation is that in the one workplace they even determine, the 
employee, whether the bike goes out to be sold or not, but for the 85 
percent in my area who are not union, they do not have that 
opportunity. They either have to hope that management gives them total 
control, or they are stuck with the fact that management legally can 
have total control.
  So I would hope that we would put some of this nonsense to rest and 
give all 100 percent of our employees an equal opportunity to determine 
how things will be in their workplace.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
strike down the so-called Teamwork Act which in my view would deal a 
devastating blow to the working people of this country, and bring us 
back to a time when workers could be legally and openly exploited for 
the sake of a few corporate dimes,
  My colleagues, even if the 104th Congress were to adjourn on this 
very day, without another vote, I believe this Congress would be 
remembered as the most antiworker Congress in the history of this 
country.
  The fact is, at a time of declining wages and eroding job security, 
not only are the Republicans of this Congress failing to address the 
problem--they are actually making it worse.
  They want to shred every last worker and workplace protection and on 
the alter of trickle-down tax cuts--lavishing more on those who already 
have the most, and taking it out of the hides of working families.
  Why else would they oppose even a small increase in the minimum wage 
that is designed to make work pay more than welfare?
  Why would we gut basic workplace safety laws that have protected tens 
of millions of workers from dangerous and even life-threatening abuse?
  Why else would they cut back on enforcement of crucial wage and hour 
laws, which prevent hard-working people from being exploited on the 
job?
  It does not take an economist to know that these cuts are regressive 
and wrong. Just consider this fact:

  Corporate profits in the last 3 years have grown faster and larger 
than probably at any time in our history, and at the very same time 
wages have been falling by a greater rate than at any time in the last 
century. But this Republican Congress is not satisfied. They want to 
pass this so-called Teamwork Act which allows the kind of employer-
dominated company unions that deny workers the freedom to represent 
their own interest fairly and independently.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill would let employers and managers at 
nonunionized companies dictate the terms of all labor-management 
discussion and negotiations, even though we outlawed that kind of 
dictatorship 60 years ago because it led to rampant employee abuse and 
exploitation.
  If this bill passes, tens of millions of Americans will be forced to 
abandon the basic rights and protection of real collective bargaining, 
and herded into these sham unions. In effect, they will surrender all 
power and independence to their employers, whether they want to do it 
or not.
  The result would be a damaging downward spiral, and the kind of 
America we read about earlier in the century in Upton Sinclair's ``The 
Jungle'': even more of the kinds of workplace atrocities and sweatshop 
standards that we have strived to eliminate for nearly a century.
  The Republicans will tell us that we need this legislation to get 
workers and managers to cooperate. But the fact is, hundreds of leading 
corporations, unionized or not, are models of cooperation already. We 
do not need this to get cooperation, and how can there be cooperation 
if one side has all the power, all the prerogatives, and all the 
authority?
  Does anyone really believe that multinational corporations do not 
have enough power now? Or that workers' interests do not need to be 
defended or protected?
  This bill should not be called the Teamwork Act, it should be called 
the Unfair Play Act.
  If it was not clear already, it should be painfully clear today: the 
Republican agenda is an extreme agenda--a partisan package of perks for 
the few and punishment for the many. I say to my colleagues, if you're 
a corporate giant or a millionaire stock speculator, then you're in 
luck. But if you're a hard-working American family who's struggling to 
survive, then these kinds of actions are an absolute nightmare.
  Let us stop this wrong-headed bill, and let us get back to preserving 
our basic commitment to the hard-working families of this country. They 
are the backbone of this country, they made this country great, and it 
is time to stand with them and fight for them rather than trying to 
erode the hard-earned rights that they have worked for all these years.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, today we have heard that section 8(a)(2) is a 
product of the 1930's that needs to be updated. In fact, section 
8(a)(2) dates from the 1770's, not the 1930's. It stands for the basic 
democratic principle that representatives should be responsible solely 
to those they represent. That principle is as valid today as it was in 
1776 or in 1935, and I urge defeat of this bill.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
so-called TEAM Act.
  Proponents of the TEAM Act claim that employer-employee cooperation 
is the objective of their legislation. But as even the supporters of 
the bill state, 80 percent of America's largest corporations already 
utilize employer-employee teams to improve workplace productivity. That 
fact is, current law allows the creation of employee involvement 
programs to explore issues of quality, productivity, and efficiency.
  So if teamwork is the goal, then this legislation is simply 
redundant. Unfortunately, the details of this legislation reveal that 
its effects are much more serious.
  The TEAM Act would fundamentally undermine the rights of workers by 
allowing companies to hand-pick employee representatives of their 
workers. The problem with such a situation is obvious to anyone who has 
ever held a job. All of us have known coworkers whose sole mission in 
life is to ingratiate themselves with the boss. In North Dakota, we 
call them brown-nosers.
  Whatever you call them, these people are the obvious choice of 
employers to represent the workers. Why? Because they are beholden to 
and serve the interests of the boss. I do not know of a workplace in 
America that would freely elect a patsy of the employer to represent 
their economic interests. 

[[Page H 9532]]

  So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Sawyer amendment, which 
clarifies the legitimate function of employee involvement programs to 
improve quality, productivity, and efficiency. But vote against this 
bill and preserve the right of workers to freely assemble, elect their 
own leaders, and promote their own economic interests.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill 
and protect the right of working Americans to elect their own 
representatives to provide fair and independent representation at the 
bargaining table.
  Working people have not always enjoyed an independent voice on the 
job in this country. Until the passage of the National Labor Relations 
Act [NLRA] in 1935, workers were not guaranteed the right to organize, 
the right to bargain collectively, or the right to engage in peaceful 
strikes and picketing.
  Employers effectively fought off the attempts of their employees to 
form independent unions by setting up sham unions. Sham unions were 
employee groups set up and controlled by management. The purpose of the 
sham unions was too give employees the false impression that management 
was bargaining in good faith with its employees.
  Under these conditions, true arms-length bargaining between workers 
and management was not possible. The result was chaos in employee-
employer relations. The economy and the social fabric of the country 
was torn apart by strikes and violent clashes between workers and 
management.
  Senator Wagner of New York, who sponsored the NLRA, understood this. 
He believed that both the American economy and American society would 
improve if industrial relations were based on the same values as our 
democratic system of government. His vision was a system of collective 
bargaining in which workers and management would sit down as equal 
parties, each capable of protecting themselves from intimidation.
  Wagner believed that ``the greatest obstacle to collective bargaining 
was employer dominated unions.'' To remove that obstacle, section 
8(a)(2) of the NLRA makes it illegal for employers to ``dominate or 
interfere with information or administration of any labor organization 
or contribute to financial or other support to it.''
  This protection has ensured that working people can elect their own 
representatives and organize without worrying about employer 
infiltration or meddling. It has given employees confidence that their 
interests are truly being represented in negotiations with management. 
The resulting peace between workers and management has contributed to 
the stability of the Amercan economy and to the prosperity that we have 
enjoyed since the Great Depression.
  This measure risks undermining these fundamental protections in the 
NLRA by removing legal barriers which prevent companies from forming 
their own unions. it would amend section 8(a)(2) to allow employers to 
establish or participate in any organization or entity of any kind, in 
which employees participate, to address a range of issues including 
workplace conditions. The employee participation committees set up by 
employers could then be used by unscrupulous managers to bypass 
legitimate worker representative organizations.

  There is nothing now in the NLRA that prevents employers and 
employees from working together in teams or legitimate cooperative 
arrangements as long as these arrangements do not act as a bargaining 
agent for workers. In other words--contrary to the claims of the 
supporters of this bill--there is nothing in the NLRA preventing 
management from setting up partnerships with labor to develop 
innovative and effective ways to improve workplace conditions and 
increase productivity. In fact, The National Labor Relations Board 
[NLRB], ruled in 1977 that employers have the right to set up work 
teams as administrative subdivisions if management decides that these 
units are ``the best way to organize the work force to get work done.''
  The supporters of this legislation say that we need these reforms in 
labor law to deal effectively with the global economy of the 21st 
century. They say that we need to reform labor law to make it possible 
to have effective programs to involve employees in workplace 
initiatives. But in fact nothing in the current labor law invalidates 
employee participation in worker-management teams. The best proof of 
this is the number of employee involvement programs flourishing today. 
In fact, employee involvement is practiced in 96 percent of large firms 
today.
  Just to make sure there was no question about this, the gentleman 
from Ohio, [Mr. Sawyer] offered his proposal to make more explicit that 
it is lawful to organize employee groups to address competitiveness 
issues. Unfortunately, the Sawyer amendment was defeated.
  If the TEAM Act really is not about teamwork, why is it being pushed 
by the Republican leadership? The truth is that the Republicans do not 
really want to take us forward, they want to take us back in time. They 
want to give employers much of the power they had 60 years ago to 
enable them to break the efforts of workers to organize and have a 
voice to negotiate fair wages and decent working conditions.
  If this measure ever became law, it would threaten to overturn the 
system of workplace democracy that has promoted industrial peace and 
economic prosperity for three generations in America. Senator Wagner 
said it best, ``The right to bargain collectively is at the bottom of 
social justice for the worker * * * The denial or observance of this 
right means the difference between despotism and democracy.''

  The Republican leadership has initiated an all out assault on working 
American families. They have pushed legislation through this Congress 
to undercut health and safety regulations in the workplace. They have 
cut pension protection activities and wage and hour enforcement 
operations. Now they want to bring back company unions. Enough is 
enough. I urge my colleagues to vote against this authorization 
measure.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sawyer substitute 
to the TEAM Act which is before us today.
  Over the past two decades, the American workplace has undergone 
significant changes. One of the most important of these is the 
recognition that often, company employees are the best experts on 
increasing efficiency, improving product quality, and implementing new, 
innovative ideas. If America is to compete in the global marketplace, 
management and labor must work together to tap this built-in reservoir 
of knowledge, using it to strengthen our Nation's economy, generate 
fair profit, and create jobs.
  And across this country, companies are doing just that. More than 
30,000 employers have instituted employee involvement plans, including 
more than 96 percent of large firms. Employee recommendations on a wide 
range of issues, both large and small, are contributing to company 
productivity, workplace safety, employee satisfaction, and the bottom 
line.
  The authors of the TEAM Act state that companies are confused about 
what sort of employee involvement is permitted under the law. The TEAM 
Act authors ask Congress to legalize employee involvement. Clearly, 
employee involvement is currently legal. In fact, employee involvement 
is breaking out all over.
  The TEAM Act would undermine, not improve, employee involvement in 
company decisions. Under the TEAM Act, employers would be permitted to 
establish company-controlled employee organizations. Not only does this 
fly in the face of 60 years of labor law, company control of these 
organizations contradicts the very premise of employee involvement: 
That the employees, who know the workings of the company as well as 
management, ought to be respected as full partners in efforts to 
improve them.
  The TEAM Act is unnecessary and unwise. In attempting to address 
confusion in the area of what employee involvement teams are 
acceptable, it undermines the right of employees to select their own 
representatives in employer-employee bargaining situations. The Sawyer 
substitute, which I support, would clarify the range of acceptable 
employee involvement practices while preserving the spirit and the 
letter of employee self-representation. I urge my colleagues to vote 
yes on the Sawyer substitute.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I grew up in a family that strongly 
supported the notion that working people ought to be able to join a 
union and have collective bargaining to determine their wages, 
benefits, and working conditions.
  My father rose through the ranks of the United Automobile Workers, 
and when he retired, he was an international representative for the 
Chrysler Department at Solidarity House in Detroit, MI. So for me, 
nothing could be clearer, than the myriad problems that are presented 
with this legislation we are debating today. I have little inclination 
to further weaken the rights of America's working men and women, in 
terms with their relationship with their employer.
  Proponents of this measure claim that the bill will promote a team-
like relationship between management and labor. This legislation will 
not promote cooperation between management and labor, but rather 
undermine independent representation in the workplace.
  This bill will create an unfair balance of labor relations in favor 
of management. Management will be able to determine the employees 
representative, write organization bylaws, and establish the 
organization's mission, jurisdiction, and function. This will take 
working Americans back 60 years, to the days when company unions were 
legal. In 1935, Congress enacted the provision of the National Labor 
Relations Act which specifically prohibited against employer-dominated 
worker organizations. We saw firsthand the dangers of company unions--
we cannot afford to see them again.

[[Page H 9533]]

  The enaction of this bill would be devastating to the state of the 
American work force. While productivity and corporate profits are up, 
wages for the majority of American workers continue to decline. Workers 
must take on second and third jobs just to provide for their family the 
same as they did 20 years ago. The Team Act would further limit the 
workers' voice during bargaining, leaving union and nonunion workers in 
worse shape. It is no wonder that this bill has virtually no support 
from workers--it is unfair and undemocratic.
  I ask that two letters be included with my comments. These letters 
are from people who certainly understand the potential dangers of this 
legislation. One is from Joseph Lyscas, from Shopmen's Local Union No. 
508, of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and 
Ornamental Iron Workers Union, in Dearborn Heights, MI. The other 
letter is a gentle reminder of the president of local 26, of the United 
Food and Commercial Workers, Mr. James Franze.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this unfair legislation.

         Shopmen's Local Union No. 508, International Association 
           of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-
           CIO,
                         Dearborn Heights, MI, September 26, 1995.
     Representative John Conyers, Jr.,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Honorable John Conyers, Jr.: As a strong supporter of yours 
     for years, we are requesting that you vote no on H.R. 743. 
     Teamwork For Employees and Managers Act of 1995 (``Team-
     Act'') on Wednesday, September 27, 1995.
       H.R. 743 is another union busting scheme designed by the 
     Republican House Leadership. Section 8(A)2 of the National 
     Labor Relations Act prohibits employer-dominated worker 
     organizations. The Team-Act would change Section 8(A)2 by 
     allowing management to create the types of employer-dominated 
     entities. The original law was designed to prohibit, 
     specifically ``Company Unions''. It would not foster 
     cooperation, but would perpetuate dysfunctional work 
     relationships, and would threaten basic collective bargaining 
     rights. In short, the legislation would limit the basic 
     worker rights of independent employee representation.
       The Team-Act promotes a brand of ``Company Unionism'' that 
     was outlawed over sixty (60) years ago. This legislation will 
     not promote cooperation between management and labor, but 
     rather undermine independent representation in the workplace.
       We have every confidence you will vote no on H.R. 743 and 
     do what is right for Michigan's working families.
           Sincerely yours,

                                             Joseph F. Lyscas,

                                                   Business Agent,
     Shopmen's Local Union No. 408.
                                                                    ____

                                           Local 26, United Food &


                                  Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO,

                                  Detroit, MI, September 22, 1995.
     Congressman John Conyers,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Conyers: The 2500 members and registered 
     voters of UFCW Local 26 strongly urge that you and your 
     colleagues protect independent representation in the 
     workplace and vote against H.R. 743, the TEAM Act, when it 
     comes to the House floor Wednesday, September 27. UFCW Local 
     26 and the UFCW International, which represents 1.4 million 
     members, will be watching to see how you vote on this crucial 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James V. Franze,
                                                        President.

  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the Congress 
is taking up the issue of high performance teams in the workplace. I 
have had an opportunity to work with some of the most knowledgeable 
people on this subject, the hardworking members of the AWPPW. These 
hardworking men and women have forged good teamwork relations at the 
James River's Camas mill to boost production, cut costs, improve 
working conditions and move their company into a better competitive 
position. Because they are unionized, the National Labor Relations Act 
allows them to form teams to improve their working conditions and 
improve their company's competitive standing.
  Hundreds of thousands of American workers are denied the benefit of 
becoming involved in the decisionmaking process in the workplace 
because the National Labor Relations Act does not recognize their right 
to take part in the team process because they are not a part of a 
union. Every American, union member or not, should have a fundamental 
right to be more than a worker for their company. They deserve the 
right to be part of the success of that company. The Team Act will 
allow them to do so by giving employers and employees the right to 
address critical issues in the workplace and an ad hoc or more formal 
basis. We cannot miss this opportunity to empower employees by giving 
them a voice in the workplace through employee involvement in high 
performance teams.
  The Team Act is not a tool to be used to deprive workers of their 
fundamental right to be represented by a union and people of their 
choice. The Petri amendment assures us that teams cannot be formed in 
union shops without the consent of the union. Many workers I know have 
welcomed the formation of teams. No longer must they wait the next 
collective bargaining round to recommend better safety measures or work 
processes. No longer must they struggle through the bureaucracy of 
their union or the bureaucracy of their company to better their lives 
and the productivity of their workplace. Now, because of labor's 
involvement, the Petri amendment guarantees organized labor's rights 
will not be diminished in union shops. I believe that it is the intent 
of the Team Act to promote better efficiency and cooperation in the 
workplace. We can do this with labor and management working together.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill was written to suppress the rights of 
workers. What is worse is that the one case that they cite as an 
example of the need for this legislation, electromation, was one of the 
most glaring abuses of workers' rights that has come before the NLRB in 
a long time--so glaring that all five of the Reagan-Bush appointed 
board members voted against the company, a decision confirmed by the 
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  There is nothing in the law or the policy of the NLRB that threatens 
or discourages employers from forming work improvement teams. The law 
does allow, and there do exist, employee groups for those purposes in 
both unionized and nonunion workplaces.
  This amendment to the National Labor Relations Act, however, would 
change that and would give employers greater capacity to discourage 
employees from organizing themselves.
  That fits in with the notion that some employers and some Members of 
this Congress have that unions are inherently evil and must be 
destroyed.
  Mr. Chairman, I was the owner of a small business before coming to 
Congress, one where I was quite successful, and where I had assembled a 
cadre of employees with whom I worked closely to ensure that they were 
successful as well. Before I created that business, I was an ordinary 
worker, both in union and nonunion settings. As a business owner and as 
a worker, I recognized the benefits of cooperation in the factory.
  Cooperative approaches to day-to-day work leads to more acceptance of 
the rules and less contention in the shop.
  If workers are offered the opportunity to make suggestions, 
communicate their concerns, and explore their ideas, both workers and 
management will benefit.
  And, we are told, since the 1970's the number of cooperative working 
arrangements that exist in America's workplaces has exploded, over 
30,000 employers, 96 percent of the country's largest companies, use 
some form of teamwork in their operations.
  To say that there is a chilling effect on the formation and continued 
operation of these cooperative working groups because of the very few 
cases that have arisen in the past 20 years is simply not supported by 
the facts.
  Remember the avowed purposes for this act? ``To protect legitimate 
employee involvement programs, from governmental interference.''
  Well, I submit that the bill goes well beyond those purposes.
  Legitimate employer involvement programs, those that do not abridge 
the rights of employees under collective bargaining agreements, are 
already legal under the National Labor Relations Act.
  There is no need for this bill to protect legitimate programs.
  This bill, I submit, protects illegitimate programs, those that are 
the equivalent of company unions about which my father and many other 
fathers warned us.
  Company unions formed and nurtured by employers who would emasculate 
their workers and keep them in substandard workplaces, with no 
benefits.
  Another avowed purpose is to preserve existing protections against 
deceptive and coercive employer practices but there is nothing in the 
bill that protects employees at all.
  The third purpose says it all: ``To allow legitimate employee 
involvement programs, in which workers may discuss issues involving 
terms and conditions of employment, to continue to evolve and 
proliferate.''
  Whenever employees meet with employers to discuss terms and 
conditions of employment, there is the potential for conflict.
  As a worker, the employee wants more pay or more benefits as a 
condition of continued employment.
  Management, on the other hand, wants to keep its labor costs low.
  That is the nature of the workplace.
  To say that management should be able to form teams, select the 
members of those teams, both management and worker members, and set the 
agenda for the team, this is 

[[Page H 9534]]
clearly a company union that Senator Wagner argued so forcefully 
against at about the time I was born.
  The conditions have not changed in my lifetime.
  The Wagner Act has stood the test of time, it has enabled both 
management and labor to meet and negotiate on a level playing field.
  Rather than empowering employees to cooperate with management, this 
TEAM Act will drive a wedge between management and labor and will, I 
predict, lead to the greatest labor strife we have had since the Second 
World War.
  This is a bad bill, vote against it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the pending 
legislation. H.R. 743 is an unneeded intrusion into worker-management 
relations that so corrupts the negotiation process to make it virtually 
meaningless.
  Once again, the Republican majority party in this House seeks to roll 
back the rights of working men and women and once again they claim that 
that is not the case.
  The proponents of H.R. 743 claim that this legislation is needed to 
overturn a National Labor Relations Board decision. However, the facts 
indicate that this legislation is not needed. Such organizations 
continue and the number of businesses utilizing them is growing. As the 
statement of findings in this very legislation points out, employee 
involvement programs have been established by over 80 percent of the 
largest employers in the United States. In addition, such activities 
are ongoing today and the Court of Appeals decision, which upheld the 
NLRB, specifically stated that its ruling ``does not foreclose the 
lawful use of legitimate employee participation organization.'' 
However, these communication activities must not and should not 
interfere with the National Labor Relations Act.
  Unfortunately, the real effect of this legislation is to permit 
employers to impose on their employees worker representation 
organizations under the employers' control. This bill harkens back to 
the earlier history of company-controlled unions. These organizations 
can then be used to impede employee efforts to organize or undermine 
the authority of an existing union. In essence, this proposal will 
destroy the fragile balance between employee rights to organize and 
bargain collectively and employer-employee communications.
  American businesses and workers face many challenges in the 
international marketplace. In order to remain competitive, a spirit of 
cooperation between employers and employees must be the hallmark of 
operations. However, the reestablishment of these corporate unions will 
not accomplish that goal. Instead these employer dominated unions would 
drive a wedge into employer-employee relations, co-opting the formal 
tenants of the National Labor Relations Act in the name of harmony. In 
the end hurting working families and creating mistrust.
  Mr. Speaker, in a 1989 joint session of the House and Senate, the 
American people heard Lech Walesa, then chairman of Solidarity, speak 
about the long and successful struggle of the Polish workers against 
the totalitarian, communist regime in Poland and the victory of 
democracy in all of Central Europe. In that moving address, Chairman 
Walesa thanked the American people and Congress for our support and 
assistance. He spoke of the United States as a beacon of freedom for 
working men and women worldwide. He spoke of the moral support that 
Americans provided. He spoke of President Bush, speaking in Gdansk in 
front of the Fallen Shipyard Workers Monument, and sending a message to 
Polish workers that the American people strongly supported their right 
to organize and to oppose company and party controlled unions.
  Today, the Republican majority, with this legislation, is dimming the 
American beacon of freedom and the rights of American working men and 
women, setting back what has offered hope around the world to working 
families. By enshrining business controlled unions with a congressional 
seal of approval, the Republicans are seeking to stifle American 
working men and women and to deny them the right to legitimate union 
representation. I urge my colleagues to reject this bad retrenchment in 
workers rights and to respect the rights of the millions of working 
families we in Congress represent. I urge the defeat of H.R. 743.
  Mr. STOKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
743, the Teamwork for Employees and Managers (TEAM) Act. Under the 
current Republican leadership in the Congress we have been faced with 
an unprecedented amount of legislation that negatively affects the 
rights of working Americans.
  Unfortunately, in the rush to pass legislation implementing the 
Republican ``Contract With America,'' there has been little time to 
analyze and consider the implications of these bills. From challenges 
to collective bargaining rights in the repeal of section 13(c) of the 
Federal Transit Act to efforts to weaken workplace safety requirements 
in H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, a clear pattern has 
emerged that is clearly hostile to the American worker.
  Today, the House is considering H.R. 743, the ``Teamwork for 
Employees and Managers Act.'' This measure is designed to amend section 
8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to greatly expand 
employers' abilities to establish employee involvement programs. 
Section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA states that it is an unfair labor practice 
for an employer to dominate or interfere with the formation or 
administration of any labor organization. This provision protects 
employees from the practice of an unscrupulous employer attempting to 
create company, or sham, unions, although H.R. 743 does not state an 
intent to repeal the protection provided by section 8(a)(2), H.R. 743 
would undermine employees protections in at least two key ways. First, 
the bill would permit non-union employers to establish company unions. 
Second, it would allow employers to establish company-dominated 
alternative organizations designed to undermine employee self 
determination. Unfortunately, the amendment of section 8(a)(2) 
represents a clear and unrestrained attack on the working men and women 
of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, the scope of this legislation is tremendous, H.R. 743 
would be applicable to approximately 90 percent of all American 
workers. The large reach of this bill will ensure that two sets of 
workplace rules are established, one for unionized firms and another 
for non-unionized firms. Under current law, this two-tier set of rules 
is not permissible or desirable. We should maintain our current 
commitment to employee independence and democracy protected by section 
8(a)(2). We should not enact laws that experience has demonstrated 
would simply be disadvantageous to the Nations working people and 
workplace democracy.
  Contrary to the claims of the new Republican majority that the 
amendment of section 8(a)(2) will result in cost savings and increased 
efficiency, the majority's real objective is to take away from the 
American worker the rights and privileges they have worked so hard and 
so long to achieve. I have been a consistent and steadfast supporter of 
greater flexibility and improved management techniques in the 
workplace. To be more competitive and effective in domestic and 
international markets industry should strive to incorporate innovative 
thinking. But the price for this innovation should not be the basic 
rights of American workers. Under current law, the creation of employee 
involvement programs that explore issues of quality, productivity, and 
efficiency, with the appropriate precautions is not only permissible 
but is strongly encouraged.
  Section 8(a)(2) in no way prohibits employee involvement; the law 
merely establishes a single ground rule by making it unlawful for an 
employer to involve employees in dealing with wages or other terms of 
employment through an employer-dominated employee organization or 
employee representation plan. Employer-dominated representation in 
dealing with employment conditions is thus the only form of employee 
involvement prohibited by section 8(a)(2). All other types of employee 
involvement programs, including for example work teams, quality 
circles, suggestion boxes, or other communication devices are entirely 
lawful under current law. The fact is that H.R. 743 goes well beyond 
its legitimate objectives, and ignores the fact that a less intrusive 
means to achieve the same goal exists now.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that section 8(a)(2) now under attack 
has helped maintain a workplace environment conductive to progress in 
the areas of job security, fair wages, and working conditions for 
thousands of America's union and non-union workers alike. H.R. 743 is a 
one-sided bill which, if amended as proposed, would tilt the scales in 
the favor of any anti-union employer that wants to exploit this 
proposed legislation. This legislation overturns well settled 
labor law. The delicate balance between labor and management that has 
been fashioned over the years will be upset by this legislation, 
because it gives employers the ability to control all aspects of 
workplace decisionmaking.

  Beyond the fact that the section 8(a)(2) has been good for America, 
it has also proven to be the right thing to do. The rights of workers 
to choose whether or not to--and how to--organize themselves is 
essential to the American labor force. The rights of union and non-
union workers to choose their representatives is fundamental. With 
limited opportunity for debate and hearings this amendment of the 
section 8(a)(2) is clearly an unjustifiable circumvention of the 
procedures of the U.S. House of Representatives. This attempt to short 
circuit the process can only have one result, the compromise of not 
only the rights of American workers but also the rights of the entire 
American public.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, H.R. 743 reflects my colleagues' desire to 
sacrifice the interests and obligations of this country to the working 
men and women of America in exchange for 

[[Page H 9535]]
short-term gain and inequality. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this bill.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this legislation. 
This legislation will actually legalize employer domination of worker 
organizations and represents a return to the bad old days of company 
unions.
  Under this bill, corporate chieftains would be entirely free to 
create, mold, and terminate employee organizations dealing with wages, 
benefits, and working conditions. This bill allows management to select 
employee representatives, determine the employee organization's 
governing structure, and establish the employee organization's mission. 
Where is the worker's voice?
  Furthermore, the bill gives employers the unfettered right to fashion 
employee organizations to the employer's own liking, and to disband 
them if and when the employer chooses.
  Mr. Speaker, when the National Labor Relations Act became law, it 
stood for the fundamental proposition that representatives of working 
men and women should be exclusively responsible to those they 
represent. If they are responsible to management, they cannot be an 
independent voice for workers.
  In a Congress where the majority party has attempted to eliminate 
OSHA and defund the NLRB, H.R. 743 represents yet another attack on our 
Nation's working people.
  I urge my colleagues to honor their working constituents and vote 
``no'' on H.R. 743.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to H.R. 743, the so-called TEAM Act.
  Although the bill's name appears to promote collaboration between 
labor and management, in reality I believe that it would undermine the 
right of workers to form their own independent organizations.
  I support the idea of creating workplace productivity teams. It's 
clear that such labor-management cooperation is necessary so that 
American workplaces continuously improve and increase productivity and 
worker satisfaction. However, I strongly believe that such teams should 
be convened through the chosen organizations of workers.
  As the TEAM Act stands, I am afraid that it would cause unnecessary 
friction in labor-management relations in our Nation. Employers would 
be given carte blanche to pick and choose which employees will serve on 
employer created committees, control the agenda, and basically gag 
employee rights to represent themselves freely and independently. In 
effect, this bill would return the American worker to an era governed 
by employer dominated ``company'' unions.
  The guaranteed protection of workers' rights to form independent 
labor organizations is essential both to guarantee that employees enjoy 
the democratic right to choose their own representatives, and to assure 
that a chosen employee representative is accountable only to the union 
he/she represents.
  When it originally enacted the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] in 
1935, Congress made a pact with American workers. In this pact Congress 
declared, in no uncertain terms, that when it came to balancing the 
interests of employers and workers it should not be one sided. A 
specific prohibition against employer dominated worker organizations 
was thus included as a cornerstone of the NLRA.
  The fact is that real labor-management cooperation is designed to 
promote quality and productivity, and Congress has long recognized that 
to allow employers to completely dominate workers is fundamentally 
antidemocratic and contrary to basic American values and beliefs.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree that we need to give businesses the 
flexibility to creatively address the problems that occur in today's 
workplace. Unfortunately, this legislation's bottom line is that 
management will have carte blanche authority to create, mold, and 
terminate employee organizations dealing with issues such as wages and 
benefits.
  The amendment that I offer does not affect the tens of thousands of 
currently existing employee involvement groups. It does require that 
groups formed to discuss terms and conditions of employment be 
democratically elected.
  Employee involvement groups have been successful at developing 
creative solutions in a flexible environment. Such issues as wages and 
benefits, however, deserve a higher level of scrutiny. My amendment 
provides that higher level of scrutiny. If management wants to create a 
group to discuss such issues, it can not pick the employees' 
representatives.
  The National Labor Relations Act does not allow these groups to 
discuss terms and conditions of employment. The TEAM Act would abolish 
this restriction and allow employee involvement groups to address any 
topic. The Sponsors of this bill will tell you that this change is 
necessary to remove an obstruction to greater productivity, and that 
without it's removal American businesses will fall far behind their 
foreign competitors.
  This portion of the National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935 
to abolish sham unions. Sham unions flourished in the 1920's and 
1930's, but they are not a thing of the past. The courts in this 
country see dozens of sham union cases each year. The statute we are 
replacing today is the only mechanism preventing the formation of sham 
unions.
  Former NLRB Chairman Miller, now an attorney representing management 
interests, recognized this. He said ``If [this section] were repealed I 
have no doubt that in not too many months or years sham company unions 
would again recur.''
  As the Congress proceeds to change labor law, we must not deprive 
workers of the basic right of choosing their own representatives. My 
amendment allows employee involvement groups to discuss these issues, 
and it guarantees fairness by requiring elections.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I rise in opposition to the Teamwork for 
Employers and Managers [TEAM] Act. The so-called TEAM Act is anything 
but a team act.
  This one-sided bill would dramatically tip the scales in management's 
favor by allowing them to create, mold and terminate employee 
organizations at will. The result would be devastating for workers in 
existing unions.
  The TEAM Act would, by allowing company unions, deny fundamental 
democratic rights that employees currently enjoy, both union and 
nonunion workers.
  The employee organizations created by management under TEAM Act would 
be under the total control of management, allowing them complete 
control over the workers in the employee organization.
  Under TEAM Act, any understanding between employers and employees 
would not be legally binding, so the employer could rescind any 
agreement at their discretion.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against the TEAM Act.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, the so-called TEAM Act would deny employees 
one of their fundamental rights under the National Labor Relations Act, 
which is the right to be represented by their own, independent 
representatives, who are accountable only to the employees, in their 
dealings with management regarding the terms and conditions of their 
employment.
  This right has been established through a historic process of workers 
struggles. This right, which would now be abrogated by the TEAM Act has 
been a cornerstone in the legislation which as provided industrial 
democracy and true teamwork since its enactment.
  This legislation, if enacted, would return this country to the 
laizze-faire, industrial practices of the 1920's and 1930's, in that it 
would open the doors for companies to form ``company'' associations 
whenever they felt the need to do so.
  Feeling confident of their vote majority in the House of 
Representatives, the Republican leadership, with this legislation, is 
continuing its assault upon the institutions and protections of working 
Americans.
  Current efforts to correct deficiencies in H.R. 743, specifically the 
Petri amendment perpetuate the antiworker democracy provisions of the 
TEAM Act, and leaves in place the anticollective bargaining 
implications of H.R. 743.
  This legislation will provide valuable assets to those who seek to 
teardown the legal protections which have provided a level playing 
field in the area of worker and management relations.
  This legislation is one more effort by the new Republican majority to 
dismantle protections which have been established over the past sixty 
years for working Americans. This legislation is a key plank in the 
Republicans radical and revolutionary efforts to bring down working 
American's wages and benefits, to compete with Third World economies.
  The Team Act is bad legislation, will be used against the legitimate 
democratic rights of American workers, will further the polarization of 
employees against employers. It is written in words which appear to 
represent the needs of workers, but in fact is a trojan horse which 
will further dismantle working American's protections and rights.
  For the sake of balance and fairness in the American workplace, I 
urge you to defeat this bad bill.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 743, 
the so-called TEAM Act. This bill would fundamentally change the 
National Labor Relations Act by amending section 8(A)(2), which makes 
employer-dominated workplace committees illegal.
  Supporters of the TEAM Act claim that this bill is necessary for 
businesses to encourage employee involvement in labor-management work 
teams. There is no doubt that teamwork is key to successful efforts to 
design, manufacture, and deliver new and improved products and 
services. However, close to 30,000 employee involvement programs 
already exist in businesses throughout the Nation. There is nothing in 
the law that prevents employers from forming cooperative labor-
management committees.
  What section 8(A)(2) does prohibit is an employer organization that 
dominates or interferes with an employee organization that deals 

[[Page H 9536]]
with the employer on terms and conditions of employment. This 
restriction is a fundamental feature of American labor law, established 
to ensure employee independence and freedom. By removing the protection 
of section 8(A)(2), employers would be able to form employee 
organizations that would address terms and conditions of employment, 
such as wages, hours, and work conditions. Employers would also be able 
to select its leaders and dictate exactly which issues would be 
discussed.
  In effect, employees would lose their democratic rights in the 
workplace. Their right to organize would seriously be impeded. Under 
employer-dominated organizations, they would no longer be able to chose 
their own representatives. They would not even be able to decide which 
issues of concern would be discussed. This is not employee 
involvement--it is employer control.
  By allowing employer dominated employee organizations, the TEAM Act 
will simply place yet another barrier between employers and workers who 
want to have a true voice on the job. Only when employee 
representatives are free from employer manipulation are the interests 
and concerns of the represented thorougly and adequately voiced.
  The TEAM Act is an unwarranted piece of legislation that will once 
again silence workers, bringing back sham company unions to the 
American workplace. We cannot afford to regress back to the days when 
workers had no rights. Please join me in opposition to H.R. 743, the 
TEAM Act. Thank you.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 743, the 
Teamwork for Employers and Managers Act. This legislation grew out of a 
1992 National Labor Relations Board decision involving the 
Electromation case in Elkhart, Indiana, which is located in my 
District. It was this case that refocused attention on the National 
Labor Relations Act and employee involvement programs. Sponsors of 
legislation argue that it is this case that clearly points out the need 
for change in the current law.
  The Electromation case arose when new management of the company 
decided to alter wage increases for employees. Within 2 weeks of the 
changes, a group of employees submitted a petition to management 
protesting the loss of benefits while at the same time, employees 
sought to form a union to represent their interests. In response to the 
employees' action, the company formed five Action Committees and 
selected the employees who were to serve on the committees and decided 
the areas of each committee's jurisdiction. The company established the 
size, responsibilities and goals of each committee and decided when the 
committees would meet. The committees had no authority to implement 
decisions, rather, they could only draft proposals for management's 
acceptance or rejection.
  The case went before the National Labor Relations Board, which was 
composed of 5 members appointed by President Reagan and Bush. The board 
unanimously decided that the company had violated Section 8(a)(2) of 
the National Labor Relations Act which prohibits an employer from 
dominating or controlling the employee representatives who deal with 
management on employee wages or other terms of employment. In 1994, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed the 
NLRB's decision.
  Mr. Chairman, the proponents of H.R. 743 maintain that Section 
8(a)(2) prevents or inhibits cooperative labor-management efforts to 
make the workplace more productive. There is nothing in the current law 
that prohibits legitimate labor management cooperation. In fact, there 
are tens of thousands of these labor-management cooperation programs in 
existence today. The proponents argue that a change in the law is 
necessary to enable employers to establish work terms or legitimate 
labor management cooperation programs.
  As the minority views in the Committee's report on H.R. 743 so 
clearly point out, ``we believe that this Nation must prosper in an 
increasingly competitive and information driven economy where, at every 
level of a company, employees must have an understanding of, and a role 
in the entire business operation. Moreover, in order to deal with the 
globally competitive economy of the 21st Century, it is important that 
U.S. workplace policies reflect a new era of labor-management 
relations--one that fosters cooperation, not confrontation''.
  H.R. 743 does not promote an atmosphere of cooperation in the 
workplace. Rather, it would undermine the rights of workers and the 
efforts to achieve real ``teamwork'' in the workplace. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  The Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
bill shall be considered by sections as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment, and pursuant to the rule each section is 
considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that has been printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record.
  Those amendments will be considered read.
  Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Teamwork for Employees and 
     Managers Act of 1995''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?


     Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Sawyer

  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Sawyer: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Teamwork for Employees and 
     Managers Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the escalating demands of global competition have 
     compelled an increasing number of employers in the United 
     States to make dramatic changes in workplace and employer-
     employee relationships;
       (2) such changes involve an enhanced role for the employee 
     in workplace decisionmaking, often referred to as ``Employee 
     Involvement'', which has taken many forms, including self-
     managed work teams, quality-of-worklife, quality circles, and 
     joint labor-management committees;
       (3) Employee Involvement programs, which operate 
     successfully in both unionized settings, have been 
     established by over 80 percent of the largest employers in 
     the United States and exist in an estimated 30,000 
     workplaces;
       (4) in addition to enhancing the productivity and 
     competitiveness of businesses in the United States, Employee 
     Involvement programs have had a positive impact on the lives 
     of such employees, better enabling them to each their 
     potential in the workforce;
       (5) recognizing that foreign competitors have successfully 
     utilized Employee Involvement techniques, the Congress has 
     consistently joined business, labor and academic leaders in 
     encouraging and recognizing successful Employee Involvement 
     programs in the workplace through such incentives as the 
     Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award;
       (6) most employers who have instituted legitimate Employee 
     Involvement programs have done so in order to enhance 
     efficiency and quality rather than to interfere with the 
     rights guaranteed to employees by the National Labor 
     Relations Act; and
       (7) the prohibition of the National Labor Relations Act 
     against employer domination or interference with the 
     formation or administration of a labor organization has 
     produced some uncertainty and apprehension among employers 
     regarding the continued development of Employee Involvement 
     programs.
       (b) Purposes.--The purpose of this Act is--
       (1) to protect legitimate Employee Involvement programs 
     against governmental interference;
       (2) to preserve existing protections against deceptive, 
     coercive employer practices; and
       (3) to promote the enhanced competitiveness of American 
     business by providing for the continued development of 
     legitimate Employee Involvement programs.

     SEC. 3. EMPLOYER EXCEPTION.

       Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act is 
     amended by striking the semi-colon and inserting the 
     following:

     ``: Provided further, That it shall not constitute or be 
     evidence of an unfair labor practice under this paragraph for 
     an employer to establish, assist, maintain, or participate 
     in--
       ``(i) a method of work organization based upon employee-
     managed work units, notwithstanding the fact that such work 
     units may hold periodic meetings in which all employees 
     assigned to the unit discuss and, subject to agreement with 
     the exclusive bargaining representative, if any, decide upon 
     conditions of work within the work unit;
       ``(ii) a method of work organization based upon supervisor-
     managed work units, notwithstanding the fact that such work 
     units may hold periodic meetings of all employees and 
     supervisors assigned to the unit to discuss the unit's work 
     responsibilities and in the course of such meetings on 
     occasion discuss conditions of work within the work unit; or
       ``(iii) committees created to recommend or to decide upon 
     means of improving the design, quality, or method of 
     producing, distributing, or selling the employer's product of 
     service, notwithstanding the fact that such committees on 
     isolated occasions, in considering design quality, or 
     production issues, may discuss directly related issues 
     concerning conditions of work: Provided further, That the 
     preceding proviso shall not apply if--

[[Page H 9537]]

       ``(A) a labor organization is the representative of such 
     employees as provided in section 9(a);
       ``(B) the employer creates or alters the work unit or 
     committee during organizational activity among the employer's 
     employees or discourages employees from exercising their 
     rights under section 7 of the Act;
       ``(C) the employer interferes with, restrains, or coerces 
     any employee because of the employee's participation in or 
     refusal to participate in discussions of conditions of work 
     which otherwise would be permitted by subparagraph (i), (ii), 
     or (iii); or
       ``(D) an employer establishes or maintains an entity 
     authorized by subparagraph (i), (ii), or (iii) which 
     discusses conditions of work of employees who are represented 
     under section 9 of the Act without first engaging in the 
     collective bargaining required by the Act: Provided further, 
     That individuals who participate in an entity established 
     pursuant to subparagraph (i), (ii), or (iii) shall not be 
     deemed to be supervisors or managers by virtue of such 
     participation.''.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, the proponent of the Teamwork Act has 
stressed today how important it can be to long-term competitiveness. I 
completely agree. It is important to repeat again, though, that 
managers and employees can presently exchange ideas on efficiency, 
productivity, or other competitiveness issues.
  However, I understand the argument that discussions of improving 
workplace output may be tied to those subjects which employers and 
employees cannot currently talk about outside of the collective-
bargaining process, subjects like wages and hours and other terms and 
conditions of work.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a substitute to 
H.R. 743 which would clarify that a team's discussions of 
competitiveness issues are absolutely legal, even if its members from 
time to time talked about conditions of work that were directly related 
to the team's primary task of improving competitiveness. Sometimes, Mr. 
Chairman, they are simply inextricable in the modern workplace.
  I believe it provides employers with areas of far greater legal 
certainty and would protect both workers' rights and the vast majority 
of more than 30,000 employee involvement structures in America today. 
My substitute bill would not apply to unionized workplace, but the 
purpose of 882 is really to protect workers who do not have that kind 
of representation. It is nonunion members who lack that strength who 
are the workers most threatened by the prospect of company unions.
  My substitute embodies the principal recommendation on the issue of 
workplace cooperation of a bipartisan panel of labor law experts headed 
by President Ford's Labor Secretary, John Dunlop. In its final report, 
the Dunlop Commission recommended that nonunion employee participation 
programs should not be unlawful simply because they involve discussions 
of terms and conditions of work or compensation, where such discussion 
is incidental to the broad purposes of those programs.
  H.R. 743 would undoubtedly allow these discussions as well. I take no 
issue with that. Unfortunately, it would also allow conditions of work 
to be the sole focus of workplace teams, and this simply goes too far. 
It would give a few perhaps unscrupulous employers a powerful tool to 
undermine employee efforts to obtain independent representation. This 
is not just my view. The Dunlop Commission also concluded that employee 
participation programs, and I quote, ``are not a forum of independent 
representation for employees and thus should not be legally permitted 
to deal with the full scope of issues normally covered by collective 
bargaining.'' I recognize that the legality of some teams under current 
law is not entirely clear.
  I also understand the desire of employees to have greater certainty 
about the legality of their terms, so I offer this substitute in an 
attempt to provide statutory guidance to the NLRB, which defines areas 
in which workplace discussions of conditions of work should be legal 
and appropriate, and can be.
  Mr. Chairman, some of the members of the team coalition are, of 
course, interested in how their particular member companies would 
benefit if the TEAM Act passed. They have no particular reason to be 
concerned with potential abuse by less principled employees. I am first 
to concede that those who are the strongest advocates for this measure 
are well intentioned. They have no reason to be concerned with those 
abused by less principled employees, but we must be. That is why this 
debate cannot be about individual cases or individual companies.
  The central question is not whether some good things might happen if 
the TEAM Act is passed. Good things would happen. That is very clear. 
Good things are happening now under current law in over 30,000 
workplaces across the Nation. The central question which my substitute 
seeks to address is whether we can promote workplace cooperation in a 
way that will not invite the kind of abuse that gave rise to this law 
60 years ago.
  This measure ought to be looking toward the future, and not simply 
back 60 years. I believe that we can, so I offer this substitute as an 
attempt. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has a surface appeal until one just 
centers upon what this issue is all about. One has to begin with the 
assumption that there is no reason at all why, in the nonunion setting, 
employee teams cannot talk to their employers on any subject. On any 
subject. That also includes terms and conditions of employment. We 
cannot define terms and conditions of employment when we come right 
down to it.
  The National Labor Relations Act has, from time to time, in 
construing conduct under union law, pretended to unions that workplace 
health and safety, rewards for efficiency and productivity, work 
assignments, compensation, work rules, job descriptions and 
classifications, production quotas, use of bulletin boards, workloads, 
scheduling, changes in machinery, discipline, hiring and firing, 
promotions and demotions, these are all conditions, terms and 
conditions of work. There are many, many more.
  What the amendment is now basically trying to do is to come in and, 
from my viewpoint, produce many union restrictions and constrictions 
upon the exercise of the rights of free people as employees to simply 
negotiate and interact with their employer. They can do that now. As 
has been said, it is flourishing rather well. The problem is there are 
corporations like Polaroid, Donnelly, others that have been named, the 
best employers in America, who are being dragged before the NLRB, and 
because, unfortunately, there is an interpretation that there were 
terms and conditions of employment, when some team of employees was 
interacting with the employer, bango, that is an unfair labor practice: 
``You cannot do that, only unions can do that.''
  But look, these employees obviously can opt to join a union, to 
petition for a union in the workplace. If those employee groups are not 
working, if they are not going well, if the employer is being a 
dictator, if he is taking advantage of the people, we have not gotten 
rid of the sham corporation law. We have not repealed 882. We have only 
tried to carve out an exception, which is common sense, to say that 
when employers and employees, and it is really a bill of rights for 
employees, that when they get together and say, ``Yes, why don't we sit 
down with the head of the department and try to work something out,'' 
that they can do it.
  My good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] who has an all-
American name and is an all-American person, and a fine person, what he 
is doing here, he is going to start saying, ``There are going to be 
certain types of these groups. If it is entirely employee-controlled, 
OK, you can do anything you want, but if it is a supervisory-managed 
work unit, watch out, watch out. But what we are going to do, we are 
going to let you occasionally discuss conditions of work when it might 
be relevant to the subject matter,'' you see.
  Here we go. Who is going to supervise this? I suppose the National 
Labor Relations Board now? Are we going to get all kinds of new rules 
and regulations? What are we doing? Stop and think of what we are 
doing. We are now saying, let us say a group of women who get together 
and they want to call upon a department head and sit down and work with 
them, they would say no. Now see what we are doing? We are beginning to 
restrict, constrict, dictate. We are going to have amendments that say 
``There have to be elections, too.'' 

[[Page H 9538]]
What, NLRB elections to determine whether an ad hoc business employee 
group can get together? These groups' common goal, they are up one 
month, they are gone the next month. You have changing membership, you 
have changing chairmen or chairwomen. This is completely impractical. 
It guts the bill, because nobody in business would want to have this 
legislation. They are better off now, at least as long as they do not 
get caught, and so far the NLRB has zeroed in on major targets. But as 
has been said, it is otherwise flourishing. It is flourishing because 
it is cooperation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Fawell was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, what we have right now is cooperation. It 
is there. It is working. Congress should not get in the way and screw 
things up and start micromanaging. It is employees and employers 
working together. It can happen. If it does not work out, they can go 
and a union will be organized, as has been said. If they bungle the 
job, then we will find employees that are dissatisfied. However, we 
ought not to go down the slippery slope of trying to now move into the 
nonunion setting and start micromanaging with all kinds of laws. We 
will equal the volumes, and the volumes by the thousands, that are 
already there in the National Labor Relations Act in regard, correctly, 
in regard to your basic formal unions.
  That is why, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio, I cannot accept 
the amendment. I know it is offered with the very best of intentions, 
but it would destroy the genius of what is happening right now of this 
cooperation, this working togetherness, no bounds, anything they want 
to talk about; it is there, and the last thing we should do is to 
regulate it.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, will gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAWELL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has said repeatedly that employees 
cannot, under current law, discuss any of these topics with their 
employers. The truth of the matter is that any employee can come 
together in groups or individually and discuss these matters with their 
employers. What is prohibited is for the employer to dominate the 
employee organization in lieu of a labor organization. That is the 
difficulty.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Fawell was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, as soon as the 
employee group begins to interact with the employer, the law also 
states ``* * * if the employer supports, financially or otherwise, as 
well as dominates.'' All the employer has to come into the picture and 
that employee team becomes a sham union, unless the employee just sits 
there and does nothing. But if he supports, financially or otherwise, 
or if he dominates, and ``dominates'' has been construed to mean if the 
employer has, basically, the right to tell these employees what to do; 
of course, the employer is still the employer.
  I simply want to stress that the last thing in the world we should 
begin to do is to try to create little miniunions within the nonunion 
setup, and destroy what is a valuable revolution and dynamic change 
taking place in America.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, just used the 
expression, he said ``the genius of what is happening.'' I think that 
is what he said. I am a little confused.
  My understanding is that what is happening in the economy today is 
that the real wages of American workers are plummeting. Real wages have 
gone down by 16 percent since 1973. My understanding of what is going 
on in the economy today is that the new jobs that are being created are 
low-wage jobs, part-time jobs, temporary jobs, often without benefits. 
My understanding of what is going on in the economy today is that while 
corporate profits are soaring, and the incomes of the chief executive 
officers are now 150 times what the workers are making, more and more 
companies are taking our jobs to Mexico and to China.
  I would like to ask my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, tell me, 
what is the genius of all of that?
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, I was referring 
to the employee teams and their ability to cooperate with the employers 
and to be able to take over many of the operations which, normally 
speaking, in a top-down old-fashioned concept of employment, are 
vanishing.
  If we want an opportunity to have a turnaround, I do not agree with 
all the gentleman's conclusions, by any means, but the genius of what 
is occurring is employer-employee cooperation, where employees are 
increasingly taking over responsibilities in terms of efficiency, in 
terms or productivity, that they have never had before. That is the 
genius.
  Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, obviously, all of that 
is not working. Twenty years ago, as the gentleman knows, this country 
led the world in terms of the wages and benefits our workers received. 
With all of that genius, with all of that so-called worker-management 
cooperation, does the gentleman know what place our workers are now in 
the industrialized world? We are in 13th place. We are falling behind 
much of Europe and Scandinavia.
  I would argue that if there is any reason that workers have enjoyed 
decent benefits, decent working conditions, and decent workers in this 
country, it is because they have had unions. The evidence is pretty 
clear that this team effort will make it harder for workers to join 
unions.
  Mr. FAWELL. If the gentleman will yield further, there is nothing in 
this legislation that would proscribe in any way the right of these 
employees, if they are not in accord with the policies of the employer, 
to go ahead and petition for the formation of a union.
  We do nothing whatsoever to proscribe that. All that we try to do is 
to say that all that is occurring out here right now is lawful, because 
there is this ancient definition of a labor organization that was 
created back in 1935, when women were not even a part of the work 
force. They are a vital part of employee teams today that are doing 
things that in the 1930's were not even contemplated.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is aware 
that this TEAM Act takes place within the context of a savage assault 
on labor unions throughout this country.
  Mr. FAWELL. I certainly would not agree with that conclusion.
  Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman is aware that time after time when workers 
form unions, companies refuse to negotiate a first contract. The 
gentleman should be aware that workers all over this country are being 
fired as they try to organize unions. The gentleman should be aware in 
an unprecedented way, when workers now go out on strike, they are being 
replaced by permanent replacement workers. The gentleman knows all of 
that. And the gentleman knows right now that workers in unions are 
under assault, that companies are hiring consultants to break unions, 
to decertify unions, and this TEAM Act takes place within that context.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, 
because I think everybody ought to understand that if there is any 
attempt by any management of any company anywhere in America at any 
time to in any way to interfere with an attempt to collectively bargain 
and organize that work force, it is a violation of section 8(a)(1) of 
the law today, and this bill does not touch that in any way, shape, or 
form. That is law at 3:45 in the afternoon, and it is going to be law 
when this bill passes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] 
has expired.

[[Page H 9539]]

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Wisconsin makes the point 
about it being illegal to try to impede the creation of a union. But 
that gentleman's party has supported, as I understand it, a 30-percent 
cut in the funding of the National Labor Relations Board, the one Board 
in this country that exists to try to protect workers. So it is very 
clear where our friends on the other side are coming from.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. If the gentleman will yield further, first of all, me, 
I voted no on the appropriation bill.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the problem is, this 
stuff does not come out of the blue. The gentleman's party has 
supported a 30-percent cut in the funding of the NLRB, which would make 
that organization overwhelmed, without staff, and powerless to protect 
workers. Now the gentleman walks in and says ``oh, this TEAM Act is 
innocuous.''.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman is 
not a Democrat. He happens to be, I think, a socialist, right?
  Mr. SANDERS. I am an independent.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Then the gentleman does not have a party.
  Mr. SANDERS. I am with the majority of Americans.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. That is true at the moment, and I appreciate that. But 
would the gentleman suggest that because the Democrats have supported 
tax increases in the past, that we can never talk about the Democrats 
without calling them big spenders and tax increasers?
  Mr. SANDERS. I missed the point my friend is making.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. The point is because somebody decided that they were 
going to make some tough calls to try to balance the budget, the 
gentleman is saying we have no credibility on labor law.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I am saying is we 
have to look at this legislation within the context of everything else 
that is happening in this session. The gentleman, I hope, who is an 
honorable man, would recognize that probably never before in the modern 
history of this country has there been such an assault on the rights of 
working people and the needs of working people as is taking place in 
this Congress.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this discussion, and I just 
want to comment about the reality on the ground. Labor management 
relations are changing in this country. If you go to virtually any 
plant in the district I represent, you see that.
  I think there are more auto-related plants in my district than 
perhaps any other in the country. When you go into these plants, you 
see a partnership. You see management and labor which has moved away 
from an adversarial relationship into teamwork. You do not need to 
change the present law for management and labor to act differently than 
was generally true 40 or 50 years ago, even 30 years ago, when there 
was a much more adversarial relationship. The word team means that in 
reality on the shop floor.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Gunderson, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, so would the gentleman say then that 
there was no basis for the Electromation case?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the basis for it there 
was there was an intervention by management far more into the workplace 
than simply being a partner.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. But does the gentleman understand what the National 
Labor Relations Board ruled was the domination of Electromation in that 
case? The fact is they said the action committees agendas only were 
such things such as nonsmoking and interoffice communications; that 
that was, according to the national labor relations board, quote-
unquote, dominating, and therefore that was a violation of 8(a)(2). Is 
the gentleman saying that is not a problem?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will say, because when 
you look at the environment, the entire context of that case and what 
was involved there, it was far more than a discussion of smoking. That 
is what that case is about. That was not the role of the employer in 
that case. That case was decided under conservative administrations. 
What they said was they wanted to make sure that the thrust of 8(a)(2) 
remained, and that was that employers did not set up nor actively 
participate in the creation of employee organizations. Now, that is 
what the essence of that case was about. You are taking that case and 
trying to exaggerate it and twist it out of shape. That is what you are 
doing. You are using it as a smoke screen in order to make much more 
basic changes.
  Now, what disturbs me is, look, the Dunlop Commission worked on this 
for months and months and months. They had representatives of 
management and labor on it. They are unanimously opposed to what you 
are doing, as I understand it.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. If the gentleman would yield on that, if you read the 
Dunlop Commission, you will find out they clearly support changes in 
8(a)(2). What they would like is also in addition to that some 
amendments only making union organization easier at the same time. I 
would urge the gentleman, if he wants to be credible, to offer an 
amendment on the other half of the Dunlop Commission.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reclaiming my time, I fully understand that was a 
discussion. They thought that you should take the developing reality 
within the workplace and have the law encompass that. What the 
gentleman is doing is taking one piece of it, and you are excluding the 
rest of it. I just wanted to tell you, as I understand it, and the 
gentleman has to face this, that the commission unanimously opposes 
what the gentleman is doing.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I do not agree with that at all.
  Mr. LEVIN. I tried to reach Dr. Dunlop this morning and he was not 
there. That is my understanding. I will get a statement from them as to 
what they think about what the gentleman is doing.
  What disturbs me is I think what the gentleman is doing in the name 
of teamwork, the gentleman is polarizing. That is exactly what the 
gentleman is doing. He is taking a burgeoning and I think a 
constructive development in our society, and that is a less adversarial 
relationship on the workshop, and is bringing up this idea in the most 
adversarial way, the most polarizing way. It is absolutely contrary to 
the spirit of the Dunlop Commission.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Levin was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the minority report says that the members of 
the commission, including three former Secretaries of Labor, several 
scholars, the chief officer of Xerox, and a representative of the small 
business community, unanimously oppose enactment of this bill.
  I would like to see any different statement from Dr. Dunlop. My guess 
is you cannot get that.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. If the gentleman will yield further, I think if you 
would ask the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer], he would be the first 
to tell you, because when we were talking about this, he was trying to 
confirm what I said, and that is that the Dunlop Commission is very 
specific in their recommendations. They wanted modifications in 
8(a)(2). They also wanted changes in labor law.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time the gentleman made my 
point. What they did was to come up with what they thought was a 
balanced comprehensive approach. The gentleman is picking one piece of 
this. They have stated, as I understand it, they are opposed to this 
bill. They are. It is contrary to what they were striving to do. 
Instead of the gentleman trying to promote more of this teamwork, what 
the gentleman is going to do is to promote more conflict. What the 
gentleman is trying to do is to allow employers essentially to move in 
more easily to make it more difficult for labor organizations to 
essentially organize workers. I think that is a sad mistake.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?.
  
[[Page H 9540]]

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me 
say, to come to this floor and suggest that all this decision was about 
at the NLRB was about nonsmoking is ridiculous and it is trite. Let me 
tell you that the circuit court upheld the NLRB decision, and this is 
why. They said that the company posted a memorandum to all employees.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Levin was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, the circuit court said that the employees 
announced the formation of the following five action committees: One, 
absenteeism infractions; two, no smoking policy; three, communication 
network; four, pay progression for premium positions; and attendance 
bonus programs.
  That my friend, is setting conditions, work conditions, terms of 
conditions and pay. So it was more than a team.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman is 
using the nonsmoking as a smoke screen. The gentleman really is. It is 
too bad that the gentleman's side is taking one piece of Dunlop and 
leaving the rest of it. It is a disservice. It is another example, I 
think, of your extremism. There is no need to do this. We ought to try 
to work within the spirit of the Dunlop Commission.
  The gentleman is polarizing, and I do not know why he is doing it. I 
do not think you are going to get this through the Senate, and if it 
were to happen, it would not be signed. Why is the gentleman bringing 
it up?
  I am not on the committee that has jurisdiction, but I urge that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] go back to the drawing board, 
and that you sit down, instead of in a polarized way, Republican 
against Democrat, you try to sit down and talk about what is good for 
amicable relations between management and labor, what is good on the 
work floor of Ford and Chrysler and GM. You go there and ask them. And 
there is not a single person, I think, of the plant managers who would 
say what you are doing is a good idea. They say work together, instead 
of adversarially. You are trying to tilt this balance. You are using 
the 21st century as an excuse to undo the work that happened in and the 
progress that was made in the 20th century.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that we reject the gentleman's proposal.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend from Michigan, Mr. Levin, accused us of 
polarizing this debate, just after our friend from Vermont spent 4 or 5 
minutes talking about sustained assaults on the rights of the working 
men and corporations busting unions, and yet we are polarizing the 
debate. Let me in the interests of trying to maybe nonpolarize this 
debate ask my friend, the sponsor of the amendment, to enter into a 
colloquy with me. I have a couple questions about the amendment.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to respond to questions.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr . TALENT. I know the gentleman has worked hard on this and he has 
a substitute which does change the existing law, so I assume he agrees 
that something does need to be done to existing law; is that right?
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, indeed.
  Mr. TALENT. So those and other colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who spend a lot of time in general debate saying we do not need 
to do anything, the gentleman would disagree with that?
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, my 
view is if there are areas of uncertainty within the interpretation of 
8(a)(2) as it currently exists, that recognizing the changes that have 
taken place in recent years in the American workplace and the kind of 
cooperation we are all trying to nurture, that the law ought to 
recognize those changes and encourage them.
  Mr. TALENT. So the gentleman agrees with Chairman Gould who says 
amendments to the NLRA that allow for cooperative relationships between 
employees and the employers are desirable. There is a need to do 
something. I hope in the interest of not polarizing this we can 
establish a consensus that there is a need to do something.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, indeed, and I agree with the Dunlop 
Commission that we ought to facilitate that growth of employee 
involvement. But I also agree with Chairman Gould when he argues that 
he does not support the TEAM Act because it does not contain the basic 
safeguards against company unions that he feels are absolutely 
necessary.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman 
and I disagree on what ought to be done, and he thinks the bill does 
some things it should not do. I want to get into that and ask him a 
question.
  I have read the gentleman's substitute. I gave an example before of 
what is really going on out there in the workplace. So let us suppose, 
and I will give the gentleman a hypothetical just to explore the 
differences between the gentleman's substitute and the bill we are 
working on.
  A supervisor goes to the plant manager and says people are upset 
because they are working a lot of overtime. The schedules, they say, 
are not right. They want some changes so they can get to the day 
care centers, a couple of guys have hunting vacations planned. What 
shall we do? The manager says, well, I would like you to sit down and 
work with them and then come to me with a proposal. Why do we not want 
them to be able to do that?

  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
do want them to do that. In fact, my substitute permits that.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will agree that scheduling is 
a term and condition of employment; is it not?
  Mr. SAWYER. Indeed, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. TALENT. The gentleman's substitute prohibits those kinds of 
discussions about terms and conditions of employment.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, only when it is exclusively the subject of 
those terms and conditions of employment and the organization is 
dominated by the employer instead of representative of employees.
  Mr. TALENT. And under the current law there is no question if that 
supervisor goes out there and says, OK, Bill and Bob, let us talk about 
it and sit down and Jane. And, by the way, we better get Mel and Fred, 
because I know they are upset about this too. That is dominating 
because the supervisor is involved in choosing which employees are 
involved in the discussion; is that not right.
  Mr. SAWYER. Indeed.
  Mr. TALENT. So under my hypothetical the gentleman's substitute would 
make that situation illegal.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, the employer cannot go out and name the 
members of the employee participation team because that includes 
domination in matters of terms and conditions of employment.
  The fact of the matter is, that is precisely the kind of condition 
that the Dunlop Commission urged be exempted from the changes that they 
recommended in 8(a)(2).
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his candor and his attempt to work this out. He has been 
nonpolarizing from the beginning. He is offering, I think, a realistic 
substitute. I think the problem with it, he is trying to confine the 
literally hundreds of thousands of workplace situations into a code of 
federally prescribed mandate that simply does not comport with the 
reality in the workplace today.
  There are a whole lot of situations where people want to talk about 
terms and conditions that have impact upon them. Maybe safety. 
Scheduling is a classic thing. Vacations. The gentleman has just said 
his substitute would make that illegal.
  Why should we say to those people the only way they can talk this 
over with management and have them respond and try to work this out is 
if they decide they want to go out and form a union?
  Mr. Chairman, I think the problem here, and we have heard it in a 
couple of the speeches before this interchange that the gentleman and I 
have had is, 

[[Page H 9541]]
there is a mindset on the part of some on the other side of the aisle.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Talent was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, there is a mindset on the part of some on 
the other side of the aisle that in the first place all the employers 
out there are trying to bust all the unions. There are bad employers 
and there are also bad unions. That is why we have this law. There are 
some employers, some unions that would try to act in an unfair manner. 
that is why we have the National Labor Relations Act. I do not think 
most employers or most unions are out to do anything except to conduct 
their business or the unions to try to represent people.
  There is also a mindset, frankly, that people cannot protect 
themselves; that employees cannot make choices on their own; that even 
though the law gives them the right to pick a union if they want to, 
gives them the right to organize and have formal collective bargaining, 
and nothing in this act changes that, that that is not adequate enough 
safeguard; that they are going to be so influenced by an employer and 
an employee sitting down and talking over these kinds of things, that 
they cannot freely exercise their right to have a union, if they feel 
that that is necessary in order to protect their rights in the 
workplace.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a kind of patronizing attitude. It was the 
attitude that dominated in the 1930's. It simply does not describe 
reality today, and now I would be happy to yield to the gentleman now.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
thank the gentleman and appreciate his kind words and would reciprocate 
them.
  I want to emphasize that as long as employees voluntarily interact 
with employers, there is no difficulty today and it is not my intent to 
provide any difficulty into the future. It is only when employers 
dominate the employee participation in employee involvement teams that 
we run into difficulty under the broadest interpretation of current law 
for the last 60 years, and really flies in the face of the 
recommendations of the Dunlop Commission.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and in closing, I want 
to say the gentleman has with great candor admitted, first, we have to 
do something or these teams around the country are in danger under 
current law. So all the argument we heard before that we do not have to 
do anything, we have now established a kind of consensus on both sides 
of the aisle that, yes, indeed, we do need to do something. And, also, 
the hypothetical I gave before, where people want to talk about 
scheduling would be illegal under the gentleman's substitute.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Ohio for his 
amendment and his hard work and dedication, not just today but through 
the committee process. My colleague from Missouri, who his point was 
that we need to change, well, granted, there are wrinkles in the 
problem, but this bill is like using a canon to deal with something 
that a BB gun could address.
  The Sawyer amendment clarifies that a workplace team creates an 
improved competitiveness is not prohibited under the National Labor 
Relations Act even if its members occasionally discuss conditions of 
employment, such as wages and hours and working conditions. The 
amendment is a good faith effort to meet the concern of the majority, 
no matter how unfounded those concerns may be.
  The Sawyer substitute specifically protects three types of teams: 
Self-directed teams of employees, supervisor-managed work teams focused 
on improving specific production processes, and broad or ad hoc teams 
of employees and managers. The gentleman from Iowa's amendment is 
designed to create a safe harbor for employers genuinely concerned 
about their ability to create team systems for work organizations.

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a good compromise, and it should have 
been adopted in committee, but, a I recall, it was defeated on a party 
line vote. The Sawyer substitute would protect those employers truly 
concerned with teamwork and employee involvement and will assure 
American workers' rights and retain their right of legitimate employee 
representation. That is why I urge an aye vote.
  Mr. Chairman, like I said, I like the idea, as a manager of a 
business, of the team aspect, but, again, we need to look at it in 
comprehensive form. This needs to be addressed, but I would hope that 
somewhere in the next year we would look at comprehensive labor law 
reform. This is one part of it, but there needs to be more to it than 
just this one issue. I would hope we might be able to address it later 
on or maybe even just put this bill off until we can address it 
comprehensively, and I would hope that would happen.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and rise in opposition to this amendment.
  First, I have to take a minute, I suppose one might say it is not 
relevant to this legislation, but then, I think, in my estimation, 50 
percent of what the minority leader said was really not relevant to 
this legislation. I do want to take him to task on one area. He was 
talking about trickle down tax cuts. Had nothing to do with this 
legislation.
  I simply want to say, as I have said over and over again, usually it 
is taking from the poor giving to the rich, is the way it is analyzed, 
but I want to again say, is a $500 credit toward long-term care 
insurance trickle down tax cut? Is it taking from the poor and giving 
to the rich? It is the No. 1 issue on the minds of all senior citizens, 
including those who are soon to be senior citizens. Is a $500 credit 
toward home care? Where do they want to be? Where do your loved ones 
want to be? They want to be at home. That is not trickle down tax cut.
  Is a $5,000, up to $5,000 credit available for adoption trickle down? 
I would say it is not trickle down at all. We get into this pro-life, 
pro-choice debate all the time. Here we are giving people who could 
adopt children an opportunity to do that and provide excellent homes.
  Is a $145 credit toward eliminating the marriage tax penalty trickle 
down? I would hardly think so. Is an IRA for the spouse that stays at 
home with the family trickle down? I would hardly think so.
  Mr. Chairman, I moved to strike the last word primarily because I 
wanted to applaud the gentleman for recognizing there is a problem with 
current law, notwithstanding what some on the other side of the aisle 
have argued. However, the substitute attempts to micromanage employee 
involvement when the goal of the TEAM Act is the exact opposite. It is 
both overly prescriptive and too narrow to give comfort to employers 
and employees who want the flexibility to develop innovative solutions 
to workplace decisionmaking.
  For example, in supervisor managed work units, the substitute allows 
managers and employees to participate in meetings with employees but 
only if all employees in the unit participate. Is that overly 
prescriptive? I would certainly think so. What if someone is out sick? 
And only if conditions of work are discussed on occasion.

  Similarly, the substitute seems to allow committees established to 
address issues related to productivity or quality, but these committees 
may only address directly related conditions of work and only isolated 
occasions. I hate to think of the rules and regulations that will be 
promulgated if something of this nature gets downtown.
  The substitute seems to give with one end and take away with the 
other. For example, one provision of the substitute seems to address 
self-directed work teams, which are already legal under current law. 
However, a second provision provides that even self-directed work teams 
are illegal if the employer creates or alters the work unit or 
committee during organizational activity among the employer's 
employees.
  What constitutes altering a work unit or organizational activity? 
What ensures the employers are on notice that such activity is 
occurring? It is certainly not very well explained, in my estimation, 
by the substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, the major problem with the substitute is that many of 
the 

[[Page H 9542]]
strategies used by companies to involve employees in workplace 
decisionmaking would remain illegal. For example, a committee set up to 
address how the use of flexible scheduling could meet the needs of 
working parents or one established to discuss how to better match 
productivity increases with employee bonuses would fail to pass muster.
  Far from clarifying the legality of employee involvement, Mr. 
Chairman, the substitute draws an artificial line restricting what 
teams can and cannot talk about and how they can and cannot be 
structured. It also raises a host of new legal terms which each will be 
subject to years of litigation in the courts. This substitute does not 
address the problem and, in fact, I believe, will further complicate 
the legal questions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a letter I received from IBM, 
Texas Instruments, and Motorola.

       We write to you as former winners of the Malcolm Baldrige 
     National Quality Award to express our unequivocal support of 
     H.R. 743, the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 
     1995.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Goodling was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, continuing to quote:

       This important legislation, which will be considered by the 
     House of Representatives would eliminate legal barriers that 
     currently restrict employees and employers from working 
     together as partners to meet the challenges of today's 
     competitive global markets.
       As you may be aware, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality 
     Award was created by Congress to recognize U.S. companies 
     dedicated to the principle of quality in manufacturing, 
     service, and small business. The Baldrige Award recognizes, 
     among other criteria, excellence in human resources, 
     development and management. Key aspects include work and jobs 
     that allow: First, employee opportunities for initiative and 
     self-directed responsibility; second, flexibility and rapid 
     response to changing requirements; third, effective 
     communications across functions and units.

                              {time}  1615

  You can see that the Baldrige criteria strongly promotes teamwork and 
employee involvement. The continuing success of companies like ours, 
and other Baldrige Award winners, is dependent on the development of 
these innovative and team environments.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, some years ago a book was written by Thomas Kuhn, and 
it was entitled, ``The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.'' Now, you 
might say, what does science have to do with the discussion of the TEAM 
Act and labor and management and business and government and employees 
and CEO's?
  In this book, Kuhn writes very forcefully about how paradigm shifts 
take place in science from Einstein to new scientists, though people 
talk about issues in brandnew ways and develop new models to move the 
Nation forward in science.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that is what the American people voted for in 
elections, to move toward new ideas and not always use the same 
terminology, resort to the same fights in Congress that we have over 
the past decades. Let us move toward new ideas.
  I think that some people in this Chamber are trying to work in that 
direction. Now, I disagree with the TEAM Act here today, because it 
uses the same ideology, the old words, the old fights, that we have 
used over the last 25 years. It does not encourage this teamwork and 
cooperation and innovation and creativity that we are seeing in the 
workplace today.
  Mr. Chairman, I may be naive, but in Indiana, in my district, when I 
go and visit my businesses, almost any time I can when I am back home, 
I see these businesses, already developing these employee teams. They 
are working on productivity. They are working on morale. They are 
working on cutting down the number of defects on the assembly line. 
They are working on computer teams. They are teaching courses in the 
classroom in the businesses on blueprint plans, on algebra, on a host 
of things to make the worker a better worker and work with the 
management to do that.
  Now, I think this act takes us back 20 years. It says: Let us 
continue to have a fight, management versus labor, worker versus CEO.
  Another book written just recently by Hedrick Smith, called 
``Rethinking America'', says very forcefully we are doing these things. 
We are spending 8 hours now in the U.S. Congress talking about old 
ideas, rather than moving forward on new ideas that Smith talks about 
in his book, whether it was Peterson at Ford company, he started these 
employee circles, working in innovative ways on the assembly line to 
cut down on defects, to cut down on inefficiencies, to stop the 
assembly line if it needed to be stopped in midday.
  But here in Congress, we resort to fights. We resort to partisanship. 
We resort to old terminology, rather than the new paradigms and models 
that people like Kuhn and Hedrick Smith are pushing us toward in the 
new century.
  A lot has been said about the Electromation case. That took place in 
my district. That took place right in the heart of my district. That 
case is not based upon a nonsmoking committee. That case is not based 
upon worker wages, per se. That case is not based upon absenteeism 
committees. It is based upon the circuit court's decision that said, 
``Companies organizing committees and creating them through nature and 
structure and determining their functions, that is the problem. It 
cannot be created and dominated by one side or the other.''
  That is not teamwork. That is not cooperation. If an employer comes 
to the workplace and to the floor of the workplace and says, ``Harry, 
Betty, Joe, Tom, Sally, you are on the committee. We are going to 
schedule this. We are going to determine what is best for the 
workplace.'' That is not teamwork. That is the old idea of teamwork, 
not the new century and the 21st century idea of teamwork.
  If we are going to beat the Japanese and the Germans in the 
workplace, if we are going to be in the international competitive 
forefront, if we are going to have the best jobs and we do create the 
best product in America and we are going to win this race, we have to 
not talk about the ideas in this old, old-modeled way, but push this 
country forward in new ideas and cooperation.
  Now, the Electromation case did not address what is going on in 
America today, and that is so much innovation. That is so much 
creativity. That is these new teams in union shops and in nonunion 
shops working together.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage us in Congress to encourage this kind 
of cooperation in the workplace and to see that America, not a 
Democratic proposal or a Republican proposal, but American workers and 
CEO's move forward in this environment.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we all have a problem. That we are convinced we 
are bipartisan and the other guys are not. My suggestion to my friends 
on the other side of the aisle is that I think we are all 
nonproductive. We are operating a 1935 labor law. We are trying to take 
the most noncontroversial aspect of 1935 labor law and bring it at 
least into the 1990's, if not the 21st century. And you would swear we 
are trying to eliminate the act.
  So if we cannot do this, we can quickly understand why it is going to 
be another 60 years before we get any modernization of American labor 
law here.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a problem with that. There is a problem with 
that because, frankly, in the last session of Congress it was my 
friends on the Democratic side who said we had to have these very kind 
of joint labor-management teams to deal with OSHA, to deal with safety 
committees that, frankly, under the language of the substitute that is 
in front of us would be illegal.
  So what has changed between last session and this session, except 
that the Republicans are in control now and we brought the bill up?
  The problem with this amendment, and the gentleman from Ohio deserves 
a lot of credit, because to be honest, he is one of the few Members in 
the Congress who has sincerely and legitimately tried to find a middle 
ground on this issue. I think he is as disturbed as 

[[Page H 9543]]
I am by the fact that we are making no progress in modernizing our 
labor law and that the labor management relations in this country are 
growing more confrontational, not more cooperative. I think the 
amendment is a sincere attempt by the gentleman to try to find that 
middle ground.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason that I have to oppose the amendment is 
because the amendment creates the same ambiguity that we are trying to 
solve with the major bill.
  The reason we are here is because of the definition of the National 
Labor Relations Board of what ``dominating'' means. The problem with 
the amendment is that it uses such words as it is OK if it is only done 
on occasion, and that it is only if periodic meetings of all employees, 
or he goes on and says that it can be done company wide, but only if it 
is on isolated occasions.
  Now, all that does is guarantee full employment for labor lawyers. 
Mr. Chairman, if we do nothing today, if my colleagues decide to kill 
the bill because they want to get a nice star on their labor voting 
record, go ahead and vote against the bill. But for gosh sakes, do not, 
when we leave here today, say that the one thing we did on Wednesday 
afternoon was guarantee full employment for labor lawyers. None of us 
wants that, and unfortunately, that is what the substitute does.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
vote as they must for political reasons on final passage, but we all 
ought to agree that in the process we are not going to give full 
employment to labor lawyers.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Gunderson], the gentleman started his discussion on this matter by 
saying that we needed to update a 1935 law. Certainly, because a law is 
old does not mean that it is bad. But certainly we should look at how 
many times this law has been abused or how many cases are filed per 
year or how it is being interpreted throughout the years.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin would probably agree that 
there are, what, about 12 violations brought before the National Labor 
Relations Board each year?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not know the 
number. I am not going to try. I do not agree or disagree. I yield to 
the gentleman from Indiana on that.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
the number is 12 per year. We have hundreds of thousands of businesses 
in the United States of America. Twelve violations. Twelve cases are 
brought before the board each year. Three were then determined that the 
companies need to be disbanded. Now, is that a reason, whether a law is 
from 1935 or 1965 or 1985?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time before I run out, 
because I know both sides are trying to expedite the debate, the only 
people that are going to contest a case up to the NLRB are going to be 
large enough companies with in-house corporate counsel that they can do 
it.
  Frankly, I do not care about them. That is not why I am here today. I 
am here today because every one of those small businesses that everyone 
talks about, when we go in and tell them that they are violating the 
National Labor Relations Act by having that voluntary team that is in 
existence today, they say, ``Fine, we will eliminate it,'' because they 
are not going to hire the lawyers to contest the case.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, but 
it is the small businesses that are already doing this.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite words.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a brief word to set the 
record straight. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] a few 
moments ago was critical of the statement of the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] talking about trickle-down tax breaks. I think 
we should set the record straight, not to deter from the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, half of the tax breaks in the Republican proposal will 
go to people earning $100,000 a year or more. A quarter of the tax 
breaks go to people making $200,000 a year or more. The upper income 1 
percent get more tax breaks than do the bottom 60 percent.
  Recently, the Republicans have proposed a $23 billion cutback on the 
earned income tax credit, which hits the working poor and at the same 
time, several months ago, proposed to eliminate the corporate minimum 
tax, so that the largest corporations in America will pay nothing in 
taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, it sounds to me like the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt] was right and this is a trickle-down tax break.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe that the bill 
introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] will really 
make it more difficult to form real labor unions.
  Mr. Chairman, my dad belonged to a company union back in the 1930's, 
and all we got out of that, I got one tube of Ipana toothpaste and a 
couple of free movies and my dad got low wages and speedups in the GM 
factories.
  My dad was one of the mildest men I ever met. I never heard my dad 
swear once in his life; a kindly gentleman. But during one of those 
speedups when we had company unions, my dad had his work sped up 
several times. Finally, he came home and told my mother, ``I cannot 
keep it up.'' My dad was older. ``I cannot keep that work up.''
  The next day he went to work under that company union arrangement and 
he got his production out. The boss came over and counted the number of 
pieces he had put out. He took out the famous pink slip to write it out 
under that company union. My dad, that mild-mannered person, removed 
has glasses and laid them on the machine. He said to the boss, ``Bob,'' 
the boss's name was Bob Schoars, ``Bob, if you sign that pink slip, 
they are going to carry one of us out of here, because I have 5 
children at home to feed and I am going to fight for my job.''
  That was a mild-mannered person who went to mass every Sunday, and 
when he retired, every day. A mild-mannered person driven to that. When 
the UAW came in, things changed. My dad got justice on the job.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the difference. I think this bill will lead to 
really, in effect, company unions rather than real unions that brought 
justice to the Kildee family. My mother died last year at age 94, and 
from 1937 on, my mother prayed for Walter Reuther and the UAW every day 
of her life.

                              {time}  1630

  As a matter of fact, Friday--and I invite some of my colleagues over 
there--Friday, President Clinton is honoring Walter Reuther for what he 
did.
  We need real labor unions in this country. We do not need something 
that can lead again to that type of situation, company unions, that my 
dad had to work under and gave me one tube of Ipana toothpaste.
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, was it politically stupid to say 
$200,000? Of course, it was politically stupid to say that. That has 
nothing to do with where the money went. The first 30 percent goes to 
$30,000 and below, much of which goes to $18,000 and below. The next 30 
percent goes to $50,000 and below, and the next 30 percent goes to 
$75,000 and below. So debunk that nonsense.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sawyer substitute amendment, 
and in strenuous opposition to the so-called TEAM Act.
  This bill is a power grab. It is an attempt by the Republican 
majority--on behalf of their company benefactors--to further tilt the 
power balance in favor of employers over employees. 

[[Page H 9544]]

  Labor relations in this country are predicted on a balance of power 
between workers and owners. That balance has been severely undercut in 
recent years. The legislation before us would exacerbate that 
situation.
  This bill is designed to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The 
bill's sponsors say employer-employee teams are threatened under 
current law. However, the law clearly permits suggestion box 
procedures, staff meetings about issues of quality or customer care, 
the delegation of managerial responsibilities to employee work teams, 
and direct contact concerning all terms and conditions of employment.
  The National Labor Relations Act does prohibit employer-controlled 
units from representing workers in discussions of the terms and 
conditions of their employment. This is a fundamental right of all 
American workers.
  This bill would take that away. Despite the success thousands of U.S. 
employers have had destroying unions, intimidating workers, and 
exporting U.S. jobs to Third World countries for cheap labor--they want 
more. This bill will take away one more basic worker right.
  The Sawyer substitute would clarify some of the law in this area. It 
would allow companies to engage in certain types, with their workers, 
of activities that can improve productivity.
  This amendment is necessary to address erroneous claims of the bill's 
supporters that legitimate activities are currently threatened. Of 
course workers should help management improve production techniques. Of 
course workers have a lot to offer their companies to make the 
workplace more efficient.
  However, what must not happen, is to allow companies to undermine 
fundamental labor law to make it easier to establish company unions. 
Collective bargaining, the right for workers to freely elect their 
representatives is a basic American right.
  Just because one political party--one which represents the most 
conservative, antiunion businesses--comes to power in one election, is 
no reason to throw out 60 years of labor law. If anything, this 
Congress should be considering legislation to enhance workers' ability 
to represent themselves. Workers rights have deteriorated badly. This 
bill would only make matters worse.
  Let's not turn our back on America's workers. Let's defeat this mean-
spirited power grab by corporate special interests. Support the Sawyer 
substitute.
  And while I am standing here, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I do 
not know if those on the other side of the aisle have any real 
credibility in talking about the rights of workers. I am sick and tired 
of workers right here in this Congress of the United States coming to 
Members to try and get someone to act on their behalf because they are 
being treated badly.
  We have wiped out the lowest paid workers down in the folding room. 
Now I am told that, and I am absolutely disturbed by it, our own clerks 
and people who work here for us hours into the night, for long hours, 
are being told they cannot use their compensatory time. Too bad if they 
have to work overtime until the end of the year, they cannot use it. 
That is wrong.
  Our employees right here need protection. And let me tell Members, 
this gentlewoman will continue to force the other side of the aisle to 
deal with what they are doing to their own employees. We know that we 
are not covered by the labor laws until January. So they can wipe 
people out now before January comes. They can take away their 
compensatory time. They can treat them badly. They can fire them. They 
will not be able to bargain or negotiate.
  But let me say, if they want credibility in talking about worker 
rights and what should happen, treat their own employees right first, 
and then perhaps someone will believe them.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and any amendments thereto end in 10 minutes, 5 
minutes on either side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Reserving the right to object, I would like my 
opportunity to speak, Mr. Chairman. I have been here for about an hour. 
There are only two other Members here.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] are 
trying to screw anybody.
  I did vote for the tax cuts. I am a Democrat that supports tax cuts. 
I do not want to see those tax cuts be directed, though, in a mean-
spirited way. I am going to support the substitute. But I would just 
like to say this. Most of the jobs we are talking about seem to be 
going to Mexico anyway. Most workers have a Gatling gun pointed to 
their head anymore with these trade agreements.
  The reason for the law that exists now is to protect workers from 
company unions. That is one fact. I know the big heavy hitters here are 
off in their own world. From 1983 to 1993, there were only 17 cases 
where employer-created organizations were ordered to disband; 10 years, 
only 17. That would seem to some on this side of the aisle as the good 
news. The bad news is that nearly all of them were ordered to disband 
because their purpose was to thwart the creation of a union.
  With that in mind, I do not know how this substitute is going to 
fare, but I have an amendment. I am getting calls from Democrats saying 
that they wish I would not offer my amendment because it improves the 
bill. The Democrats do not trust the legislation, and the Republicans 
do not want it to be micromanaged.
  Now somewhere this bill is going to go to the White House, and 
everybody keeps telling me what the White House is going to do. The 
White House is making more deals than Monte Hall, and I do not know 
what the White House is going to do. After NAFTA and GATT, I do not 
know if I would trust them to do something on this.
  The Traficant amendment says that whoever these representatives are 
from the employees, they would be elected in a secret ballot and, 
second of all, they would be of fair and equal representation on that 
team.
  Clear and existing labor law covers that provision. Section 302 of 
the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act allows multiemployer pension funds to be 
administered by a joint labor-management board of trustees so long as 
both sides are equally represented; both sides equally represented is 
what we should be talking about here.
  I know the nature of the gentleman from Ohio. He is not trying to 
hurt anybody. I am going to support his substitute. I do not know if 
that substitute is going to pass. I doubt it from the position taken by 
the majority party here.
  But let me say this: All the Democrats think the White House is just 
going to carry the banner of all these labor practices. We still do not 
have a striker-replacement law, and we had a Democrat House, a Democrat 
Senate, and Democrat in the White House. Now we are doing it through 
Executive order. Come on now, this is Jimmy from Ohio. After NAFTA and 
GATT, this is going to be put on the table in the negotiation process. 
If not this, support my amendment. We should be considering improving 
this bill in the event that all of these well-wishing, big Democrats 
over at the White House just decide to make another damn deal with the 
American workers.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sawyer substitute and 
in strong opposition to the TEAM Act, H.R. 743.
  The Sawyer substitute specifically clarifies that the National Labor 
Relations Act allows the creation of workplace teams to improve 
competitiveness. The substitute ensures that employers will be able to 
get full, cooperative benefit from the ingenuity and skill of employees 
so that--together--both will prosper.
  The fundamental difference between the Sawyer substitute and the TEAM 
Act has nothing to do with the legality of employee involvement 
programs and labor-management cooperative efforts affecting company 
performance and 

[[Page H 9545]]
productivity. Under the Sawyer substitute, employee representatives 
must be independent of the employer and cannot be dominated by the 
employer during discussions on terms and conditions of employment. This 
is an important difference and my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Sawyer 
should be commended for his excellent amendment.
  Predictably, the TEAM Act is just the latest assault on the rights of 
men and women across the Nation, who work hard and play by the rules. 
It would allow employers to handpick and control employees to represent 
other employees in discussions over terms and conditions of employment. 
This legislation flies directly in the face of the problems middle-
class Americans face every day to make ends meet, educate their 
children, afford health care, and pay the mortgage.
  The American people are angry because in spite of being proud 
citizens of the world's only superpower, they are working harder, 
longer, and better for less money while the national economy continues 
to grow all around them. For people in the northwest Indiana district I 
represent, this means a 20-percent decrease in wages. It just doesn't 
make any sense that people are getting paid less to produce more. 
Instead of addressing this very real problem, the TEAM Act takes 
another swipe at the American worker.
  Robert Kuttner lists the essential facts that every Member of this 
body should pay close attention to.
  Productivity is rising, but the median wage is declining. Between 
1989 and 1993, productivity per hour rose about 1.2 percent a year, 
while the median wage declined about 1 percent a year. In 1995, 
productivity has been increasing at about twice the rate of pay and 
benefits to workers.
  In 1979, median household income was $38,250. In 1993, adjusted for 
inflation, it was $36,250. During the same period, the economy grew by 
35 percent.
  It's clear that the typical American family--the backbone of our 
Nation--has been passed over by the wave of economic growth and wealth 
they worked so hard to create. This is a crisis that threatens the 
American way of life.
  The falling living standards of the typical American family is 
mirrored by a decline in union membership. Since 1978, the absolute 
number of union members has been falling. Today, union members 
represent only 15.5 percent of the work force.
  I know there are people in this Chamber who see organized labor as an 
inconvenient hurdle to the creation of wealth. You're wrong. Unions 
want wealth created and have fought to ensure that workers share in the 
prosperity they create. Unions have boosted wages, improved working 
conditions, and improved the quality of life for every American--
whether they belong to a union or not. Without unions the American 
middle class we all talk so much about would be smaller and poorer.
  The TEAM Act is a direct assault on unions and organized labor's 
ability to bargain collectively. Workers and unions want their 
companies to profit and grow so that they can continue to share in the 
wealth. It is preposterous to claim otherwise.
  If you think the American workers are overpaid, defeat Sawyer, vote 
for TEAM, and deal another ace to the employer's stacked hand.
  I urge my colleagues to pass Sawyer and support America's working 
families.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the substitute offered by 
my colleague, Mr. Sawyer. While I question the need for this 
legislation, the Sawyer substitute is a sensible alternative that 
respects workplace democracy and genuine collective bargaining. It 
helps to clarify the legitimacy of employee involvement programs.
  Supporters of this TEAM Act claim that existing law restricts the 
ability of employers to delegate decisions affecting matters such as 
productivity and quality to their employees. And yet, they cannot cite 
a single ruling that section 8(a)(2) imposes such limitations. That's 
because no such administrative or judicial interpretation exists. 
Nevertheless, to remove even the slightest doubt as to what is 
permissible under section 8(a)(2), the Sawyer substitute expressly 
provides that employers may delegate such decisions to their employees.
  This bill's supporters claim that section 8(a)(2) discourages 
employers from forming new employee involvement programs. But the they 
contradict themselves by admitting that more than 80 percent of large 
employers and tens of thousands of small employers develop new employee 
involvement programs every day. Obviously, those conflicting 
propositions cannot both be true.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 743 is not some benign proposal designed simply to 
encourage methods of work organization in which teams of employees 
develop new methods and ideas for improving the workplace. This 
misnamed bill has nothing to do with teamwork or genuine employee 
involvement in decisions affecting productivity and quality. This bill 
stands for employer domination and dominion over the workplace.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill's supporters claim that the Sawyer 
substitute is fundamentally flawed because it does not allow employers 
to create, mold, and terminate employee organizations to deal with 
wages, benefits, and working conditions. Do they mean to suggest that 
the interests of employers and the interests of workers, as they relate 
to wages, benefits, and working conditions, are identical? Our labor 
laws have long recognized that those interests conflict. The 
fundamental purpose of section 8(a)(2) is to allow all employees--union 
and nonunion--to speak for themselves, free from employer domination. 
The Sawyer substitute acknowledges that purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I commend my colleague, Mr. Sawyer for 
crafting this sensible alternative to what is otherwise a bad bill. 
This substitute encourages employee involvement programs without 
trampling on the fundamental rights of workers. I urge my colleagues to 
support this substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
yielding to me.
  I just want to take these few brief moments in closing to thank the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], to thank both the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman 
from Illinois and particularly to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
for his work on this measure.
  There are some on this side who disagree with what the gentleman has 
done in his proposal. But I think few disagree with what we are 
confident are the sound intentions of broadening employee involvement 
in the American workplace.

                              {time}  1445

  I thank him for his kind words to essentially the same effect on my 
behalf.
  In the end let me just mention three basic ideas. Some think that the 
law needs to be changed, and some have suggested that it does not. But 
I would suggest that, if it does need to be changed, it is because 
employers, not employees, employers, have sensed an uncertainty in the 
interpretation of a 60-year-old law in a new setting and a new 
environment. Any need to change arises from that uncertainty, and so it 
is the goal of the Sawyer amendment to end any conceivable uncertainty 
by creating safe havens that make it absolutely sure that employers can 
establish, assist, maintain, and participate in any employee-
involvement program for the purpose of improving design, quality, or 
methods of producing, distributing, or selling a product or service, 
and additional discussion of related terms and conditions of employment 
are not in evidence of a violation of 8(a)(2), and it does so by 
creating broad descriptions of the full range of circumstances in which 
that kind of employee-employer discussion can take place and not limit 
them in arbitrary ways.
  While there may be disagreement about that, I can express that as the 
clear goal, and to move beyond some of the hidebound language of the 
last 60 years, and to use terminology describing those that are quite 
straightforward, are grounded in common sense in straightforward 
dictionary meanings, not arcane or esoteric terms. Many of the terms 
are easily understood. Employee-managed work units, discussed, work 
responsibilities, design quality production issues are clearly 
understood. I would admit that some of these words might require 
interpretation and over time acquire interpretation, and I suspect that 
those are terms like isolated occasions indirectly related, but that is 
important in evolving new law and not simply returning to the old.

[[Page H 9546]]

  In the end, Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest that the fundamental 
difference between Sawyer and the TEAM Act, as it was originally 
introduced, is that under TEAM employers control who speaks for 
workers; under Sawyer, nonunion employer representatives are 
responsible for those whom they represent. Under TEAM employees have a 
protected right to speak for themselves only if they form a union, and 
Sawyer protects the basic democratic right of nonunion workers to 
represent themselves.

  In the end, Mr. Chairman, just let me simply add we probably crossed 
the Udall threshold. Everything that has been said, that needs to be 
said, has been said, and finally, perhaps, everyone has said it.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the original TEAM Act language and 
in opposition to the proposal of the substitute offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  One of the things that has really hit home to me over recent years is 
things change. Things are always changing, and all aspects of our 
society are in a constant state of dynamic flux, and growth, and 
development, and one of those areas is in the area of employer-employee 
relations.
  The model of employer-employee relations that existed, that grew out 
of labor disputes that occurred in the 1930's in this country, is no 
longer applicable. We have competitors on the international scene today 
who do not have unions in their country, but have very, very robust 
work forces, and we have to, as a nation, evolve and develop methods of 
competing on that international landscape within the constraints of 
what our system is like here in the United States, and I think the 
original language of H.R. 743 meets that requirement in that it allows 
these teams to develop in the workplace that allow employees to get 
together, and set some standards and enable the operation that they are 
working in to be as efficient as possible, and I spoke on this floor 
this morning about a particular instance which I think is really a 
hallmark of how successful this can be, and I talked about a company, a 
major corporation in the United States, that had an employee that was 
accounting for 73 percent of the defects within their organization, and 
he was clearly the most affected one, and in the old model he probably 
would have been fired. But this company set up a team, and they 
developed ways to help him to be more efficient and to deal with the 
problem of the large number of defective products that he was producing 
in their operation, and the amazing end of the story is this guy ended 
up working with his employees and adjusting the work environment to 
ending up being their most successful employee in the organization, and 
it clearly shows that this act is worker-friendly, it helps our 
businesses to be as competitive and effective as they possibly can be, 
and it also, when we look at the case of Joe, how he was able to be the 
best that he could be.
  I think this is an act for the 1990's. It is the kind of legislation 
that we need to help us move into the next century and continue to be 
the world's most productive nation in the world, and with that I again 
reiterate my support for the original language.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204, 
noes 221, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 688]

                               AYES--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--221

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bilbray
     Bryant (TN)
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Schumer
     Solomon
     Tucker
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland and Mr. LEWIS of California changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. CLAYTON and Messrs. GEJDENSON, HOKE, GIBBONS, FORBES, and ENGEL 
changed their vote and ``no'' to ``aye.''

[[Page H 9547]]

  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 1?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the TEAM Act, and would 
like to commend Congressman Gunderson, Chairman Goodling, and 
Subcommittee Chairman Fawell for their continued efforts in bringing 
this bill to the floor. As a member of both the subcommittee and full 
committee, I can tell you that legislation aimed at increasing 
employer-employee cooperation has been in the works for years, and I am 
happy to say that today we finally have the opportunity to make this 
small but significant change in workplace policy.
  Mr. Chairman, as I just alluded to, the TEAM Act is long overdue 
legislation. For 60 years, the National Labor Relations Act has played 
a critical and necessary role in protecting the rights of employees 
from being exploited by their employers. And, in 1995, it plays just as 
important of a role in ensuring that these rights continue to be 
protected, which is why employees have the ability to collectively 
bargain. But, times have changed, Mr. Chairman.
  In this global economy, it is imperative for there to be greater 
dialog and interaction between employer and employee. Considering that 
a company's employees are closest to production, it is essential that 
employers have the opportunity to discuss with them circumstances which 
impact efficiency and productivity and that make a company better-
equipped to compete in today's international market.
  It is time that we recognize this, and the TEAM Act is an important 
step in this direction.
  What the TEAM Act does is amend section 8(a)(2) of the National labor 
Relations Act to make employee-involvement committees legal in nonunion 
settings. These committees would be able to discuss issues of mutual 
interest such as quality and health and safety, but they could not 
``have, claim, or seek authority to be the exclusive bargaining 
representative of the employees or to negotiate or enter into 
collective bargaining agreements * * * ''
  What this means is that an employee-involvement committee cannot 
assume the role of a union. And, in numerous rulings over the years, 
the National labor Relations Board has ruled various employee 
involvement committees to be illegal because they violated section 
8(a)(2) by seeking to be the exclusive bargaining representative.
  In union settings, if an employer sought the formation of an 
employee-involvement committee, he would have to consult the operating 
union and seek its approval. So, the union has the final say and can 
veto the employer's request, thereby preventing the creation of such a 
committee. And, no one can honestly believe that a union would allow 
the establishment of an employee-involvement committee which could 
potentially undermine the union's collective bargaining powers.

  Unfortunately, unions too readily assume that, if an employer is 
involved in setting up an employee-involvement committee, then he or 
she will only seek to dominate and take advantage of employees. This 
argument might have been 100 percent valid 60 years ago, which is why 
the National Labor Relations Act is so proscriptive, but it is 
certainly not the case today.
  The bottom line is that the National Labor Relations Act is so 
broadly written and so widely interpreted so as to deem illegal 
anything that remotely resembles a labor organization. The TEAM Act 
seeks to reconcile this ambiguity by permitting some employer-employee 
cooperation in nonunion settings.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time we stop assuming that an employer's main 
function is to control and restrict the rights of the people who work 
for him. Maybe 60 years ago, but not now. A tremendous amount can be 
gained when employers and employees work as a team. And, if we continue 
to prevent this increased dialog from taking place, we are placing U.S. 
companies and businesses at a significant competitive disadvantage as 
we enter the 21st century.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 1? If not, the 
Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the escalating demands of global competition have 
     compelled an increasing number of employers in the United 
     States to make dramatic changes in workplace and employer-
     employee relationships;
       (2) such changes involve an enhanced role for the employee 
     in workplace decisionmaking, often referred to as ``Employee 
     Involvement'', which has taken many forms, including self-
     managed work teams, quality-of-worklife, quality circles, and 
     joint labor-management committees;
       (3) Employee Involvement programs, which operate 
     successfully in both unionized and nonunionized settings, 
     have been established by over 80 percent of the largest 
     employers in the United States and exist in an estimated 
     30,000 workplaces;
       (4) in addition to enhancing the productivity and 
     competitiveness of businesses in the United States, Employee 
     Involvement programs have had a positive impact on the lives 
     of such employees, better enabling them to reach their 
     potential in the workforce;
       (5) recognizing that foreign competitors have successfully 
     utilized Employee Involvement techniques, the Congress has 
     consistently joined business, labor and academic leaders in 
     encouraging and recognizing successful Employee Involvement 
     programs in the workplace through such incentives as the 
     Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award;
       (6) employers who have instituted legitimate Employee 
     Involvement programs have not done so to interfere with the 
     collective bargaining rights guaranteed by the labor laws, as 
     was the case in the 1930's when employers established 
     deceptive sham ``company unions'' to avoid unionization; and
       (7) Employee Involvement is currently threatened by legal 
     interpretations of the prohibition against employer-dominated 
     ``company unions''.
       (b) Purposes.--The purpose of this Act is--
       (1) to protect legitimate Employee Involvement programs 
     against governmental interference;
       (2) to preserve existing protections against deceptive, 
     coercive employer practices; and
       (3) to allow legitimate Employee Involvement programs, in 
     which workers may discuss issues involving terms and 
     conditions of employment, to continue to evolve and 
     proliferate.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 2?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 3. EMPLOYER EXCEPTION.

       Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act is 
     amended by striking the semicolon and inserting the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That it shall not constitute 
     or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under this 
     paragraph for an employer to establish, assist, maintain, or 
     participate in any organization or entity of any kind, in 
     which employees participate, to address matters of mutual 
     interest, including, but not limited to, issues of quality, 
     productivity, efficiency, and safety and health, and which 
     does not have, claim, or seek authority to be the exclusive 
     bargaining representative of the employees or to negotiate or 
     enter into collective bargaining agreements with the employer 
     or to amend existing collective bargaining agreements between 
     the employer and any labor organization, except that in a 
     case in which a labor organization is the representative of 
     such employees as provided in section 9(a), this proviso 
     shall not apply;''.


                     amendment offered by mr. moran

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Moran: Page 7, line 16, strike 
     ``employees'' and insert ``representatives of employees, 
     elected by a majority of employees by secret ballot,''.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I had the Clerk read the entire amendment 
because it is so short. It is very simple: It says that if you are 
going to have employee representatives, those people ought to in fact 
be representative of the employees. The only way that you can get fair 
representation is through a democratic process.
  Mr. Chairman, if you are going to have legitimate representatives of 
employee groups, then they ought to be elected. I cannot think of any 
other legitimate way to decide who ought to represent a group of 
individuals than through the democratic process. All this amendment 
does is to say that for employee representatives, they will be chosen 
through a democratic process by the employees themselves. That is all 
it does.
  I agree that we ought to have more creativity and flexibility in the 
workplace to deal with the advances in technology and the globalization 
of our economy. The problem is that this legislation's bottom line, if 
it is not corrected by this amendment, will give carte blanche 
authority to management to create, to mold, and to in fact terminate 
employee organizations dealings with issues such as wages and benefits, 
the guts of employee-management relationships.

[[Page H 9548]]

  The amendment I offer does not affect the tens of thousands of 
currently existing employee involvement groups. It does not affect them 
at all. It does require that when groups are formed to discuss the 
terms and conditions of employment, that they be democratically 
elected, and that is the whole purpose for this bill, because currently 
the National Labor Relations Act precludes employee groups from being 
able to determine the wages and conditions of employment.
  If you are going to get into that area, then the people that you 
negotiate with ought to be truly representative of the work force.
  Employee involvement groups have been successful at developing a 
number of creative solutions in a flexible environment, but they have 
not to date dealt with wages and benefits. That issue deserves a higher 
level of scrutiny. This will provide that higher level of scrutiny. It 
will make sure that the only people who are representing the employees 
are not the teacher's pet types of individuals who in fact are not 
representative. Some of them may be; some of them, we are sure, will 
not be. The only way to determine if they are representative is to let 
the employee choose them, and that is what this amendment does.
  The TEAM Act abolishes the restriction in the National Labor 
Relations Act that restricts these employee involvement groups to 
discussing the terms and conditions of employment. We are told that 
this is not an obstruction to anything that currently exists within the 
workplace on the one hand by management. We are told by labor unions 
that all this is is an attempt to create sham unions.
  You cannot have it both ways. It will in fact be a confirmation that 
they are sham unions if the employee representatives are not 
democratically selected.
  Mr. Chairman, this part of the National Labor Relations Act was 
enacted in 1935 specifically to abolish sham unions. They flourished in 
the 1920's and 1930's. They are not entirely a thing of the past now. 
The courts in this country see dozens of sham union cases each year.
  The statute we are replacing today is the only mechanism that 
prevents the deliberate formation of sham unions. The National Labor 
Relations Board former chairman, Edward Miller, now an attorney 
representing management interests, recognized this. He said, ``If this 
section were repealed, I have no doubt in not too many months or years 
sham company unions would again occur. As the Congress proceeds to 
change labor law in such a profound fashion, we should not deprive 
workers of the basic right of choosing their own representatives.''
  My amendment allows employee involvement groups to discuss these 
conditions. It guarantees fairness by requiring democratic elections. 
It is a simple amendment. It makes common sense. I think it is the only 
way that Members in good conscience should support the kind of bill we 
are considering today.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think one of the mistakes this body has made for a 
very long time is that they do not look at what is going on out there 
in the marketplace. They make a decision as to what they think would be 
best, and then try to force that decision on the marketplace.
  I know in my particular circumstances, in my district I have a very 
large employer that has a very long track record of having a very 
successful experience with teams. They have many different divisions 
and they have many different departments within each division. In most 
of these places they have teams. In some of the offices, the teams are 
actually elected, and some of them they are not, they are decided by 
acclamation.
  I think it would be a mistake for us to come along and say in this 
TEAM Act that you have to do it the way we think it is done best. In 
our legislation, we do not mandate it, and I personally believe it 
would be a mistake in this particular circumstance to make a change 
like this.
  I think the businesses that are working with this concept have 
devised a variety of different ways to make it work most successfully 
within the teams. The whole concept of this is that you get away from 
an adversarial environment where everybody is kind of coming together 
and everybody is giving their input into the process. Usually it is 
extremely democratic. If it is not, you do not get the level of 
satisfaction, the high level of satisfaction and the high level of 
morale that these teams have shown repeatedly in business after 
business that it works so well in.
  For us here in Washington to say no, no, no, you have got to do it a 
certain way, I think it would be in my opinion a real mistake. The 
teams that are working in the businesses in my district, it is very, 
very democratic. In some instances it is by election, in some instances 
it is the whole department working together as a team. So to have an 
election is kind of ludicrous, where everybody in the office is taking 
part in the decisionmaking process.
  So I respectfully rise in opposition to my good colleague's 
amendment, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote against the 
Moran amendment.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, since he 
has emphasized the point that most of these teams are in fact 
democratically elected, what is wrong with ensuring that they all be 
democratically elected? Apparently, it would not change most of the 
structure of these team units.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point is 
basically this. In some of the teams it is everybody. So the point of 
having an election is unnecessary. In some of the teams it is by 
acclamation. To have the NLRB making sure that all of these teams are 
elected, considering how politicized the NLRB is, I think would be a 
very, very big mistake.
  We have businesses that are thriving using this technique. They are 
becoming more and more competitive. The business I am referring to 
would have had to have laid 1,000 people off, more than they ended up 
having to lay off because of the defense cutbacks, were it not for the 
fact they were able to dramatically expand their international sales. 
One of the ways they have been able to maintain a high level of 
productivity and efficiency is through the implementation of these team 
concepts.
  For us to interject another regulation and another level of Federal 
bureaucracy into the process I think would be a grave mistake. I 
understand the good gentleman's legitimate concern to make sure it is a 
Democratic process, but I respectfully rise in opposition.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I 
would inform the gentleman there is no mention of a Federal bureaucracy 
in the amendment. The amendment simply says that they would be 
representatives of employees elected by a majority of employees by 
secret ballot. A very simple amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I agree. You know how that would 
be enforced, through the NLRB.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Moran amendment and in 
opposition to the bill in its present form.
  The Moran amendment highlights what is wrong with this bill--the bill 
permits company domination of cooperative workplace organizations, 
including, most importantly, the selection of the members of these 
organizations.
  Proponents of the bill insist that the Moran amendment is 
unnecessary--that nothing in the bill precludes the election of 
employee members to these organizations.
  Yet nothing in the bill guarantees the democratic election of worker 
representatives. Without the amendment, companies can organize, hand-
pick, and set the agenda for employee representation committees and 
then portray the committees as legitimate employee involvement. That is 
wrong.
  If the Moran amendment is unnecessary, then this bill is unnecessary. 
For nothing in section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act 
precludes employee involvement in workplace organizations that discuss 
productivity, efficiency, and safety and health. Nothing in current law 
and in current NLRB 

[[Page H 9549]]

decisions prevents workers and management from addressing and 
responding to the internationally competitive business environment.
  Proponents of the bill argue that the NLRB's decision in the case of 
Electomation, Inc. caused a ``chilling effect'' on employee involvement 
programs, yet the data indicate the contrary. In the 2\1/2\ years since 
the decision, employee involvement programs have continued to grow at a 
healthy pace, especially in small firms.
  To the extent that the Electromation ruling may have clouded the law, 
the Sawyer amendment, which I also support, clarifies it. But, in my 
view, the unanimous decision in the Electromation case by a Reagan-Bush 
appointed NLRB and a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel 
clearly distinguishes the facts in that case. Perhaps that is why the 
National Association of Manufacturers testified in September, 1994 
before the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations that 
it did not see the need for, and did not propose or support, 
legislative changes to section 8(a)(2).
  Mr. Chairman, workplace cooperation is certainly critical to our 
Nation's ability to compete in the next century. But such cooperation 
is already possible, indeed, it is flourishing under current law. The 
key to the success of this cooperation is true independence and freedom 
of association and representation. It is anathema to our Nation's core 
values to suggest that company domination of such workplace 
organizations is the path we must follow to be competitive in the 
future.
  Employees and employers can work together now, without Congress 
resorting to legislation legitimizing company dominated and controlled 
unions.
  I urge support of the Moran amendment and defeat of the bill in its 
present form.
  Mr. FAWELL, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also have to oppose the amendment, the concept of 
introducing an election into this area of voluntary employee teams. 
Again, I would ask that one stop and recognize that all of what is 
happening right now in the nonunion sector, where you have obviously 
all these thousands and thousands of employee teams to which reference 
has been made, and what we would be doing now is to introduce the 
concept of an election, and that in turn raises all kinds of questions.
  You see, we would begin to now restrict and to regulate that which is 
totally, freely functioning right now. Questions would abound. How 
would the employer determine who is being represented and gets to vote 
in the secret ballot election? What management members of the team also 
represent the employees? If so, would they have to be elected? How long 
would the campaign period have to be before the election? How would the 
employer determine whether employees represent other employees? Would 
the NLRB conduct the election? If not, who would police it to make sure 
the ballot is truly secret and there is no coercion?
  One can go on and on and on.

                              {time}  1730

  We must remember that workplaces continuously form numerous teams; 
some are permanent, some are just ad hoc, performing a wide variety of 
tasks, and of a very temporary nature. Teams can be formed to address 
emergency situations, such as determining scheduling and job 
responsibilities. Membership changes continuously.
  Mr. Chairman, this introduces a morass of problems which, 
understandably, upon first blush, especially if one is not familiar 
with the National Labor Relations Act and the National Labor Relations 
Board, it introduces all kinds of problems. It sounds good. I know the 
gentleman's intentions are good, but, once again, we have a good thing 
going, it is flourishing, and we ought not to do harm. We should follow 
the Hippocratic oath and first do no harm. This would do a lot of harm.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we limit debate 
on each of the amendments, including this one, to 10 minutes, to be 
equally divided between both sides, 5 minutes each, and permission to 
roll the votes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state it is not possible in the 
Committee of the Whole to get permission to postpone votes.
  Will the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] withhold his request 
until the gentleman from Hawaii has completed his statement and renew 
the request at that time.
  The gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I find this a profoundly sad day. We 
are talking here, and actually having people stand up on the floor of 
the House of Representatives, the people's House in the United States 
of America and saying that if the Moran amendment passes we will be 
introducing the concept of elections to working people with respect to 
who might represent their positions as to the terms and conditions of 
their activities in the workplace.
  That is what the whole collective bargaining idea has been about. 
Yes, it probably is strange to some of the people in this body, I am 
sorry to say, that workers might have an idea about who could represent 
them; that the condescending patronizing idea that possibly workers 
know what is good for them and can organize themselves accordingly some 
people still find strange.
  Mr. Chairman, what I find strange is I know that my mother was fired 
from her job for marrying my father. My mother. This is not ancient 
history. My mother was fired from her job teaching in Buffalo, NY, for 
marrying my father. And I remember her saying to me when I first got 
involved with organizing labor, that all she could do was go to the 
principal's office, then go to see the superintendent of schools and 
stamp her foot. There was nothing she could do. It was the depression 
and the assumption was that if a woman married, then it was up to the 
husband to provide and she lost her job. No recourse.
  I do not know what team was involved there. I do not know what 
organization got put together by management in Buffalo, NY, during the 
depression.
  What about all these mergers and layoffs? Is there a team put 
together to discuss what the compensation for Ted Turner is going to 
be? I know he got on television and said he was never going to starve 
again. Well, I am certainly very happy about that, but I do not know if 
any team got together to discuss it. I know that with virtually every 
merger that takes place in this country, thousands of people are laid 
off of their jobs. Has it been discussed with them? Is that a concept? 
Yes, in this private sector out there, which is a nonunion sector right 
now, I guess it does strike people strange that people might want to 
organize.
  Let us go over what the Moran amendment says. It says that employee 
involvement groups that discuss the terms and conditions of employment 
must be elected by the employees. This is the United States of America. 
I do not think we would find this strange in the Solidarity movement in 
Poland. I think we are suggesting the same thing in Burma. I think we 
are suggesting the same thing all over the world and yet we want to 
take it away from ourselves?
  Mr. Chairman, we have to vote on this. This is going to make a 
statement for all of us in here as to whether or not we believe that 
the working people of the United States of America are not only capable 
of making decisions about the terms and conditions of their life and 
their workplace, but that we, in fact, as Americans, proud Americans, 
free men and women, are encouraging that and supporting that. That has 
made the difference for labor and management in terms of freedom and 
democracy in this country ever since this Congress, this House of 
Representatives, this legislative body, this national representative 
body said that organizing for collective bargaining purposes was a 
fundamental right of working men and women in this country.
  To vote against the Moran amendment is to say that we oppose free 
elections by free men and women with respect to the conditions of work 
that they want to endure or undergo. Of course they can speak with 
management. Will they discuss the salaries and compensation of 
management? 

[[Page H 9550]]

Will that be part of the team effort? I doubt it. It has not been that 
up to this time.
  Mr. Chairman, what I say is if we are in favor of men and women being 
able to determine the terms and conditions of their work in a 
cooperative setting, then allow them to elect the people who are going 
to represent that point of view. To do anything less is to undermine 
the very basis of collective bargaining in this Nation.
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Moran amendment that 
would require that employee representatives who discuss the terms and 
conditions of employment with management be elected by fellow 
employees. The so-called TEAM Act would amend section 8(a)(2) of the 
National Labor Relations Act to allow employers to establish, finance, 
maintain, and control employee-participation committees to deal with 
workers regarding their wages, hours, and other conditions of 
employment. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the employees would be 
the best source for information when it comes down to their working 
conditions.
  Mr. Chairman, this TEAM Act, if passed in present form, would violate 
the fundamental notions of democracy which underlie our Nation's system 
of labor relations. It seems to me that my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle believe that workers must not be allowed to choose their 
own representatives but have them dictated by their respective company. 
This is a prime example of a Contract on America and its workers.
  Mr. Chairman, this TEAM Act also gives unscrupulous employers a 
powerful weapon for undermining union organizing drives in nonunion 
workplaces. Whenever an employer gets wind that workers are considering 
joining a legitimate labor union, it would be an easy matter to 
establish a phony company-dominated employee-participation committee as 
a device for suppressing the ability of workers to have meaningful, 
independent representation.
  Mr. Chairman, the TEAM Act is a radical piece of legislation that 
would allow employers to dictate to workers who will represent them in 
discussions concerning basic conditions of employment. By doing this, 
it would rob workers of their right to have their own independent 
voice. This in turn will inevitably undermine their ability to act 
collectively to maintain a middle-class standard of living.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support the Moran 
amendment.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and rise in opposition to the amendment. I will not speak for 5 
minutes, Mr. Chairman, but I appreciate your letting me speak at all, 
since I have already spoken on this issue.
  I would like to talk about the Moran amendment for just a minute. I 
have tremendous respect for the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. He 
is one of the outstanding Members of this body. The key issue here is 
fair representation without challenging management rights, and we do 
that through a secret ballot, and we do it through a secret ballot 
because we want to get the right people. I understand that. I 
understand what the gentleman is driving at.
  Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Sawyer], and I voted for his amendment, but I think this is wrong, and 
I tell Members why. I cannot really talk about offices too much but I 
can talk about factories. There are certain dynamics and culture on the 
factory floor which cannot be regulated this way. Therefore, I think, 
from a practical standpoint, it will not work. Frankly, in the long 
run, I do not think it will be fair.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Moran amendment. I think it 
brings some balance to this bill. I have gone back and forth on this 
TEAM Act, and, quite frankly, I have been undecided until recently. I 
have listened to the arguments, and all sides bring a lot to it. In 
talking to people that I have a great deal of respect for, both on the 
management side and the union side, I have come away a little confused.
  Mr. Chairman, both make powerful arguments, but I guess I started 
looking at some statistics and some facts and the concern was, as I 
understand it, the purpose of the TEAM Act is to permit nonunion 
operations to be able to form quality groups, to be free of what they 
consider to be the fetters of the National Labor Relations Act. I began 
looking to see what the situation is, and what I found is that nonunion 
companies, as well as union companies, but nonunion companies have 
already been free.
  I look at the statistics and see that productivity in this country is 
at an all-time high and on a sustained basis. In fact, Business Week 
magazine just ran an article a few weeks ago talking about how 
productivity is up, profits are up, but there is a disconnect because 
wages are tending to go down.

  Mr. Chairman, that tells me that productivity is up and so something 
must be occurring. I have looked at some of the companies that have 
come and said they need TEAM. One was in my office today. I am 
fascinated because they just went through a grueling restructuring in 
which they created new divisions. They have greatly improved their 
operation. They are back to being a truly world class competitor once 
again, and they have done it without TEAM. They have been able to form 
the employee consultation that they needed. They do not agree with my 
analysis, but yet that is the way it seems to be.
  I look at other major companies. How did, for instance, Nissan in 
Tennessee, and how did Toyota in Ohio, and how did Motorola and others 
begin to be once again the economic juggernauts of industrial forces. 
The reality is they have been able to do it all and without TEAM.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I looked at the National Labor Relations Board 
and found that since the Electromation case in 1992, which is really 
sort of what brought this on, I found there had been a handful, at 
best, of complaints filed by companies saying that they do not have 
this ability.
  For all of those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the act. But 
if the act is going to pass, certainly I would hope the Moran amendment 
would be passed to bring some balance to it.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Salmon] having assumed the chair, Mr. Kolbe, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that the 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 743) to amend 
the National Labor Relations Act to allow labor management cooperative 
efforts that improve economic competitiveness in the United States to 
continue to thrive, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________