[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4838-S4845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE TEAM ACT

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to make some comments on the TEAM 
Act, which is one of the matters that we have been discussing in the 
U.S. Senate. The word ``team,'' of course, is a favorable word in the 
mentality of Americans because we are accustomed to teams. It is an 
Olympic year when we want to support our team, and we want to do well 
in the competition between the nations. So ``team'' has favorable 
connotations. I think all of us would want to be in favor of an act 
called the TEAM Act. But it is far more important that we understand 
the act itself in that we just have the connotations of the word 
``team.''
  As a matter of fact, the need to be operating as a team in the United 
States is a mutually agreed upon concept. We need to operate as a team 
because, indeed, we are in competition and the competition is far 
greater than the competition of the Olympics. We talk about the 
competition of the Olympics, ``going for the gold.'' It is an award, 
and it is an honor.

  But to be honest with you, the competition between nations is more 
than just a competition for an award or for an honor. It is the 
competition between nations. The need for productivity which will allow 
America to succeed and to continue to be at the top is a competition 
for existence. It is the competition for the survival of and for the 
success of our society in the next century. Are we going to prepare for 
the next century? Are we going to have a framework for work and 
productivity which allows us to succeed?
  You have nations approaching the competitive arena of the workplace, 
nations like China. You have the Pacific rim all the way from Korea and 
Japan down through Singapore and Indonesia, hundreds of millions of 
individuals whose educational levels have skyrocketed, who are poised 
with the capacity to challenge us for our ability to meet the needs of 
the world.
  We as Americans want to be able to meet the needs of the world. When 
we meet the needs, we have the jobs. When we do not meet the needs, 
someone else has the jobs. When we have made the commitment in terms of 
our own development and our own capacity, we will be the people who are 
the beneficiaries. If we restrain ourselves, if we hamstring ourselves, 
if we decide we do not want to do our very best, we will yield the 
gold, not just the gold medal of the Olympics but the prize of 
enterprise to other countries.
  We would not think of sending our individuals to the Olympics if we 
did not allow them to train to be their very best. We would not think 
of taking 9 out of 10 members of the Olympic team and keeping them from 
being able to discuss ways to improve their performance with their 
coaches. It would be unthinkable.
  Why would a company, or a country, want to restrain its work force, 
or want to restrain its competitors from being at their very best? Yet, 
that is the strange argument that we hear from those who oppose the 
TEAM Act.
  Let us just stop for a moment to consider what the TEAM Act 
authorizes. The TEAM Act authorizes employers to confer with and 
discuss with employees ways in which to do a number of things: One, to 
improve productivity. If they think there is a more efficient way to do 
it, if there is a better way to do it, if there is a better way to

[[Page S4839]]

build the project, if a mousetrap can be improved, the employee is most 
likely to know about it. After all, if you work on these things 8 hours 
a day, 5 days a week, and 50 weeks a year, you are probably likely to 
have some ideas and very good ideas.
  Professor Demming in the 1930's, I think, originally wrote about 
that. We did not take that to heart until the Japanese demonstrated it 
with their high-quality products and their competition in automobiles 
and electronics, which finally got our attention. We decided to say 
that we want to be able to tap the energy that exists when workers and 
managers talk together to figure out better ways to do things just like 
when coaches and players talk together to discuss ways of improving 
performance.
  So in the United States there are about 30,000 companies now that 
have institutionalized this practice of saying to workers, We want to 
get together with you; we want to hear from you about ways that we can 
improve our performance so that we can have the jobs of the next 
century. We want you to be partners with us so that we can get the job 
done efficiently and effectively so that, in the competition of the 
next century, America continues to be the survivor; that America 
provides the much-needed goods and services around this world that 
leaves America at the top of the heap.
  Good plan. It is working. You have seen it work. You have seen it 
work in automotives and a variety of other settings. In industry, we 
have begun to witness a recovery. In automotives, our quality assurance 
has gone higher and higher until we compete now very effectively with 
the nondomestic producers in large measure because of what the workers 
can bring to the equation, their contribution to quality, their 
contribution to efficiency, their contribution to increased safety, and 
their contribution in part because of their realization that when they 
are full-fledged partners and they are real contributors to the 
process, they feel a lot better about themselves. I like to think that 
I am respected for what I can be and ought to be.
  The ability to have these teams is a way of respecting and 
understanding the great value that American workers bring to the 
equation. It is the working population of America that distinguishes 
this country from countries around the globe. Everything was working 
pretty well in that direction until, just in this decade, the National 
Labor Relations Board ruled that it is illegal for managers to confer 
with employees about safety and about a variety of other things.
  These rulings are so stunning that I think I have to tell you the 
names of the cases and all to let you know what the National Labor 
Relations Board has forbidden.
  In the case of Sertafilm and Atlas Micro Filming, the NLRB ruled that 
it was illegal to discuss extension of employees' lunch breaks by 15 
minutes. Employers could not talk about that with employees.
  In the case of Weston versus Brooker & Co., the length of the workday 
could not be discussed--wrong for employers to discuss this with a view 
toward accommodating the needs and demands of workers. Now, you and I 
know, with the number of people working in our families and our need to 
accommodate our responsibilities as parents as well as our 
responsibilities as workers, we need to be able to discuss things like 
working arrangements with our employers. That is against the law 
according to the Weston versus Brooker NLRB case, which was decided 
just a few years ago. A decrease in rest breaks from 15 minutes to 10 
minutes, the U.S. Postal Service could not do that, according to the 
NLRB. Paid holidays were off limits, according to the Singer 
Manufacturing case. Extension of store hours during the wheat harvest 
season, Dillon Stores, 1995, that is off limits. Employers could not 
confer with their employees about things like this.

  We need to be able to tap the genius, the innovation, the problem-
solving capacity of American workers. We have a law against it. Jimmy 
Richards Co., which is a 1974 case, discussing paid vacations was 
illegal.
  Here are some more. Flexible work schedules. That is interesting to 
me. The NLRB has said that it is illegal for the employer to ask 
employees what they would like to have and to consider, get into a 
dialog with the employees about what they would like to have in terms 
of flexible work schedules. We need for people to have flexible work 
schedules.
  As a matter of fact, I have introduced a bill to give to the working 
population in the private sector the same kind of break that the 
Federal Government has had for flexible work schedules since 1978. I 
regret to tell you that the administration opposes it. I am sorry about 
that because the President himself keeps talking about flexible work 
schedules.
  As a matter of fact, USA Today for Monday of this week talks about 
President Clinton, and he is going to hold a convocation about 
corporate citizenship with dozens of CEO's. According to the newspaper:

       President Clinton has outlined five challenges that he says 
     contribute to corporate responsibility. He singles out 
     companies for praise saying that they should establish 
     family-friendly policies.

  We want to have the TEAM Act, which will allow employers to talk to 
their employees about flexible work schedules. You would think, if you 
read the newspaper, that surely since the President is calling upon the 
corporate community to establish family-friendly policies--and he is 
right in calling on them to do so--he would support the ability of 
corporations to talk with their employees about flexible work 
schedules. But, no, it is against the law to do so. We want to change 
the law so that we can operate as a team, so we can talk to each other 
about the objectives and the working conditions and the safety 
conditions and the like. The President and his administration threaten 
to veto the concept.
  I began this inquiry for myself about almost a year ago today. 
Frankly, this is May 8, the birthday of a notable Missourian. Harry 
Truman was born on May 8. He sat at one of these desks in the Senate. 
But on May 10 of last year, I wrote to the Secretary of Labor, Robert 
Reich, and I asked him about the TEAM Act. I quoted to him his demands 
upon the American corporation that we would cooperate for flexible work 
schedules and that we would confer with each other and that we would 
act as teams. I asked him to support the TEAM Act because I am a 
cosponsor of the TEAM Act, but, more than that, I asked him to support 
the TEAM Act because it will help us prepare for the next century. We 
want the jobs to be here for our children. We do not want the jobs to 
be overseas for their children. We want to preserve the advantages that 
our forefathers gave us when they worked hard and sacrificed. The 
productivity, the competitiveness, the capacity of American workers 
should not be frittered away because we do not allow the team to confer 
with the coaches.
  We are 363 days away from the time I sent this letter, and I have yet 
to receive a response. I suspect it is very difficult to respond to 
this letter because their position is that they want to veto the TEAM 
Act. They oppose the TEAM Act. People on the other side of the aisle 
have opposed the TEAM Act consistently, and yet all their speeches are 
talking about teamwork.
  I was just very pleased with the President's references to teamwork 
in his State of the Union Message. He called upon the citizens of this 
great country to work together. He called upon the Congress to call for 
teamwork, saying that we can only do things together; we cannot do them 
separately. But the TEAM Act still seems to be beyond the teamwork he 
is calling for.
  Where is it legal in the United States for people, employers to 
confer with employees? Where can that happen? Well, it can happen when 
there is a union present. But it is illegal to do it if there is not a 
union there. Really, the fact is that only 11 percent of America's 
workers outside of Government are in unions. So for 9 out of 10 workers 
in America we are tying their hands. We are saying you cannot have the 
benefits of these kinds of discussion groups. You cannot have the 
improved potentials that come. You cannot have the productivity. You 
cannot have the chance for success that you could otherwise have.
  I think, if it is appropriate and good to have this kind of 
discussion in union facilities, and it is--I mean our automotive people 
have made great strides

[[Page S4840]]

in improving productivity and improving quality and improving safety 
and improving on-time deliveries; they have done it all, where it is 
allowed--I do not see why we do not allow this in other areas as well.
  So I believe we ought to allow this to extend to the rest of the 
community. Nine out of ten workers should not be forbidden. There are 
those who say the TEAM Act will permit an employer to have sham unions. 
Not so. No rule about sham unions is changed at all. I mean, if a 
person wants to petition to have a union election, the same rights 
inure, the same rights to vote in favor of a union inure to workers 
whether the TEAM Act is in place or not. The TEAM Act would merely 
authorize the coach to talk with the players, to decide things that 
would improve productivity.
  There is an interesting case in my State. The company is named the 
EFCO company. They employed about 100 people or so when I became 
Governor 10 years ago--12 years, I guess. Time flies. They decided they 
wanted to be expert. They wanted to be the best in their field. They 
knew they could not do that just from a management perspective, so they 
had to call upon the team of employees. They invited them in. One of 
the first things they wanted to address was on-time deliveries. They 
had not been making on-time deliveries very well, 70-some percent in 
on-time deliveries. And they wanted to boost that. They moved from 70-
some percent in on-time deliveries to well over 90 percent in on-time 
deliveries by tapping the ingenuity, creativity, understanding, and 
perspective of people on the job floor.
  What did that do to the job? Did that hurt the working people of 
Missouri? Not really. Because that company went from 100-plus to 1,000-
plus people in manufacturing, and their architectural glass now graces 
skyscrapers not only across America but around the world. It came as a 
result of the increased capacity of workers when they conferred with 
each other in the context of talking with the coach, with management. 
If we want to go for the gold, I think we have to be able to do that.
  The folks on the other side of the aisle said there are 30,000 
employers who are doing it now, it must be legal. It is hard to say it 
is legal when the NLRB is out filing charges and saying it is illegal 
and chilling this operation. Frankly, in my judgment, I think it is 
important to note if people on the other side of the aisle say it must 
be legal, and there are 30,000 companies that are doing it now, what is 
the big hubbub? Why filibuster the potential? Why oppose it? Why say it 
is a draconian measure, that it is going to ruin the country? You 
cannot have it both ways. If there are 30,000 people that have them and 
you do not think it is a problem, why say that this is the end of our 
ability to be competitive?

  I believe people want to be able to confer with the coach. People 
want to be able to confer with each other. People want to be able to 
improve the working conditions. I was just stunned in reading more of 
these things that were off limits for discussion. It was off limits to 
talk about bonuses to be given to people as compensation for their good 
work, off limits to talk about merit wage increases, off limits to talk 
about free coffee, off limits to talk about safety issues. I was 
stunned.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Sure.
  Mr. HARKIN. I was trying to pay attention to the Senator. Will the 
Senator repeat again how many people there are working in the United 
States that have these kind of arrangements? I thought I heard 30,000. 
Will the Senator please clarify that for me so I have an understanding 
of that figure? Was it 30,000 different businesses? Or 30,000 people? I 
am sorry, I just did not hear it and I apologize.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. There are 30,000 employers, I believe, that have sought 
to use this kind of collaboration.
  Mr. HARKIN. Was that 30,000 that use this?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. That have sought to do this, yes, and some are not any 
longer doing it. Obviously, when the NLRB began to prosecute this as a 
violation of the law, there are those who have chilled their operation. 
There are some under an order to quit. They have been ordered to stop 
conferring about things.
  One of the things they were ordered to stop conferring about was 
safety. It stunned me, the Dillon case said it was inappropriate to 
discuss safety labeling of electrical breakers. I would certainly hope 
if I were employed in a plant you could confer with management about 
the appropriate labeling of electrical breakers.
  But tornado warning procedures--I know there is going to be 
discussion about tornado procedures. I mean, if the tornado starts to 
hit the plant, there will be discussion, regardless of whether the NLRB 
says it is legal or not. But I would hope it is not illegal to do so in 
advance. The absurdity of saying it is illegal for employers to discuss 
with employees evacuation procedures in the event of a tornado points 
out the fact that this law, which was passed in the mid-1930's, is so 
out-of-step with America of the year 2000.

  It is our job to prepare for the future. We ought to be saying we 
want more discussion between employees and employers and I am pleased 
that the President is saying that. He is calling this conference to say 
he wants more discussion. But to say you only want more discussion in 
the context of unionized plants, which represent 11 percent of the 
working people of this country, and you will not allow it in terms of 
the other 89 percent or 88 percent, that boggles the mind. That 
challenges any credible or reasonable approach to the thing.
  If, indeed, we want to be competitive and if, indeed, we want people 
to have job satisfaction and we want them to have job security, we will 
build the strongest job base possible and we will not say to all those 
people who are not members of unions: You are not intelligent enough, 
strong enough or worth enough to be able to confer with your employers, 
and you will not have the ability to tell whether you are in a union or 
not.
  I have had the wonderful privilege of going home to work. It is one 
of the things I do as a U.S. Senator. I go home, work on production 
lines. I have worked next to people filling feed sacks. I have worked 
next to people building windows and window components for new 
construction. I worked in a wide variety of things. I do not care what 
job I have done, whether it has been assembly or manufacturing or if 
has even been in the service industry--one time I helped prepare tax 
returns--everyone that I have ever talked to was plenty intelligent 
enough to know how to make improvements and could make suggestions. And 
they all knew whether or not they were in a union and would know the 
difference between a sham union and a real union. And they would all 
know how to call the NLRB if there was an unfair labor practice and 
make that kind of complaint.
  For the resistance to mount to the authorization for American workers 
to talk with their employers about safety conditions, about improving 
productivity, about innovation, about improving marketability, even 
about sales practices and, sure, about safety--things like leaving the 
building in the event of a tornado? Here is a case which said for the 
employer to talk with the employees about rules relating to employees 
that got in fights was illegal. I would think it would be important, to 
confer with our workers on things like that.
  The purpose of committees--they are designed to improve the security 
and productivity of American jobs and we should enact the TEAM Act. Let 
me just give a few words from the language of an administrative law 
judge who ruled on one of these cases. I quote the administrative law 
judge's opinion from the EFCO opinion. I am quoting now.

  The committees ``were established by the company, in furtherance of 
Chris Fuldner's [that's the CEO's] vision for a more productive, more 
profitable and more satisfying place for employees to work, [by 
improving] employment policies, employee benefits, employee safety; and 
employee suggestions.''
  That is what these things were created for, ``To make a more 
productive, more profitable, and more satisfying place for employees to 
work, [by improving] employment policies, employee benefits, employee 
safety; and employee suggestions.''
  The opinion went on to say, ``In Fuldner's view, management should 
encourage employees to feel good about themselves and their jobs, and 
management should try to keep employees

[[Page S4841]]

happy with their benefits, and to appreciate these benefits.''
  That was the goal. The administrative law judge confessed that these 
were all the positive benefits. But then said that the law requires 
that these be stricken as inappropriate because the company not only 
talked about these benefits but actually took them to heart, provided 
things like places for the groups to meet, and pencils and papers upon 
which they could write.
  We started out talking about the Olympics. We would not want to send 
our team to the Olympics without a chance to win. We do not want 
American employees to compete in the world marketplace without the 
ability to win. You would not think of sending 9 out of 10 athletes to 
the Olympics without allowing them to talk with their coaches and each 
other about ways to improve their performance, and yet, we have a rule 
in American industry that to confer with workers, 9 out of 10 of them--
there are 11-something percent that are in unions; they are allowed to 
make these discussions--for the ones not in unions, it is against the 
law.

  I do not think we can afford to look to the future and say to 88 or 
89 percent of our work force, ``You can't take advantage of your 
creativity, your innovation, your wisdom, and share it with your 
employer and improve productivity and performance in order to be on a 
winning team.''
  Because we cannot afford to go into the competitive marketplace with 
our hands tied behind our back, we should enact the TEAM Act, which 
provides specific authority, not for anything great, not for anything 
outlandish, but basically for something the President says he wants: 
cooperation, teamwork--he asked for it in his State of the Union 
Message--between employees and employers.
  I believe, if we provide the American people, through the right legal 
framework, the opportunity to cooperate and work as teams, we will come 
home with the gold. We have shown it over and over again; even when we 
slip behind, if you let the American people put their shoulder to the 
wheel and their nose to the grindstone, we cannot be beaten. But if you 
hamstring us for special interests rather than turn us loose to win the 
game, we will have a hard time competing.
  We must enact the TEAM Act in behalf of the workers of today and the 
children of tomorrow for the jobs we hold, not only for us, but we hold 
them in trust for those who will follow us.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Under the previous unanimous 
consent agreement, the Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the President.
  Mr. President, I was listening to the statements by my friend from 
Missouri, with whom I serve on the committee of jurisdiction dealing 
with this so-called TEAM Act, and I will use that phrase, ``so-called 
TEAM Act.''
  Listening to my friend from Missouri and looking at the title of this 
bill, the TEAM Act, which stands for, if I am not mistaken, ``teamwork 
for employees and management,'' I cannot help but be reminded of that 
wonderful phrase from ``Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking 
Glass,'' where Humpty-Dumpty is talking to Alice. Let me paraphrase: 
``When I use a word it means just what I mean it to mean.''
  And Alice says, ``Well that's not fair. It doesn't work that way.''
  And Humpty-Dumpty says: ``The real question is, who's going to be the 
boss?''
  That is really what this is all about. Who is going to be the boss? 
Are we, in fact, going to have a structure that allows for real 
cooperation?
  I will say to my friend from Missouri that real cooperation, 
productive cooperation, can only occur when the parties who are seeking 
to cooperate do so on a level playing field. To have one side or the 
other impose a structure, to impose rules, to impose what the framework 
is is not going to lead to productive cooperation. What my friend from 
Missouri is advocating would be like--and under the TEAM Act, I do not 
say my friend from Missouri--but under the TEAM Act, so-called TEAM 
Act, it would be like if Senator Dole were to pick the representatives 
of the Democratic Party to represent the Democratic Party on the floor 
of the Senate.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will in just a second. I just want to finish my thought 
on that. So, again, we would not want that to happen. Maybe Senator 
Dole would like that to happen now that he is majority leader, or 
perhaps if the tables were turned and the Democrats were in charge, 
maybe the Democratic leader would like to pick who represents the 
Republicans.
  I think the Senator sees what I am getting at. But it can only be 
done if you have that level playing field. I think we have that level 
field. There is nothing in section 8(a)(2) now that prohibits 
management and labor from getting together to discuss these items and 
to have working relationships. I see them all the time. It just comes 
about when management says, ``We want to cooperate and here's the terms 
of our cooperation. As long as you agree, we can cooperate.''
  That is what we are trying to avoid. That is really what this so-
called TEAM Act does.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. You have said you do not think progress can be made as 
long as the management has the prerogatives that we ask for in the TEAM 
Act. We are really asking for the prerogatives to confer. If there is 
nothing in the law against it, why is this so terrifying?
  In the one case where they have tried to shut this down in Missouri, 
which is the most notable case in my State, it went from 100 employees 
to 1,000 employees. The workers have stormed my office and said, ``We 
want this. The National Labor Relations Board is keeping us from doing 
this.''
  It seems to me you are saying it will not work in theory. But there 
are a thousand workers in Monett, MO, saying, ``It sure works in 
practice, because we have 10 times the jobs we used to have, and we 
like it.''
  I met with 300 or 400 workers this morning who were here to lobby the 
Congress saying, ``Let us keep doing what we are doing.''
  I understand you might say theoretically it cannot work. You said 
there cannot be any progress under the things we are asking for, and 
the things we are asking for, when it was allowed to operate that way--
I saw one plant in my State that went from 100 workers to 1,000 
workers. I call that progress.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will say to my friend from Missouri, I can give 
examples in my own State and around the Nation of businesses, 
companies, where the owners and the managers deal forthrightly and with 
every sense of equality with the workers. Some of those plants are not 
organized, they are not organized labor. So they say, ``We don't need 
organized labor. Look, we get along fine, the workers like it, we have 
great benefits, we have a good system set up for any kind of dispute 
resolutions.'' That is true. There are a lot of those around. But the 
fact is there are a lot more that maybe are not, and that is why we 
have labor law, that is why we have the National Labor Relations Act. 
That is why we have section 8(a)(2), to provide a framework whereby 
workers can select their own representatives and where they are on an 
equal footing with management.
  I suppose the Senator disagrees with my philosophy on this. My 
philosophy is that capital and labor ought to be represented equally. I 
do not think capital ought to be above labor, nor do I think labor 
ought to be above capital, but I think the two ought to work together. 
I believe it is not in the best interest of our capitalistic system to 
place capital above labor, because that will destroy our productivity 
and destroy our labor force in this country.
  I also think the opposite is not good either, trying to elevate labor 
over capital. So we have to try to keep a balance. That is what the 
National Labor Relations Act is about; that is what section 8(a)(2) is 
about.
  I am sure the Senator can find examples of businesses where they 
treat the workers fine; gosh, why do you need a labor union for all 
this? Yes, I can show you examples of that in my own State, too.
  The Senator talks about the EFCO case in Monett, MO, but there is 
another side to that story. I listened to the Senator from Missouri 
talking

[[Page S4842]]

about this example of a circuit breaker switch or tornado warning. I 
believe the Senator is a good lawyer, and it is like if you only read 
the prosecution side of a case, you say the person is guilty. If that 
is all you read is the prosecution side, you say the person is 
guilty. If you read the defense side, you say, ``Hey, that person's 
innocent.'' To find out the truth of the facts, you have to read both 
sides. I do not know what the whole story is about the circuit breaker 
or the tornado warnings. I do not know all the facts. But I would like 
to know the whole story.

  It is like EFCO. There is another side to that story. In fact, I will 
start to go through some of that now. But the fact is, that EFCO really 
started reacting only when the employees started to organize. There was 
the threat of that.
  The Senator says, hundreds of employees came to him and said, ``We 
like this, and we want to continue it.'' Yes, I can understand that, if 
they are afraid of losing their jobs because they did not have that 
kind of bargaining unit, but I thought I might just go through the 
sequence of events that led up to the administrative law judge's ruling 
on the EFCO.
  I think that my friend from Missouri and others have mischaracterized 
this case and what the decision represents. My friend from Missouri and 
others use the EFCO decision as really an example of why we need this 
bill. Quite frankly, I think it is an example of why we really do not 
need this bill.
  Let me go through some of the factors here. If the Senator from 
Missouri wants to try to correct me on this, he should feel free to do 
so. I am trying to get to the bottom of this and the facts. In April 
1992--first of all, the administrative law judge's decision in EFCO 
ruled that four inplant committees were unlawfully dominated and 
assisted by EFCO, by the management. None of those committees 
demonstrated ``shared management decisionmaking or co-determination of 
cooperation by the work force,'' but they all resembled classic forms 
of management-directed sham bargaining vehicles, or ``employer 
representation plans, that were deliberately outlawed by the Wagner Act 
of section 8(a)(2).''
  So what happened in this case? In April 1992, EFCO's president 
suddenly directed its plant facilitator to revive a defunct safety 
committee. The plant facilitator announced the formation of the 
committee on April 21, 1992, defining its role as setting and enforcing 
safety policies. He, the plant facilitator, selected the members of the 
committee from volunteers, and they shared the first meeting on June 4, 
1992.
  He was succeeded as the director of the committee by EFCO's safety 
director, who continued to set the agendas for the meetings. The 
committee never had or exercised any authority to enforce or discipline 
violations of safety policies--never.
  In September 1992, EFCO's president announced the employee benefit 
committee to the employees on September 8, 1992, defining its function 
as soliciting ideas regarding employee benefits from the employees and 
making recommendations to the management committee, which was EFCO's 
core management group--and in which, I might add, no rank-and-file 
employees participated. This was all management directed.
  EFCO's chief financial officer selected the 10 committee members 
again from volunteers, but those volunteers previously screened by the 
human resources manager, again, were part of management. Among the 
appointees was a supervisor and the president's confidential secretary. 
Imagine that. They were part of the team they selected to represent the 
employees.
  At the initial meeting on October 1, 1992, EFCO's president 
designated the first issues to be considered and directed that other 
issues be solicited from the employees. The human resources manager, 
the CFO, and, later, the comptroller attended the committee meetings. 
The committee's chairman met with the management committee to discuss 
and clarify the committee's recommendations. The management committee 
determined whether or not to adopt the committee's recommendations.
  Let me repeat that. The management's committee determined whether or 
not to adopt the committee's recommendation.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I would be glad to.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Is the Senator's position that the management should 
not make the final decision about procedures, that it is inappropriate 
to confer with workers unless you turn over the final decision to them? 
I mean, it seems to me that----

  Mr. HARKIN. No, management always makes the ultimate decision. 
However, it is this Senator's position that when we are talking about 
teamwork, in these kinds of structures, there ought to be a level 
playing field so that the employees can pick their own representatives 
where there is not the heavy hand and the ever present authority of 
management there guiding, directing, and selecting, and then have that 
discussion proceed, have the committees, management, labor committees 
jointly reach their agreements, and then, yes, management can sign off 
on it. That was not the structure in this case.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. So it is the Senator's position that management could 
only adopt a policy which had been previously forwarded to them by the 
workers? I mean, as I understand it, you allow workers, their 
contribution to be made, but you do not have to surrender the 
management of the corporation to do it. I do not think most workers 
want you to surrender, but they want input.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would say to my friend, they want input that is genuine 
input from the employees, from employee organizations that are not 
structured by management--as I just pointed out, this was structured by 
management. The representatives were selected from volunteers by 
management, not the employees. Management selected them. I just pointed 
out that management selected the confidential secretary of the 
president.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Do you think the confidential secretary of the 
president should not have the right to participate in making 
contributions like other workers?
  Mr. HARKIN. If they work on the management side. But let the workers 
decide who they want to represent them, not management. That is my 
point.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I believe there are differences. That is more of a side 
versus side rather than a team here. It is this Senator's understanding 
that we ought to operate as a team, not one side versus another. We 
ought to try to work together.
  Mr. HARKIN. But you see, in order for a team to work, there must be 
open discourse, there must be a consideration, and there must be not 
just the semblance of, but the genuine foundation of cooperation and 
equal participation.
  See, I think what my friend from Missouri still believes is that 
management ought to be able to tell workers what to do all the time 
just because they own the plant. They ought to be able to tell a worker 
exactly what to do, when to do it and everything else, and if the 
worker does not like it, out the door. I do not happen to believe that, 
you see. I am sorry we have a philosophical difference. I happen to 
believe that workers, that labor should take equal positions with 
capital. They both ought to be respected.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. How do you break the deadlock in the case of a deadlock 
under your system, if they are equal positions and one says yes and one 
says no? Are you saying that if the workers say, ``I don't want to do 
that,'' and the employer says, ``We need to have that done,'' is it a 
deadlock for you, or who breaks the deadlock?
  Mr. HARKIN. In all of the organizations that I have seen which are 
organized under 8(a)(2), where you have employer representatives and 
you have management and where they met in that spirit of mutual 
respect, I can tell you I have not seen one case, nor do I know of one, 
where there has been that kind of a gridlock and deadlock.
  I think there is an assumption by the Senator from Missouri that 
labor is always--or at least sometimes--always going to act in a way 
that is going to be detrimental to the management. Workers do not want 
to do that. They want the company to function correctly. What they want 
is their rights protected. They want their rights protected.
  No one wants to return to slavery in this country where someone just 
tells a

[[Page S4843]]

human being, ``Look, you do as I say, or else, out the door.'' We have 
advanced beyond that. We do not want to go back to the old days where 
labor had no rights whatsoever.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I believe we have rights, and I think they ought to be 
protected, but I believe that when the employer says something needs to 
be done, it has to be that way. I would say this, and I thank the 
Senator, and I will not further interrupt your speech, but I would just 
ask----
  Mr. HARKIN. We ought to have more discussions like this.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. My whole point is, it is not my way or the highway. My 
whole point is, we need to allow managers to welcome and to capitalize 
on and to implement and to benefit from the special expertise, 
creativity, and input from people in the production pool. Then it is a 
very valuable thing. It is not that it is antagonistic. I do not think 
management can survive without it.
  I do believe you are right, that there are very few times when it is 
against the interests of management to hear from labor. I think in the 
overwhelming number of cases really what I have sought to do is to 
provide a framework in which that is something that is legal and is 
appropriate and management is free to solicit the view of labor and to 
go and ask for it.
  I thank the Senator for the time.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. I think we ought to have more like 
this. I would be glad to discuss it even further because I think we 
start to get to the real differences here and the views of what we are 
trying to do here in this bill.
  Again, I guess the Senator and I just have a gentlemen's disagreement 
on the role of labor and management in our society.
  Again, I have seen so many times in our country where management is 
open, respectful, where they really encourage employees to get 
together, to organize and to bargain with them in good faith. That is 
the most productive unit you have in America.
  It is the cases where an employer comes in and says, ``Look, I know 
what is best. I will set up the structure. You can give me your advice 
if you want, but if I do not like it I will throw it out the door,'' 
and there is not the sense that workers really have a legitimate role 
to play in the decisions that affect their very jobs, that affect the 
future of that plant. When that happens, then I think productivity 
falls.
  Again, I point out to my friend from Missouri, we have had section 
882 all these years. We have labor-management councils. They operate in 
my State. Building trades are working, I know in my Quad Cities area, 
the Davenport area and in Des Moines, where building trades are working 
with contractors. We call these labor-management councils. They work 
wonders. It is done in a sense where you have a level playing field. I 
think what my friend from Missouri basically is saying, ``Look, 
management in the end ought to control everything.''
  I am saying that in a team if you have this real teamwork, the 
employees have to know that they are equal partners in making the 
productivity force in America move forward. That is why, I repeat, I 
get back to the EFCO situation here, we hear about EFCO, but when you 
go through the whole history of EFCO you find this is a classic case of 
why section 882 is necessary.
  I ended on September 1992 when the management committee determined 
whether or not to adopt the committee's recommendations. Now we go to 
December 1992, on December 28, EFCO's president created the employee 
suggestion screening committee. He did it by memorandum to the six 
employees he appointed to the committee. That is not bad. Listen to 
that: EFCO's president created the employee suggestion screening 
committee. He did it by memorandum to the six employees he appointed to 
the committee.
  How much freedom and how much do you think that these six employees, 
handpicked by the president, is going to take a position contrary to 
the president's position? Not only that, the president defined the 
committee's purpose as reviewing and referring to management with 
recommendations, employee suggestions. EFCO issued a general 
announcement of the committee's formation and solicited suggestions 
from all employees on January 14, 1993. EFCO's senior vice president 
and its CFO were assigned to attend the meetings. Again, you have a 
meeting, you have the senior vice president, the chief financial 
officer sitting there, listening to everybody. Again, that heavy hand 
over everyone. The CFO set forth the agenda at the first committee 
meeting. Not a spirit of, ``OK, representatives of labor, what would 
you like our agenda to be?'' No, management saying, ``Here is the 
agenda, here is what we are going to discuss.''
  The elected chairman of this committee--mind you, this is a committee 
of six employees handpicked by the president--the elected chairman of 
the committee was promoted to a management position in the summer and 
yet continued to chair the meetings. The committee had no authority to 
decide which suggestions would be adopted. None. They could pass them 
on, but they had no authority to decide. Again, back to my friend from 
Missouri, he said, yes; we should give management suggestions. We 
should let employees suggest things. If management does not want to do 
them, to heck with them.
  Well, I tend to think if you will have this type of arrangement you 
should have employees and management together in a teamwork, and if 
they are equal, and if they have equal status, then if they make 
suggestions that ought to be adopted by that committee, representing 
both management and labor--I do not know what the exact effects are if 
they do not reach a agreement. I assume if they do not reach agreement 
it would not be adopted. If there is gridlock you do not adopt. If they 
agree, it ought to be adopted, not reviewed further, and adopted by 
management.
  Finally, January 1993, January 14, 1993, EFCO announced that it was 
establishing an employer policy review committee, whose purpose was to 
gather comments and ideas from the employees regarding company 
policies, and to make policy recommendations to the management 
committee. The human resources manager--this is part of management--
selected the committee members. Again, the management selected the 
committee members. The management appointed the cochairman. The manager 
also attended committee meetings. One of the members of the employee's 
group was a supervisor, and a cochairman was shortly promoted to a 
supervisory position.
  EFCO's president attended the first meeting on February 9, 1993. Here 
is what he did. He laid out the ground rule. He dictated the first 
policy to be considered. He issued a deadline for the presentation of a 
recommendation to the management committee. It does not sound quite 
like equal representation of management and employees. It is sort of 
like the management saying, ``OK, again, here is the policy to be 
considered, here are the ground rules, here is the deadline for you to 
submit suggestions to the management committee,'' and again, those 
suggestions might be accepted or they might not be accepted.
  The appointed cochairman met with the management committee to discuss 
recommended policies and the management committee determined which 
recommendations would be adopted. Again, EFCO set up the elaborate sham 
structure, management laid out the ground rules, management picked many 
of the people to be on it, they dictated the policies and they said, 
OK, if you come up with a suggestion or recommendation, it goes to the 
management committee, and that management committee decides what will 
be adopted.
  Again, I guess we get back to my friend from Missouri. His philosophy 
is if you are management, your word is God and you don't need employee 
input. I am sorry, I disagree with that. I disagree with that because I 
think that labor and management ought to both be equally represented in 
these kinds of situations.
  In short, EFCO unilaterally decided upon and formulated the program 
of employee committees. It created committees and determined their 
size, functions and procedures. It appointed their members and included 
supervisors among their membership. It set the scope of each 
committee's concerns, goals, and limitations. It established the 
committee's agendas. It directed the committees to solicit opinions, 
ideas, and suggestions from other

[[Page S4844]]

employees. The committees met on company property, during working 
hours. High management officials attended these meetings. Committee 
members were paid for the time spent on committee work and EFCO 
provided any necessary materials or supplies.
  Cumulatively, when you look at this, the committee dealt with EFCO as 
company-created and company-directed representatives on every 
conceivable area of employees' wages, hours and working conditions. The 
very existence of those committees was and is dependent upon EFCO's 
unfettered discretion. Moreover, EFCO endowed the committees with 
absolutely no actual power. The company reserved to itself the 
exclusive authority to decide which recommended suggestions, policies, 
safety rules, or employee benefits would be adopted. The committees 
were not even authorized to administrator or enforce those of the 
recommended policies or rules actually implemented by management.
  Again, I think when you look at the whole case, when you do not just 
read the prosecution side, when you read both the prosecution side and 
you read the defense side as in any case, perhaps we get to the truth. 
The truth is that EFCO wanted to set up a structure whereby, yes, 
employees could give suggestions, only under the steady gaze and the 
heavy hand of management, where those representatives would be picked 
by management, where the structures and guidelines would be established 
by management, and where in the end, where any suggestion, any advice, 
would then go to a management committee to be finally acted upon, 
adopted or reject. Again, a clear example of why we need section 882.
  Well, I guess it really boils down to, if you believe that workers 
are intelligent, if you believe that workers have the best interests of 
their country at heart, if you believe that workers have the best 
interests of their employer and their factories and their plants and 
places of work at heart, if you believe that, then you ought to permit 
workers to sit at the table with management. That is what section 
8(a)(2) does; it permits workers to sit at the table.
  This so-called TEAM Act says, ``Well, you have been at the table all 
these years under section 8(a)(2).'' You know, we have had a pretty 
good run of it since the Depression. We are the most productive nation 
on Earth today, as we have been for the last 50 years. Oh, we always 
hear about these other countries, but the fact is, American 
productivity, last year, was higher than any other country in the 
world--output per hours worked. Oh, yes, for the last 50 years we have 
been the most productive nation on Earth. We built the freest, 
strongest nation the world has ever seen. We have built great 
universities and colleges. We have the best medical research anywhere 
in the world. We have the freest society. We have the greatest 
opportunity for the greatest number of people. And guess what? We did 
it under the Wagner Act. We did it with section 8(a)(2), and we did it 
with labor sitting at the table.
  Now we hear voices--my friend from Missouri among them--who say labor 
no longer needs to be at the table. Management is at the table; labor 
is sitting on a lower chair. They are down a little bit lower. They are 
sort of sitting on the floor. If the management would deign to give 
them some crumbs off the table, that is fine. If management does not, 
well, that is fine, also, because if the workers do not like it, they 
can get off the floor and walk out the door. Well, that is what has 
been happening, and that is what is behind this so-called TEAM Act. I 
do not ascribe any bad motives to anyone. My friend from Missouri is an 
honorable gentlemen. But I just believe that this policy is totally 
misdirected. I think it flies in the face of what we in America have 
done over the last 50 years and what we are still accomplishing in 
becoming the most productive nation on Earth.
  Mr. President, there is a line from one of my favorite plays that 
goes something like this:

       Life is like cricket. We play by the rules, but the secret, 
     which few people know, that keeps men of class far apart from 
     the fools, is to make up the rules as you go.

  Well, I suppose if you want to keep management up and labor down, you 
make up new rules as you go along. That is what this is. We are making 
up new rules--rules that would take away a legitimate right of labor to 
be heard and to sit at the table. No, I am sorry, Mr. President, this 
is not a team act. This is not a team act at all. This breaks down the 
team. This is a class act, making one class of management and owners at 
a higher level than the laborers.
  So, Mr. President, this is not just a little piece of legislation. I 
think the majority leader referred to it as a ``minor'' piece of 
legislation, and no one should bother about it. It is not a minor piece 
of legislation. It is a dagger right at the heart of what has made this 
country so productive over the last 50 years. It is a dagger right at 
the heart of our workers in this country, and we should not let it pass 
this floor.
  We ought to reaffirm, once again, our commitment to a level playing 
field and, as John L. Lewis once said, make sure labor has a seat at 
the table, not on the floor, where labor would partake of the same meal 
as management and not just get the crumbs from the table.
  This bill would undo all that we have done in our society to give our 
working people a decent voice, to give them the recognition, which is 
due any human being, that their labor is worth something, that they 
themselves are human beings, and that labor is not just another unit of 
production to be written off and thrown out the back door; but that our 
working people are more than just numbers on a piece of paper, or 
machines on a shop floor, and that they deserve, and ought to have, by 
right and by law, all of the protections that the Wagner Act and 
section 8(a)(2) provides them.

  This Senate and this Congress would do a disservice to our country 
were we to let this TEAM Act pass.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am greatly disappointed that my Democratic 
colleagues are continuing to block repeal of the Clinton gas tax. When 
President Clinton and the Democratic Congress, without a single 
Republican vote, passed the biggest tax increase in our Nation's 
history in 1993, they said that their $268 billion tax increase was a 
tax increase on the wealthy. Well, now they have a chance to repeal a 
tax that hits the lower and middle income people the hardest, and they 
are refusing to do so.
  Make no mistake, the gas tax, which was part of that massive tax 
increase, is a tax burden that is borne by virtually every American. 
Every mother who drives her children to school, every commuter, every 
family who drives to church, every senior who rides the bus to go 
shopping, every family planning a summer vacation gets hit by this tax.
  Let us be clear. Democrats are denying tax relief to each of these 
Americans. Incredibly, some of my Democratic colleagues have called for 
even higher gas taxes. Maybe they were not listening when President 
Clinton said last fall that he thought he raised taxes too much. 
Despite this admission by President Clinton, our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are threatening to shut down the Senate because 
they do not want to let this tax cut for working Americans come up for 
a vote.
  The distinguished minority leader said yesterday that the Democrats 
would shut down the Senate over this tax cut. By shutting down the 
Senate, the Democrats are now blocking not only a tax cut for working 
Americans, but they are blocking the taxpayer bill of rights; they are 
blocking consideration of a constitutional amendment requiring a 
balanced budget; they are blocking the opportunity for commonsense 
health care reform; they are blocking reauthorization of Amtrak.
  Mr. President, while I am disappointed by the words and actions of 
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I am not 
surprised. Let me explain.
  This is a chart comparing the records on taxes of the 103d Congress, 
which was controlled by Democrats, to the tax record of this 
Republican-controlled Congress.
  As this chart shows, the Democrats passed the largest tax increase in 
our Nation's history--$268 billion. This was without a single 
Republican vote. And, while they said at the time that the tax increase 
was for deficit reduction, a study released last week shows that 44

[[Page S4845]]

cents of every dollar of that tax increase has gone to more big 
Government spending. That is why Republicans continue to believe that 
the way to reduce the deficit is not to raise taxes, but instead to cut 
wasteful Government spending.
  This chart also shows that the Clinton tax rate increase was 
retroactive--reaching back to the Bush administration. The tax record 
of the 103d Congress included a top tax rate increase to 39.6 percent 
which devastated small business, and is probably part of the reason why 
so many Americans feel that their wages have stagnated. When these 
small businesses, which are the biggest creators of jobs in this 
country, have to give more money to the Federal Government, they have 
less money for expansion, pay raises, and job creation.
  The Democratic 103d Congress' tax record also included an increase in 
taxes on Social Security benefits up to 85 percent--an outrageous 
increase.
  The 103d Congress also, of course, raised gas taxes by 30 percent.
  So, the tax accomplishments of the 103d Democratic Congress included 
a hard hit at many Americans and they were not all rich.
  But what a difference a Congress makes. This Republican Congress has 
a much different record on taxes. Instead of raising taxes, we have cut 
taxes. The 104th Congress has passed legislation that has been signed 
into law including: allowing working seniors to keep more of their 
Social Security benefits by increasing the earnings limit; tax relief 
for the thousands of service people in Bosnia; a reinstatement and 
subsequent increase of the self-employed health insurance deduction; 
and a measure to prohibit States from taxing the benefits of former 
residents who have retired and moved to other States. These tax changes 
benefit millions of Americans.
  And, if President Clinton had signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, 
the tax burden on millions more working Americans would be lighter. 
Families, in particular, would have benefited from the Republican 
budget, which gave parents a $500 tax credit for each child. Our budget 
also reduced the capital gains rate, phased out the unfair marriage 
penalty, provided a deduction for student loan interest, and expanded 
tax-deductible individual retirement accounts.
  The difference between the two records couldn't be more stark. The 
last Congress increased taxes by a record amount, while this Congress 
cut taxes.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that this Congress can undo the economic 
damage that the last Congress has done. Repeal of the Clinton gas tax 
is a good place to begin.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bumpers pertaining to the introduction of S. 1737 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have not made a lot of progress in the 
last several hours, and I am hopeful that at some point today we can 
reach an agreement.
  The current situation would require a vote on three separate 
provisions of the same amendment to a bill that is now pending, the 
Travel Office reimbursement legislation. We have indicated that that is 
unacceptable to us.
  Earlier today, at a press conference, the distinguished majority 
leader, when asked if he would agree to consideration of three separate 
bills, answered, ``If we can get an agreement to vote on three separate 
bills, that's one thing. I've already given that agreement to have 
three separate bills.''
  As I understand it now, that may not be Senator Dole's exact intent. 
But I must tell you that if it is, indeed, his position to accept 
consideration of three separate bills, then, indeed, we would be ready 
this afternoon to agree; we would allow a vote on the gas tax reduction 
and relevant amendments; a vote on the minimum wage and amendments that 
are relevant; and a vote on the TEAM Act with relevant amendments. That 
seems to me to be exactly what we have been proposing now for several 
days.
  If we can do that, we could reach an agreement by 4:45 this 
afternoon. So I am very hopeful that we are getting closer together, 
that we can find a way to resolve this impasse. Three separate bills, 
as the majority leader suggested earlier today, would do that, would 
give us that opportunity, and I am hopeful that we can talk in good 
faith and find a way to determine the sequencing and ultimately come to 
some conclusion on this legislation.
  Three separate bills with relevant amendments, perhaps with a 
reasonable time limit, is acceptable to us, and we will take it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________