[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7469-S7489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TEAMWORK FOR EMPLOYEES AND MANAGEMENT ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of S. 295, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 295) to permit labor management cooperative
efforts that improve America's economic competitiveness to
continue to thrive, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is now considering S. 295. Who
yields time?
Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am going to speak for a moment about
the full bill, the Teamwork for Employees and Management Act, which has
been called the TEAM Act, and why I think this is an important piece of
legislation.
It is important because it improves the quality of life for workers
on the job as well as the quality and productivity of American firms
competing in the global marketplace. We are in a new era, Mr.
President, and because of global competition I think we need to look at
new and innovative ways in which we can encourage a cooperative spirit
in the workplace. This is why I think this legislation is important and
why I hope my colleagues will support this with a strong vote.
The Senate has already spent a considerable period of time debating
the TEAM Act. As I stated earlier in that debate, it responds to a
series of decisions by the National Labor Relations Board that cast
doubt on the legality of employee involvement programs, particularly in
nonunion settings.
For instance, just last December, the board invalidated an employee
involvement program in my own State of Kansas. A committee of workers
and managers at Dillon's stores in Wichita, Newton, and Wellington, KS,
met quarterly to discuss workplace issues and minutes of the meetings
were then distributed to all employees. Employee representatives served
voluntarily on the committee for 1-year terms and were elected by
secret ballot.
Over the course of 7 years, the committee discussed such issues as
whether the company would begin providing day care services for
workers; whether Dillon's stores would begin providing a gym for
workers to exercise in; whether better lifting equipment could be used
for stocking shelves; whether the no-smoking lounge could be better
maintained and a total no-smoking policy be implemented; and whether
safety goggles could be provided for bakery employees.
These commonsense suggestions, Mr. President, are precisely the type
of contributions that we need to promote. It is the type of discussions
regarding the environment that both employees and employers are
involved in that I think just make good sense for us today. There is
nothing devious about this. This is not an attempt to try to diminish
the unions. These are, however, issues that are of importance to every
employee, and they are issues which the employers should care about as
well.
Supervisors might not be focused on day care or new ways to stock
shelves or the need for safety goggles, but these are the issues of
concern for workers. Regrettably, the National Labor Relations Board
said that discussing these issues in worker management committees
violated Federal labor law.
Mr. President, I continue to be surprised by the level of opposition
that some Members of the Senate express toward employee involvement.
Quite simply, the TEAM Act removes the barriers in Federal labor law
that prevent workers and supervisors from meeting in committees to
discuss workplace issues.
I thought I might take a moment just to read the language of the TEAM
Act, since I think it is very straightforward. The bill states that it
shall not be illegal 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
[[Page S7470]]
issues of quality, productivity and efficiency) and which
does not have, claim or seek authority to negotiate or enter
into collective bargaining agreements under this Act with the
employer or to amend existing collective bargaining
agreements between the employer and any labor organization.
This language is clear. It says that Federal labor law will not
prevent supervisors and workers from discussing matters of mutual
interest. I do not think we need to fear these type of discussions in
the workplace. If so, we have already created a hostile environment--
one that is full of dissension, potentially, among employees and
between employees and employers.
Some opponents of the TEAM Act suggest that workers will be exploited
if the TEAM Act becomes law. But I fail to see why these discussions
about workplace issues exploit workers.
The law seems to be clear that employers in nonunion companies
unilaterally can address workplace issues. For instance, in the
Dillon's stores that I mentioned a few moments ago, the company could
decide on its own to provide safety goggles, to begin day care or to
expand a no-smoking policy, but the management probably did not know
these issues were important for workers.
That is not to say employers should not have known that these issues
were important, but as we have seen all too often over the years there
is a lack of communication that many of us think often takes place
between employers and employees. This legislation is simply designed to
encourage communication, and to make sure that there is an
understanding that they will not be in violation of the National Labor
Relations Act.
Under the TEAM Act, workers retain the right at any time to select a
union to represent them, and firms must recognize and bargain with the
union once workers choose that representation. The TEAM Act is clear
that employee teams may not ``have, claim or seek authority to
negotiate or enter into collective bargaining agreements.''
This legislation is not a camel's nose under the tent. This is not an
effort to have a sham type of union. All these have been accusations
that have been made that clearly are not true nor were ever the aim of
this legislation.
In the 1930's, employers did create company unions to compete with
independent unions that workers chose. The employer would then refuse
to bargain with the independent union in favor of the company union.
Significantly, this practice would be patently illegal under the TEAM
Act. Once the workers seek the union the employer must recognize the
union as the employee representative. Employers may not use teams to
bypass an independent union.
I have an amendment to be offered later that will make crystal clear
that the TEAM Act does not apply once workers have selected union
representation.
I have an additional point that I would like to make regarding
employee exploitation. During our hearings in the Labor Committee, we
heard from workers who participate in employee teams. I think that all
the Senators who heard the Labor and Human Resources Committee hearings
were impressed with the workers. They are the ones who enjoy teamwork.
They are the ones whose ideas are implemented. They are also the ones
whose economic future is at stake.
As Ms. Molly Dalman, a team member from Donnelly Corp. in Michigan
testified:
Our goal is to keep each other informed, to produce a high-
quality product in the most efficient manner. This helps us
to be competitive in the market * * *. I know my job, what I
need to do, and how to do it, better than my team leader or
any engineer. Therefore, I need to feel as if I have some
control in my work area, and by working in teams, I have that
control.
This is part of the hearing record. It exemplifies what many workers
have said to us regarding their relationship in the workplace and why
they believe this legislation would benefit them.
She concluded:
I cannot imagine how any company could function without the
active participation and support of all employees from all
areas working together. Teamwork promotes a better working
environment [and] a better company. I cannot envision [my
company] without the support of its teams.
Another team member testified that her team dealt with multiskill
work design, quality, training, rotation, and overtime guidelines. Not
only was the ``product line much better equipped,'' she said, ``to
respond quickly to a fast-paced, very sophisticated market,'' but she
personally felt a greater degree of job satisfaction and ``just a sense
of ownership.''
I think, Mr. President, that her comments exemplify what I feel. This
is an important bill--it is one that should not be in any way viewed as
something nefarious, something that we are trying to do to undermine
the unions. It is designed to address the workplace as it exists today
and give the employees a sense of being involved.
These workers are not being exploited. Instead, the TEAM Act gives
workers the tools they need today, to do an ever better job. We need to
harness our human resources, not to silence them.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and
that the time be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that the unanimous
consent agreement allows for the introduction of an amendment with a 1-
hour team agreement, 30 minutes on each side, on behalf of the minority
leader or his designee.
Amendment No. 4437
(Purpose: To provide for a substitute amendment)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I call up an amendment under that
unanimous consent request and ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an
amendment numbered 4437.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Teamwork for Employees and
Management 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 American employers to make
dramatic changes in workplace and employer-employee
relationships;
(2) these 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 structures, which operate
successfully in both unionized and non-unionized settings,
have been established by over 80 percent of the largest
employers of the United States and exist in an estimated
30,000 workplaces;
(4) in addition to enhancing the productivity and
competitiveness of American businesses, employee involvement
structures have had a positive impact on the lives of those
employees, better enabling them to reach their potential in
their working lives;
(5) recognizing that foreign competitors have successfully
utilized employee involvement techniques, Congress has
consistently joined business, labor, and academic leaders in
encouraging and recognizing successful employee involvement
structures in the workplace through such incentives as the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award;
(6) employers who have instituted legitimate employee
involvement structures have not done so to interfere with the
collective bargaining rights guaranteed by the labor laws, as
was the case in the 1930s when employers established
deceptive sham ``company unions'' to avoid unionization; 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 uncertainty and apprehension among employers
regarding the continued development of employee involvement
structures.
(b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) protect legitimate employee involvement structures
against governmental interference;
(2) preserve existing protections against deceptive,
coercive employer practices; and
[[Page S7471]]
(3) permit legitimate employee involvement structures where
workers may discuss issues involving terms and conditions of
employment, to continue to evolve and proliferate.
SEC. 3. LABOR PRACTICES.
Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
158) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new subsection:
``(h)(1) The following provisions shall apply with respect
to any employees who are not represented by an exclusive
representative pursuant to section 9(a) or 8(f):
``(A) It shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair
labor practice under section 8(a)(2) for an employer to meet
with the employees as a group, or to meet with each of the
employees individually, to share information, to brainstorm,
or receive suggestions or opinions from individual employees,
with respect to matters of mutual interest, including matters
relating to working conditions.
``(B) It shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair
labor practice under section 8(a)(2) for an employer to
assign employees to work units and to hold regular meetings
of the employees assigned to a work unit to discuss matters
relating to the work responsibilities of the unit. The
meetings may, on occasion, include discussions with respect
to the conditions of work of the employees assigned to the
unit.
``(C) It shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair
labor practice under section 8(a)(2) for an employer to
establish a committee composed of employees of the employer
to make recommendations or determinations on ways of
improving the quality of, or method of producing and
distributing, the employer's product or service and to hold
regular meetings of the committee to discuss matters relating
to the committee. The meetings may, on occasion, include
discussions with respect to any directly related issues
concerning conditions of work of the employees.
``(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply if--
``(A) a labor organization is the representative of the
employees as provided in section 9(a);
``(B) the employer creates or alters the work unit or
committee during any organizational activity among the
employer's employees or discourages employees from exercising
the rights of the employees under section 7;
``(C) the employer interferes with, restrains, or coerces
any employee because of the employee's participation in or
refusal to participate in discussions with respect to
conditions of work, which otherwise would be permitted by
subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1); or
``(D) an employer establishes or maintains a group, unit,
or committee authorized by subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of
paragraph (1) that discusses conditions of work of employees
who are represented under section 9 without first engaging in
the collective bargaining required by this Act.
``(3) An employee who participates in a group, unit, or
committee described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of
paragraph (1) shall not be considered to be a supervisor or
manager because of the participation of the employee in the
group, unit, or committee.''.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are now discussing something called the
TEAM Act, which to a lot of Americans will not mean very much. It is an
acronym that talks about teamwork.
We have gone through a kind of interesting and difficult time in our
country in recent years. We have seen a transition to a global economy,
a period during which it has been, at least for some companies,
difficult to deal with new rules of competition. These companies have
had to deal with global competition, have had to experience the reality
of competing with companies that produce elsewhere in the world and
which have production facilities that are not required to meet the same
rules or the same obligations as we are required to meet in this
country.
They do not always have to worry about child labor laws. They do not
have to worry so much about antipollution concerns, do not have to
worry about things like minimum wages. The result has been that
American enterprises find themselves competing with, in many cases,
enterprises in other parts of the world that hire 12-year-old kids and
pay them 24 cents an hour, throw chemicals into the water, pollution
into the air, and produce a product and ship it to Pittsburgh or ship
it to Denver or Bismarck or Topeka and sell it and compete against
local businesses while they do that.
This has been an increasingly challenging time for American
businesses. There are those who say--and I believe they are correct,
especially the new breed of American entrepreneur--that the only way
that we can meet this difficult international competition and do so
successfully and do so in a way that allows us to win in international
economic competition, is if we have more teamwork and if we have more
cooperation between those who run American businesses and those who
work for those businesses. I have no disagreement about that at all.
I think we have a requirement in this country, with the new global
economy, to have educated, dedicated, motivated workers who come to the
workplace and say, we want to be part of a team, we want to succeed, we
want to produce good products and sell them at a good price and earn
good wages, and we want the company to earn good money.
That is part of what this is all about. There is not a disagreement
on the floor of the Senate about the value of teamwork. The
disagreement exists about precisely how we would change the law to
accommodate these concerns.
Most companies in this country already have work units, teams,
employee groups that are established to talk about what those companies
are doing, what their goals are, what their day is like, how to be more
efficient. Most of the largest employers in America already have, in
both unionized and nonunionized settings, employee involvement
structures of one kind or another. That exists in some 30,000
workplaces in this country.
So it is not a case where this does not already exist. In fact, if
you take a look at some of the case studies of some of the very
successful companies in our country, you will see that they have
established workplace teams in a very successful way. They have
involved employees in helping make some of the decisions on how to
produce most effectively and efficiently. So there is not going to be a
disagreement on the floor of the Senate about whether teamwork is
valuable. Of course it is.
The findings and purposes to the amendment that I have offered to the
legislation being considered on the floor talks about the escalating
demands of global competition. It requires an increasing number of
employers to make changes in the workplace and changes in employee-
employer relationships. I talk about the changes that involve an
enhanced role for the employee in workplace decisionmaking. It is often
referred to as employee involvement, which has taken a lot of different
forms including self-managed work teams, quality of work teams, quality
circles, joint labor-management committees, and many more. It is being
done all across this country.
In addition to enhancing the productivity and the competitiveness of
American businesses, these kinds of structures have had a positive
impact on the lives of many employees, better enabling them to reach
their potential as employees. I also point out that foreign competitors
have successfully utilized employee involvement techniques. Congress
has encouraged the same thing, as well.
However, having said all that, and wanting to encourage teamwork, let
me emphasize that we want to encourage teamwork in the right way. We do
not want someone to come to the floor of the Senate, or some group to
come to the floor of the Senate and address a problem in a manner that
causes more problems and more difficulties. That is what we fear the
underlying bill does.
The amendment I am offering is very straightforward. There are some
who say, and I think they are correct, that NLRB decisions have created
uncertainty about the conditions under which certain employee
involvement teams or organizations can be permitted or will be
permitted, uncertainty about where the lines are and about what
employers can do. To the extent that is correct, and I believe it is,
there is that uncertainty that does exist. My amendment attempts to
clarify those areas that are now causing such uncertainty, but it does
so in a way that does not cause injury in a range of other areas.
My amendment creates certain safe harbors for employers who establish
work units, quality circles and other employer-employee committees or
teams, provided that working conditions are discussed only on an
occasional basis incidental to the purpose of the committee. In other
words, we do not want to have a circumstance where some employer-
dominated committee--some employer-dominated committee--selected by the
employer
[[Page S7472]]
for a specific purpose, runs off and gets involved in a whole range of
discussions about matters that are more appropriately a part of
collective bargaining or matters outside the purview of what is allowed
in the NLRB.
In the legislation I have offered, we provide specific guidance in
these areas, and I think we do so in a way that is appropriate. Page 4
of the amendment provides:
(A) It shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair
labor practice under section 8(a)(2) for an employer to meet
with the employees as a group, or to meet with each of the
employees individually, to share information, to brainstorm,
to receive suggestions or opinions from individual employees,
with respect to matters of mutual interest, including matters
relating to working conditions.
(B) It shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair
labor practice under section 8(a)(2) for an employer to
assign employees to work units and to hold regular meetings
of employees assigned to a work unit to discuss matters
relating to the work responsibilities of the unit. The
meetings may, on occasion, include discussions with respect
to the conditions of work of the employees assigned to the
unit.
(C) It shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair
labor practice under section 8(a)(2) for an employer to
establish a committee composed of employees of the employer
to make recommendations or determinations on ways of
improving the quality of, or method of producing and
distributing, the employer's product or service and to hold
regular meetings of the committee to discuss matters relating
to the committee. The meetings may, on occasion, include
discussions with respect to any directly related issues
concerning conditions of work of the employees.
When the U.S. House, the other body, debated this issue, there was an
amendment offered by Congressman Sawyer that received, I believe, 204
votes. It did not prevail, but it was a very close vote and received
some bipartisan support. The amendment I offer today is very similar to
the Sawyer amendment that was offered in the House--identical with
respect to the provisions, similar with respect to the language that
establishes those provisions.
This is not a new subject. It was substantially debated in the House
of Representatives. My colleagues who followed that debate will
recognize that what I am attempting to do here in the Senate is exactly
what Congressman Sawyer did in the House. I changed some of the
language in the amendment but did not change the substance of the
amendment itself.
Again, let me say that I believe cooperation in the workplace has
merit. I believe it enhances our country's capability. It enhances the
opportunity of businesses to be more productive, to be more efficient.
It is helpful to both the employer and the employee. It will not, under
any condition, be helpful to harmony in the workplace, to efficiency,
or to improving this country's competitiveness, to do something that
changes labor law under the guise of the TEAM Act, that will cause more
uncertainty and more strife with respect to organized workers in this
country.
That will happen if we enact legislation that infringes in areas that
are now of the province of what normally would be collectively
bargaining. We do not want to retreat to a circumstance where employers
pick their team and say, ``By the way, we now have a cooperative team
of employees.'' It so happened that Uncle Joe, the person who runs this
place, picked the four of them, handpicked the four, and now these four
presumably speak for all other employees. Well, that moves directly
toward the establishment of management unions, which, in my judgment,
is and should be a violation of labor law. We do not want to pass a
TEAM Act that does that. We do want to pass a TEAM Act that fosters,
enhances, and encourages cooperation in the workplace.
My amendment, I believe, does that. I hope the Senate would view the
amendment in a positive way. We will have more discussion on it, but
other Members on my side would like to use some time. With that, I
yield the floor.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I will briefly respond to the Senator
from North Dakota, because much of what he said echoes my earlier
comments. We are both addressing the importance of cooperation in the
workplace, and both of us are acknowledging that there is a problem
with the law at this point, and there needs to be a clarification
regarding the National Labor Relations Act.
For a long time, it has been argued that there is no problem with the
law--that teams could continue without running afoul of the National
Labor Relations Act. I think the Senator from North Dakota acknowledges
that there needs to be some clarification. However, I am not sure from
what was said--and I have not had a chance to read the language of the
amendment that has been introduced because it is different than we had
thought it was going to be--about what sort of specific guidance he was
laying out in his amendment and what he believes are the problems in
the TEAM Act itself that cause the disturbance that he believes it
would in the workplace.
These are things that I hope, Mr. President, we can explore, as we
have a chance to address some questions regarding the amendment that
was put down by the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Illinois, Senator Simon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I rise in support of
the Dorgan amendment. I think it makes sense. It provides balance. It
makes it clear that if the Kempthorne Industries, for example, decide
they want to have a committee to look at the question of plant safety
or plan a picnic for the staff, or anything else, they can do that.
But the Dorgan amendment also says if you are going to get into a
question of wages and hours, and the traditional benefits, the
traditional labor-management things, that should be left up to the
conventional process. You should not have employers appointing a
committee of employees. The employees, when you get into labor-
management issues like wages and hours and so forth, should be left to
a committee picked by the employees. I think that makes sense. I think
it contains balance.
I add that I think balance is the one word we need in labor-
management relations in this country today. I was interested a while
back in picking up the New York Times and seeing where George Shultz,
whom we think of primarily as the former Secretary of State, and noting
that George Shultz also was the Secretary of Labor at one point under a
Republican administration, saying our laws have gone out of balance in
terms of not being balanced enough in the direction of encouraging
labor organizations and the result is going to be a loss of
productivity in our country. I think that point is an extremely
important point.
I have introduced a series of seven bills that I think also provide a
little balance. For example, in this whole area of labor-management
relations, if you have a pattern in practice of violating the Labor
Relations Act, you can still get a Federal contract; while, if you have
a pattern in practice of violating civil rights laws, you cannot get a
Federal contract. I think the example of the civil rights laws is what
we ought to follow in the labor laws also. I do not know why we should
award companies that have a pattern and practice of violating labor
laws with Federal contracts. I mention this because I think there we
need balance. I think the Dorgan amendment provides balance.
I think what we want is to say to an employer, if the Kempthorne
Corporation, or the Kassebaum Corporation, or the Dorgan Corporation,
or the Simon Corporation, if as an employer I want to appoint a
committee to look at plant safety, or lighting in the plant, or
planning an annual banquet, that is a fine thing. I do not think plant
management ought to have the ability to say this is a committee of
employees that is going to negotiate with me in terms of wages and
hours. I think the National Labor Relations Act should be left as it is
on that issue.
So I am going to strongly support the Dorgan amendment. I think it is
a move in the right direction. I hope that we can get a majority to
favor it.
One of the things that has happened, Mr. President, over the years in
my 22 years here is that we have become excessively partisan. I have
said this before on the floor. I think an amendment like the Dorgan
amendment is one that frankly Republicans and Democrats alike ought to
be supporting. I think it makes eminent good sense.
[[Page S7473]]
Mr. President, I am about at the end of my time. I see two of my
colleagues standing. I yield the floor at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may respond for a moment, just to
assure the Senator from Illinois that I wish I could support the
amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. I think there is still some
difficulty with it that we need to consider, however. But I want to
assure you that the TEAM Act does nothing to change the ability for
collective bargaining on wages and hours. This specifically is stated--
that it in no way wants to reinterpret the National Labor Relations
Act, and it is not an infringement on that. It is a clarification where
actually the chairman said there needs to be a clarification regarding
section 882. On the other hand, I want to make clear that he does not
support the TEAM Act. But I would like to so ask some questions.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SIMON. Just to respond by saying when you say it needs
clarification, the reality is we have had clarification. For example,
California has had 29,000-and-some cases brought before the NLRB. They
have had two cases before the NLRB which said you have a problem here
in creating a company union through management. And then they did not
fine anyone. They just sent it back to them and said restructure it.
The State of Illinois with 12 million people--I do not know how many
cases; I forget; just one case nationally. We have only had half a
dozen. I really do not think there needs to be the clarification that
my friend and colleague from Kansas suggests is needed.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I can appreciate that. But just that
one case which came up, as I gave an illustration of--the Dillon stores
in Kansas--the grocery stores, and a ruling then that had the chilling
effect and has caused a number of nonunion settings of employees and
employers to be very uncertain. And actually that is what I think the
Senator from North Dakota was saying. There was some uncertainty, and
in trying to address with specificity I think it becomes too specific.
If I just may mention, at least as I understand it, that there are
three categories that are addressed in the amendment of Senator Dorgan.
I think again it goes back to a rigidity and a lack of flexibility that
I think is important. I do not think you can have three categories and
three sizes that would fit all. I would like to see if I am correct in
this.
One would be an employee in a brainstorming discussion group that can
only meet for a short duration of time to discuss matters of mutual
interest. If workers and supervisors want to discuss important
workplace issues on a regular basis, that would not be permitted under
this category. When important workplace issues are raised, managers
would have to tell workers that further discussions would be illegal.
If that is, indeed, the intent of the language in the amendment, I
think again specificity that does not allow for a flexibility that we
were trying to encourage with employer-employee discussions.
Also, there would be employee work teams that were established for a
duration that could discuss quality and productivity issues. But
discussions on workplace issues like health and safety, or vacations,
or other issues, child care and so forth, could occur only
sporadically. When work teams have exhausted their quota of discussion
time on important issues like safety, then managers would have to
terminate further discussion, or face violating Federal law.
I do not want to add words that are not theirs. But it seems to me
that these are providing conditions that even further confuse what
could or could not be done.
Then the third is what I think are called employee committees which
may discuss again workplace issues like safety and no smoking policies
as often is desired. However, the employees chosen by secret ballot
election under NLRB procedures have a new entitlement--the assistance
of outside experts to address issues before the committee. I understand
that was taken out. But I do not know what the third employee committee
does. But it is a committee structure that I think in the specificity
lends itself to even further concern about whether there would be a
clear understanding of what could or could not be done.
So again, I think it is very important for us to explore this and
with a clear understanding of whether we have actually complicated the
procedure or have enhanced clarification.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield the Senator from Georgia 10 minutes.
Mr. COVERDELL. That will be fine. I appreciate the yielding of time
from the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from
Kansas and the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, called the TEAM Act.
I might, in my opening statement here, make the point that the
workers themselves from my State are those who are contacting our
office in support. It is the laborers, it is the working men and women
of my State who have created a steady flow through our office in
support of what the Senator from Kansas is endeavoring to do.
A recent example. There is a company in Lawrenceville, GA, which is
just northeast of Atlanta. It reduced its manufacturing costs within
its plant $6 million through the efforts of teamwork. The team
consisted of nine employees, people from the assembly line to plant
managers. They met for 6 months. They brought in experts throughout the
company to give advice. The end result? A savings of nearly $6 million
from these workers.
The problem with this is that without the amendment being offered by
the Senator from Kansas, this company and people engaged in this
activity are at risk from the National Labor Relations Board. They
could be held to be in violation of the law and regulations. So the
effort by the Senator from Kansas is to create legislation that does
enormous good in the workplace because it allows teams like this one I
have just described to assemble and yet not be at risk. Great good
could occur throughout our country.
I want to read a press release I just received the other day from the
Employment Policy Foundation. It reads:
Lost in the current political controversy about increasing
the minimum wage and passing the TEAM Act is the fact that
only the TEAM Act promises a better economic future for most
of America's working families. American living standards and
workers' compensation have been rising slowly over the past
decade largely because productivity has been growing slowly.
The TEAM Act, which reforms outdated rules that impede the
formation of workplace teams in nonunion settings, sets a
path to a higher productive growth. It does so by clarifying
the legal status of teams whose continued and expanded use
are in jeopardy--
Just as I said a moment ago.
because of a series of National Labor Relations Board
decisions.
The Foundation's recent study estimating the potential
productivity in real wage effects of employee involvement
reports documented productivity gains of 18 to 25 percent
from workplace employee involvement systems in which teams
play a central role.
Mr. President, much of the workplace today is governed by laws and
legislation that is three to four decades old. We are coming on a new
century, and it is time to modernize and make more flexible the
workplace of the new century. It is time to turn away from the status
quo. The TEAM Act is a progressive idea. It is an inclusive idea. It is
an idea that will help stimulate the economy and make more comfortable
the workplace for thousands and thousands of American families.
By a 3-to-1 margin when asked to choose between two types of
organizations to represent them, workers chose one that would have no
power but would have management cooperation over one with power but
without management cooperation. In this same survey, the worker
representation and participation survey conducted in December 1994 by
Princeton Survey Research Associates, 79 percent of workers who had
participated in employee management teams reported having personally
benefited from the process.
I can personally testify that the corporation in which I grew up has
employed a vast series and array of employee-managed teams. It has had
an enormous effect on that company, a very positive effect on the
company. Everybody is engaged in the overall
[[Page S7474]]
welfare of the company and where it is going. Morale is higher. It has
been a tremendous asset to this company in which I have personal
knowledge.
What happened by looking at this personal situation, though, is
nothing more than a reflection of what is going on or potentially can
go on all across our country.
Mr. President, on Friday, June 21, of this year, a letter signed by
the chief executive officers of 624 companies and trade associations
who support passage of the TEAM Act was delivered to President Clinton
asking the President to reject a veto and seize this chance to lead by
supporting legislation that enables employees and managers to
cooperate.
Again, Mr. President, what I am saying here is that this legislation,
sponsored by the Senator from Kansas, is a move to the new century. It
is a move to a modern workplace. It is a move to flexibility. It is a
move to better morale. We have great anxiety and frustration in the
workplace today. This kind of legislation, which offers a move toward a
modern setting, is absolutely required.
The letter that I referred to a moment ago was prepared in response
to repeated statements by Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and the AFL-
CIO that few companies care about passage of the TEAM Act.
I do not know where they are getting their information, but it is not
corroborated by any survey I have seen. It is not corroborated by any
of the employees who have come at their own expense to Washington from
Georgia to argue in support of what the Senator from Kansas is
endeavoring to do. It is not supported by anything I have personally
seen in the workplace. I have had a chance to look at these teams and
watch what it does to company productivity and company morale.
The letter to the President, as I said, is dated June 21. It said:
In your State of the Union Address this last January, you
said, ``When companies and workers work as a team, they do
better and so does America.'' We agree, and your leadership
is needed now to allow 85 percent of the American work force
to respond effectively to your call.
The only way you could characterize opposition to this modern device
in the workplace is that old ideas adopted by AFL-CIO labor leaders in
Washington simply cannot abide by modernizing the workplace. They are
benefited by leaving things just the way they are, where they feel they
can be in complete control.
I point out that the measure very carefully does not affect
collective bargaining. It just allows American workers the same
benefits that are accruing in industrialized nations all around the
world and that have threatened our competitiveness. It is time for us
to modernize our workplace. It is time for us to allow our creative
workplace to do those things that our competitors are doing so we can
match them in this global economy.
Mr. President, I yield back any time I have remaining to the Senator
from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to
the Senator from Georgia for his comments. I know that he cares a great
deal about trying to make sure we can have a creative and constructive
environment in the workplace, certainly in the State of Georgia. He
also recognizes how that environment has helped businesses grow in the
State of Georgia.
I would like to add a comment about something else that was stated
earlier, that there was really no need for us to have this legislation;
that, as a matter of fact, there were many cases that had been
favorably handled and that there was not a worry in the workplace.
I would just like to give an example of why there is concern. A
National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge has handed down
a decision in the long-awaited Polaroid case. The Polaroid Co. has been
heralded as one of America's most progressive companies, having
championed workplace collaboration since the 1930's.
Following the NLRB's decision in the 1992 Electromation case, which
sparked this effort to try to clarify the National Labor Relations Act,
Polaroid concluded that its 60-year-old teams violated the Board's
rule. The company tried to restructure its committee organization to
comply, but the NLRB's June 14 decision shows the futility of such
efforts. Even though the new committee structure was much weaker than
the old, the administrative law judge ordered it disbanded.
Polaroid further illustrates for employers the clear rule on
meaningful workplace cooperation: If it happens in a nonunion setting,
it is regarded as illegal.
The Polaroid case also addresses another argument propounded
repeatedly by the opponents of cooperation in nonunion settings: The
TEAM Act is not necessary because antiteamwork NLRB decisions only
happen in small companies that are not household names. Certainly
Polaroid is a household name. It is one we have all heard of, and I
think the Polaroid case clearly illustrates why the current law has
caused uncertainty throughout the Nation's companies as they try to
comply with the letter of the law.
To quote from a press release of Bill Gould, Chairman of the National
Labor Relations Board, on June 6, in which he said in a speech in
Omaha:
In a non-union situation, the sensible response to all of
this is to allow employee groups, with or without a
management representative component, to discuss anything that
they would like to, whether it be wages, break periods or the
problems confronted in selling the product. The more that
workers know about the enterprise and the better that they
are able to participate effectively in decision making, the
more likely it is that both democratic values and
competitiveness are enhanced. And, if the law is simplified,
lay people--ordinary workers and small business persons--will
be able to adapt to their own circumstances and avoid
reliance upon wasteful litigation and the high priced counsel
that go with it.
He went on to say:
Employers ought to be able to promote the creation of and
to subsidize employee groups. In the real world that is what
is happening anyway. With workers unrepresented by unions in
85 percent of the workforce, how else can such systems
flourish?
To be fair, as I said before, Chairman Gould does not support the
TEAM Act that is before us. But clearly his statement in Omaha in June
indicates that he does believe the very problem we are trying to
address in the TEAM Act should be addressed. I believe, however, that
the problem is addressed in the TEAM Act in such a way that it could be
supported by a broad range of those on both sides of the aisle. Those
who speak in opposition clearly are those who fear it will do something
that, indeed, it could not do. By the language in this legislation,
their fears could not be realized--it in no way infringes on the
collective bargaining process or the letter of the law in the National
Labor Relations Act.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time to be
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to reject the TEAM Act.
Its supporters pretend it is needed to increase the competitiveness of
American industry, and they pretend it will promote the kind of
cooperative workplaces that will have an advantage in the world
economy. But those arguments are a sham.
This legislation has nothing to do with cooperation and everything to
do with undermining workers' rights. It overturns one of the
fundamental protections of American law, that employers cannot set up
company-dominated unions as a trick to prevent workers from joining
real unions.
No one opposes honest cooperation between labor and management in the
workplace. But Congress should not try to tip the balance by siding
with union-busting employers.
Do not be fooled by the smokescreen set up by the employer coalition
that wants this legislation. This bill is designed for one purpose
only: To nullify the critical provisions of current law that make it
illegal for any employer to dominate or interfere with a labor
organization.
Under the TEAM Act, management can create a labor organization,
dominate it, interfere with it, or terminate it as management sees fit
as long as management does not try to engage in
[[Page S7475]]
collective bargaining or create legally enforceable rights.
What does this mean? It means that employers will be permitted to
substitute a representative they control for a genuine representative
of the employees. The TEAM Act would make it legal for management to
foist a labor organization on employees that employees did not ask for
or did not vote for. It would be legal for management to impose a
company-dominated union made up of employees handpicked solely by the
employer. They would meet when the employer sees fit, consider only the
issues the employer wants considered, and then speak for all the
employees when they do so.
The Senate should have no part of puppet unions like that. Making
that kind of one-sided, phony labor organization legal has nothing to
do with promoting labor-management cooperation or competitiveness. It
has nothing to do with empowering employees. It is cynically designed
to increase the power of employers and give managers more and more
control over the lives of their employees. If management can dominate
employees' organizations, they can control the demands that employees
make for better pay and better working conditions.
That is precisely what happened in the court case that proponents of
the TEAM Act rely on. In the Electromation case, an Indiana
manufacturer responded to employee unrest about wages and benefits by
setting up employee action committees that the company dominated and
controlled. In the words of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, the company proposed and essentially imposed the
action committees upon its employees as the only acceptable mechanism
for resolution of their acknowledged grievances.
Electromation unilaterally selected the size, structure and
procedural function of the committees. It decided the number of
committees and the topics to be addressed by each. Despite the fact
that the employees were seriously concerned about the lack of a wage
increase, no action committee was designated to consider this specific
issue. I repeat that. Despite the fact that the employees were
seriously concerned about the lack of a wage increase, no action
committee was designated to consider this specific issue. In this way,
Electromation actually controlled which issues received attention by
the committee and which did not.
That is precisely the kind of domineering management behavior that
the TEAM Act would legalize. Electromation demonstrates what this bill
would do. Senators who think it is right for employers to impose a sham
organization on their employees, who think it is right for the employer
to control which grievances employees can air and how and when they can
be aired should vote for the TEAM Act. But do not pretend you are
voting for cooperation in the workplace. If you reverse the
Electromation case, you are voting for domination of employees, not
cooperation with employees.
The National Labor Relations Board, made up exclusively of members
appointed by Republican Presidents, made clear the Electromation
company only wanted to control the discontent of its employees after
the company unilaterally changed wages and working conditions. The case
has nothing to do with cooperation, quality or efficiency.
In the words of the NLRB, the purpose of the action committee was, as
the record demonstrates, not to enable management and employees to
cooperate to improve quality or efficiency, but to create in employees
the impression that their disagreements with management had been
resolved bilaterally.
In short, the company was engaged in a fraud on the employees, and
the TEAM Act would legalize that fraud.
Some have suggested there is no harm in the kind of phony labor
organization the NLRB struck down, because sooner or later the
employees will discover the fraud and reject the employer-controlled
committee. They argue nothing in the TEAM Act prevents employees from
voting for a real union that would truly represent their interests.
But many of the employees in the Electromation case did see through
the fraudulent action committees created by the company's management.
They wanted to be represented by a union. They petitioned for a union
election, but they were defeated. The NLRB filed a complaint against
the company for the unfair labor practice of dominating a labor
organization. The company suspended the action committees, and the
union won a rerun of the election.
Once the Government stepped in and protected the employees' rights,
the employees exercised those rights. Without the current law, the
phony committees would never have been suspended, and the union would
never have won.
That is what the TEAM Act is all about: Substituting sham, company-
dominated unions for genuine employee representatives. If the TEAM Act
passes and employers are given the green light to create sham
organizations, it will be harder for unions to organize. That is the
real goal of the TEAM Act, and the Senate should have no part of it.
Let us have genuine cooperation, not fake cooperation, in the
workplace. It is wrong for employers to impose organizations on their
employees that they have not asked for or voted for.
No one, that the employees have not chosen, should be given the
authority to represent them. American workers today have the right that
Congress gave them 61 years ago to choose their own representatives--
that is what this issue is really all about--whenever they discuss the
issues of wages, hours and working conditions with their employer. The
TEAM Act would take that right away, and it deserves to be defeated by
the Senate and vetoed.
Mr. President, I point out, once again, for the benefit of the
members of the committee, our own committee report that was filed by
the majority, with a minority report as well, on page 8 of that report,
what the current situation is with regard to cooperation.
All of us want cooperation. All of us want the increase in
efficiency, increase in competitiveness. That is taking place today. It
is taking place with regard to health and safety, which had been
referred to earlier in the debate. In the State of Washington and the
State of Oregon, these worker committees have gotten together to
consider health and safety issues. They have been appointed by the
employer and representatives of the workers. They have worked very
effectively.
We have seen significant reductions of Workmen's Compensation costs
in the States of Washington and Oregon because of these joint
committees of cooperation. They are taking place today, and they are
working.
We have seen even, according to the business organizations in that
State, the savings for businesses in the State of Washington of over $1
billion in the last 5 years because of this kind of cooperation. That
is taking place today.
We had tried to advance a similar concept 2 years ago, and we were
opposed in the Human Resources Committee by our Republican friends. We
were trying to share and encourage that kind of cooperation that was
taking place in the States and saving workers billions of dollars that
were effectively being denied them with increased wages because they
end up on Workmen's Compensation, as well as denying employers a
greater return on their investment. Our Republican friends responded:
``No, we aren't going to have any part of that but as a substitute
under the word of 'TEAM.' We have this other proposal.''
The committee majority report indicates ``Employee Involvement
Works.''
During the past 20 years--
This is the majority. This is those favoring the alleged TEAM Act.
During the past 20 years, employee involvement has emerged
as the most dramatic development in human resources
management. One reason is that worker involvement has become
a key method of improving American competitiveness.
Evidence of the success--and corresponding proliferation--
of employee involvement can be found in a 1994 survey of
employers performed at the request of the Commission on the
Future of Worker-Management Relations. The survey found that
75 percent of responding employers--large and small--had
incorporated some means of employee involvement in their
operations.
That is going on now. That is taking place today. Meaningful
cooperation is taking place today.
Among the larger employers--those with 5,000 or more
employees--the percentage was even higher, at 96 percent. It
is estimated that as many as 30,000 employers currently
[[Page S7476]]
employ some form of employee involvement or participation.
It is working. This is a problem that effectively does not exist,
with the exception of those particular employers who want to use this
as a means and a device to undermine legitimate worker interests in
terms of their working conditions and in terms of their future salaries
and their economic interests.
The success of employee involvement can also be found in
the views of American workers. A survey conducted by the
Princeton Research Associates found overwhelming support for
employee involvement programs among workers, with 79 percent
of those who participated in such programs reporting having
``personally benefitted'' from the process. Indeed, 76
percent of all workers surveyed believed that their companies
would be more competitive if more decisions about production
and operations were made by employees rather than managers.
It is happening today. It is going on as we are here this afternoon.
Clearly, employee involvement is more than just another
passing fad in human resources development. Over the last 20
years, it has evolved--along with a global economy--into a
basic component of the modern workplace and a key to
successful labor-management relations. As such, American
industry must be allowed to use employee involvement in order
to utilize more effectively its most valuable resource--the
American worker.
Everything on there we agree with. That is not what this is about.
That is taking place. Even the majority is pointing out that 30,000
employers currently are doing this. So it is suggested by some, well,
they cannot do it enough or they are concerned about this particular
issue and this particular problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask, Mr. President, what is the time agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an hour on the bill, equally divided.
The Senator could use some time off the bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I will yield myself 15 minutes on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, now just to refer to the fact that
cooperation between the employers and the employees is necessary. The
majority has recognized that in the largest plants, it is about 96
percent being utilized and in the smaller plants over 75 percent.
So now let us look at what has happened since 1992, since this
Electromation case that evidently is causing all of this uncertainty
out there with regard to this kind of cooperation--there are 30,000
companies where this is taking place. ``The NLRB Orders to Disestablish
Work Committees,'' from 1992 through 1995, 4 years. And 30,000
employers doing it.
Are there any disestablishment orders in the State of Washington? No,
not even one. Any in the State of Oregon? No. Zero. In the State of
Nevada, zero. These are cases allegedly that are being brought, can be
brought by employees, employers. disestablishments in California, two.
Utah, zero. Arizona, zero. Alaska, zero. One in Colorado. None in
Wyoming. And the list goes on. None in North Dakota. None in South
Dakota.
What is the problem, Mr. President? We are saying we are all for
cooperation. If we do not have a problem, I think it is reasonable to
ask, what is really the purpose behind this legislative effort? And I
suggest that the real purpose of it is not just to develop the
cooperation, which is taking place today, but is effectively to
undermine the legitimate economic interests of the workers in those
particular States.
Mr. President, we can look at how much of a problem this is. I hope
our colleagues will look through this. This is a handful of cases
between 1992 and 1995 that this bill is supposed to correct.
Mr. President, if we look over here we can see that this is even more
graphic as to what the true problem is; 8(a)(2) charges--these are the
charges that we are considering here to address the TEAM Act--227.
Now 8(a)(3) charges. What are these? These are the firings of various
workers for their participation in union activity or trying to join a
union. They are being dismissed, illegally, by their employers. Those
are 8(a)(3) charges, 13,000. Compared to 8(a)(2), 227.
Look. In 8(a)(2) remedies, 87 remedies out of the 227. Look. Remedies
for reinstatement, 7,000; and 8,000 for remedies of back pay. Remedies
for reinstatement are when there has been adverse action by the
employer, violating the law. That is what these cases are, 7,900 of
them in 1994 to reinstate because of illegal activity by the employer
versus 87 with regard to 8(a)(2).
It seems to me if we ought to be here this afternoon, we ought to be
doing something about these workers that are being illegally abused and
treated in their employment by employers. For 8(a)(3), 8,500 were
reinstated with remedies for back pay.
Mr. President, nonetheless, we are asked to go on out here because of
this uncertainty, allegedly. We do not have any record to indicate that
this is a major problem. What we do have is the major indication about
what is happening out there in the real working places of this country.
We are interested in cooperation. But the way to get it is to have
employers respect employees and to have that vice versa, Mr. President.
That is done when you have effective collective bargaining.
What has happened? ``Proportion of the NLRB Elections in which a
Union Supporter is Illegally''--Illegally--``Discharged.'' If we were
around here to consider what we ought to be doing something about, look
at the growth, according to the NLRB, in cases where a worker is
illegally discharged, from 1975 to 1985, and right up here in the
1990's. The increase of 400 or 500 percent, depending how you want to
calculate it, over that period of time, where we are finding
individuals--individuals --are pursuing their economic rights for
themselves, their wives, their children, illegally discharged under the
current law. That is what is going on out here in this country.
Here is another chart that would support the same kind of analysis in
terms of the 8(a) charges. In the early years you find out, between
1950 and 1954, for the 8(a)(3) charges, the number of average annual
back pay awards going up considerably here, as it indicates that these
workers are being illegally fired. The average number of reinstatements
continues to escalate because they are being illegally fired. That is
happening to individuals.
Finally, Mr. President, this other chart I have back here would
indicate what the percent is of the total number of cases that we are
talking about. I direct our colleagues right up here, 8(a)(2). Of this
whole pie, for the illegal activities of employers against workers, for
all of this whole pie, this tiny slice is it, right in this darkened
area, 227 cases. Yet we are being asked to legislate on this particular
issue.
It is a problem, Mr. President, that does not exist. This is being
promoted, supported, for legislative action by those who are the most
strongly committed to denying equal justice and fair justice to the
workers of this country. That is why it is not coincidental that we
will have this debate and a vote tomorrow, and we will have the vote on
another proposal that is antiworker on the issue of the right to work.
We will have the proposal for a cloture to end debate on the right to
work bill. The bill was put down last Friday. We have been under
controlled time on these other matters for the time. But, nonetheless,
we will be asked to vote to end debate. I do not know of any filibuster
that has been promoted on that measure, but we will be asked to vote to
end debate, despite the fact it was never reported out of committee. We
had one day of hearings. It was never reported out of the committee.
And they laid down a cloture motion on that legislation to deny any
kind of discussion, debate.
We are going to have that. We will have these two measures, one on a
matter that is really not before the workers and employers of this
country. The report itself has demonstrated the expansion of work
cooperation, which we agree with and which we support. The total number
of cases are pitifully small against a background where there is
increasing illegal activity against workers. And their interests are
being ignored.
Mr. President, just to speak very briefly for just a few moments on
the issues of the right to work. It is so interesting that it is our
Republican colleagues who are constantly talking about the right to
work issue. We now find that there are some 23 States that are right-
to-work States. The remaining majority of States are not right-to-
[[Page S7477]]
work States. So States have been making their minds up under the
current and existing law. States have been deciding what is in their
interest.
How many times have we heard that talked about here on the floor of
the U.S. Senate? States ought to be able to make their judgments. We do
not want the long arm of the Federal Government interfering with the
legitimate interests of the States. Now wait a minute, with the
exception of the right to work. There we want a Federal imposition of a
national policy that will have the right-to-work statute override State
law.
What does that really and effectively do? This is the interesting
point. Under the current law there is no requirement that any worker be
required to join a union if the decision is made by the members, the
workers in there, to go and vote for a union. They are not, under
current law, required to join. But if they are going to continue to
work there, and there is going to be continued enhancement in terms of
their wages, working conditions, in their child-care programs, and
their pension as a result of collective bargaining, they can be
required under the current law--if both the employer and the union
agree--to at least pay for that part of the union activity that is
going to enhance their benefits. In other words, no freeloaders, no
freeloaders.
If they are going to be a part of the work force in a particular
plant or factory, and they choose not to join their union, they have
that right not to do so. If the union goes ahead and gets an increase
in terms of wages, an increase in their health care benefits, an
increase in consideration for child care or other kinds of activities
as a result of their activity, then that individual has to make a
contribution to the extent that those dues would be used to finance
that financial and economic enhancement. OK, that is what the
conditions are under the law today.
Now, we will have a situation when we vote tomorrow, we will vote on
cloture on a bill that will say, ``Look, to those workers that are out
there, if you in your particular company vote to have a union, you do
not even have to pay for any of the basic improvements that you get in
your working conditions.'' If that union goes on out and has a strike
and enhances their economic conditions, increases their wages, improves
working conditions, increases health care, gets better coverage for
patients, pensioners, and better coverage for children at the end of
the day, that other individual who gets the same benefits does not have
to pay a thing, does not have to pay a thing.
That is the effect of the passage of a national right-to-work law.
That is what this act is all about. Apparently, some Senators do not
think that the people in Massachusetts or the State of Washington or
the State of Kansas or any other State can understand that concept
sufficiently enough to be able to make their own judgment. We, in our
almighty wisdom, say that we are going to make that judgment here on
the floor of the U.S. Senate, and even cutting off more debate.
Mr. President, how can you interpret that to be anything more than a
wholesale assault on the economic rights and the struggling efforts
that have been a part of the trade union movement to enhance their
working conditions and economic justice in this country? At a time, Mr.
President, when the rich are getting richer, when the top 20 percent
are the ones that are benefiting the most from this economic expansion,
and the other 80 percent of Americans are being left out and being left
behind in too many instances, there is just a wholesale assault on
those working families. What is it about us that we want to take it out
on these working families? I do not understand it.
Looking at the economic history from 1950 to the early 1970's,
everyone moved along together. We all went along together. Americans
went along together. Now we see this enormous disparity when those that
are the weakest, entering the job market, denied the opportunities in
education because of changes in our education system and the support
systems to permit qualified, talented young Americans to go to schools
and colleges and get the training. At a time when they have that need,
what are we saying? We are saying, on the one hand, under the TEAM Act,
we are going to give more and more authority and power to the employer,
to take it out on you, the workers, on the backs of the working men and
women, by weakening your economic ability to look out for your
interests. Not only are we going to do that, but we will superimpose a
national right-to-work program that on the other hand is going to
remove any kind of responsibility from those who are working in a
workplace where they get economic advantages are going to be
participating and paying their fair share. No, you can be a freeloader
in America; you can be a freeloader. Others who want to work through
the economic system and work through collective bargaining, if they get
some benefit, you can stay and get all the benefits free and clear, and
we have to make that judgment here.
That has been against a background where we have had this constant
resistance to provide any increase in the minimum wage, and only
reluctantly and finally today have we been able to have the opportunity
to gain an expression on the floor of the U.S. Senate to provide an
increase in the minimum wage. It is against a background of continued
efforts to undermine the earned-income tax credit which works, again,
for the low-income workers who have children.
Now, you just cannot say, Mr. President, that this is all accidental,
it is all coincidental. We are also declaring war on Davis-Bacon. The
average income for construction workers is $27,000. I was so amazed and
interested that as soon as our Republican friends gained control of the
U.S. Senate, one of the first things they did was offer a repeal of the
Davis-Bacon Act, which requires payment of the prevailing local wage
for construction workers in this country so that the Federal Government
will not be a promoter or detractor in terms of the wages----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 10 minutes.
That the Government would not be a participant in trying to tilt the
scale of economic justice in the bidding on construction contracts.
They came right here on the floor of the Senate and tried to repeal
that particular protection, undermine the conditions for construction
workers--who average $26,000 or $27,000 a year, and have the second
most dangerous job outside of mine workers in this country--undermine
their ability to provide for themselves. And cutting back on the
earned-income tax credit for those people that make $25,000 to $27,000
and are trying to provide for their children.
They oppose an increase in the minimum wage. Now they are doing it
with regard to a national law on the right to work, and they are also
doing it in terms of the TEAM Act. Can we look against that background
and say, Oh, we have here a TEAM Act that really is in the interests of
those working families, when we have the solid record of what the
majority has been attempting to do to working families? You have a
tough time convincing me of that, Mr. President. You have a tough time
convincing me of that. All we have to do is check and talk with working
families and we find out what those answers are.
Mr. President, I hope when the time comes that the TEAM Act would be
rejected. I have admired the efforts of Senator Dorgan and others to
try and find some common ways they think this matter can be resolved. I
understand that they are working on that particular measure. I, myself,
am unconvinced that we ought to be doing anything at all in this
particular area. It is basically a problem that does not exist, but I
certainly want to listen further to my colleagues and friends who have
been strong advocates for working families, and will continue to
consult with them.
I withhold the balance of our time.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use upon
the Dorgan amendment, and if I utilize all of that time, then I will
use time from the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has talked
about the large number of proposals before the Senate in one form or
another, two of which will actually come to a vote sometime in the next
24 or 48 hours. I will restrict my remarks to
[[Page S7478]]
those two and will attempt to be relatively brief in connection with
each.
First and foremost, because we will be voting on TEAM in an
ultimately final form and presumably sending it back to the House and I
hope to the President of the United States, I wish to make a few
remarks on the TEAM Act itself.
The Senator from Massachusetts, it seems to me, has two objections to
the TEAM Act which are not entirely consistent with one another. The
first is that it is a terrible idea to allow labor-management
cooperation outside of a formal union-management negotiating session;
that we are still, in America, in the position we were in the 1930's in
which most people who work and most people who are employers or
supervisors regard themselves in polar opposite camps with antagonistic
kinds of interests.
The second argument made by the Senator from Massachusetts seems,
paradoxically, quite different and that argument is that there are so
many of these teams and so much cooperation going on at the present
time without any harassment being aimed at it, that we do not need this
legislation.
Mr. President, I think that both arguments are in error, as largely
inconsistent as they may be. We live in a very different world than the
world faced by our predecessors who passed the National Labor Relations
Act of 1935, in a quite different world than the only time in which
major changes were made in that act in 1947.
By and large across this country, both labor and management realized
that management cannot be successful unless it has happy, productive,
and committed employees, and that employees recognize they cannot be
successful unless their management, unless the company for which they
are working, is itself successful. As a consequence, there is a far
greater feeling of community of interest today than there was at the
time of the passage of this act.
So what is it that the Senator from Massachusetts asks us to believe?
He asks us to believe that these interests are always antagonistic with
one another, that employers lust after the ability to do in their
employees in one way or another, largely by subterfuge. He speaks of a
world, Mr. President, that simply does not exist today, and he speaks
about a bill that is very, very short and quite plain in its meaning.
I can read for you the 10 lines of the bill that is before us that
include the entire substance of the legislation, and it reads, and I
quote.
. . . it shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair
labor practice . . . 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 issues of quality, productivity
and efficiency) and which does not have, claim or seek
authority to negotiate or enter into collective bargaining
agreements under this Act with the employer or to amend
existing collective bargaining agreements between the
employer and any labor organization.
That is it, Mr. President. That is all there is to it. People can get
together voluntarily to solve problems without running afoul of the
National Labor Relations Act.
The Senator from Massachusetts has said in his argument you can only
have cooperation effectively with effective collective bargaining. But
in the private sector, only 12 percent of all of the employees of this
country have chosen to engage in formal collective bargaining through a
labor-management relationship.
The National Labor Relations Act protects the right of employees to
join unions and to bargain collectively. It also protects the right of
employees to say, ``We do not want to do it in this way.'' And 88
percent of all of our private sector employees have chosen the latter
course of action. Yet, at one level, the Senator from Massachusetts
says they should not be allowed to do anything at all. Everything that
is done is likely to be a subterfuge for a company-dominated union to
get around the National Labor Relations Act itself, and at the other
level he says, ``Oh, no, we can do it already.''
The problem is that the ability to continue to do what has grown up
spontaneously all across this country is threatened by the actions of
the National Labor Relations Board and of the courts of the United
States.
All this proposal does is, in effect, to say you can keep on doing
what you have been doing. You can deal with a number of matters of
general interest like quality, productivity, and efficiency, and, if we
pass the Kassebaum amendment, it will add to that health and safety as
specific subjects for such cooperation together with other alliances.
That is all it says. The Kassebaum amendment will make it even more
clear that this does not undercut those labor-management agreements
that exist with respect to 12 percent of private sector employment
which is covered by collective bargaining agreements at the present
time.
My question is: What are they afraid of? This is happening. It is
threatened. This bill will remove that threat. No one has to engage in
this kind of activity who does not wish to. Any group of employees who
wish to join a union and operate under the National Labor Relations Act
retains the right to do exactly that.
This is 1996, Mr. President. We have a far more cooperative attitude
today. We need that more cooperative attitude to compete with the rest
of the world. We need it for the increasing prosperity of our society,
and this bill, with the Kassebaum amendment, will accomplish exactly
that goal.
We do not need to repeat the arguments of 1935. They are no longer
relevant. It is possible to do a job both for employees and employers
outside of the specific strictures of the National Labor Relations Act.
That is what the TEAM Act proposes. That is why it ought to be passed.
I must say I do find myself in agreement with the Senator from
Massachusetts on one of the other subjects that he brought up, and that
has to do with the cloture vote on a national right-to-work law, which
will also be voted on here. I intend, as he does, to vote against
cloture on that proposition because I am, as he said he was--but I
think there is a little bit of disingenuousness in it--very much in
favor of the present law which says that each State can make its own
choice with respect to whether or not it will have a so-called right-
to-work law on its books.
Twenty-three States have made such a choice. Twenty-six States have
rejected such a choice. My own State is one of those 26 which has done
so twice by referendum by a vote of the people of those States
themselves.
I believe that is precisely the correct balance in this highly
controversial issue. I do not believe that the people of the State of
Washington should govern the decision of the people of Wyoming in that
connection, or the people of Wyoming, the choices that are made by the
people of the State of Washington.
So I like the present law. I was delighted to hear it defended by the
Senator from Massachusetts, except for the fact that during almost his
entire career he has wanted to repeal the right of States to make that
choice. In other words, he may here today be defending States rights,
but, in fact, he wants to deprive the States of those rights and to say
to a State that has chosen quite freely to pass a right-to-work law
that you do not have the privilege, you do not have the right to do so.
I think this is a matter of federalism. I think this is a matter
which the people of each State should be permitted to choose for
themselves.
I, therefore, will vote against cloture, but I think as a result of a
more profound devotion to federalism that is, in fact, shown on this
issue by the Senator from Massachusetts.
The really important issue, however, Mr. President, is, in fact, the
TEAM Act. It is, in fact, confirming the right of both employees and
employers to do what they are already doing in 30,000 workplaces around
the country: to encourage others to do the same thing without
undercutting the rights of any person who wishes to be a part of a
labor union whatsoever. In order to confirm those rights, we need to
pass the bill.
The bill reflects the real condition of our workplace today. The bill
promotes effectiveness and the competitiveness in our workplace, and,
perhaps equally significantly, it promotes the kind of cooperation that
makes work a more pleasurable as well as a more remunerative way in
which the great majority of the working age population of
[[Page S7479]]
the United States lives so many of its hours at the present time.
It is important that we pass it. I think it is significantly
important that we pass the Kassebaum amendment. But it is one of the
rewards of this long debate over minimum wage that we are not being
subjected to a filibuster on the TEAM Act but, in fact, are going to be
permitted to express our views on it tomorrow. I look forward to its
passage.
With that, Mr. President, seeing no one else desiring to speak, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GORTON. 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. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum be
divided equally with respect to time of each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of the
TEAM Act. I commend Senator Kassebaum, chairman of the Senate Labor and
Human Resources Committee, for bringing this bill out of committee and
making it a high priority.
I think it is useful to begin with a review of why this legislation
is necessary. Because the idea of employer-employee communication and
cooperation seems so fundamental, it is astonishing to some people that
this measure must be debated at all let alone the fact that it is so
controversial.
In 1992, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision in the
Electromation case which held that employer-employee committees to
discuss workplace procedures and policies violated the National Labor
Relations Act.
As a former union member, I understand full well the NLRA's
prohibition on so-called company unions. But, the Board's decision in
Electromation, which defines a ``quality circle'' or ``child care
center feasibility committee'' or other form of employee-employer
committee as a company union, misses the mark entirely.
It simply cannot be claimed at the NLRA was intended to outlaw every
type of employee-employer input mechanism. To state otherwise is to
advocate that workers can communicate with employers only through
unions. Since when does the U.S. Government impose that kind of gag
rule on American workers?
I can hardly believe that my colleagues on the other side are going
along with this twisted interpretation of labor law.
But, I suppose $35 million from the AFL-CIO could be a powerful
incentive to grant organized labor such a special privilege at the
expense of the rank and file.
The TEAM Act does not--does not--authorize any employee committee or
cooperative organization to engage in collective bargaining.
The TEAM Act does not--does not-affect any employee's right to join a
union. It should be noted that the TEAM Act applies to nonunion
employers.
So, what are some of the horrible things that employee-employer
committees are barred from discussing?
It is illegal under Electromation from discussing free coffee for
employees. It is illegal to discuss the possibility of providing a soda
machine, microwave, or other furnishings for the employee lounge.
It is illegal to discuss tornado warning procedures or rules about
fighting. It is illegal to discuss a ban on radios or the use of video
game machines. It is illegal to discuss rules about posters, drug and
alcohol testing, dress codes, or a smelly propane buffer. It is illegal
to discuss sponsoring a company softball team.
I cannot believe that there is a single Senator who would defend such
obstruction to cooperation and employee input in decisionmaking. And,
it seems pretty incongruous to me that an American institution that
claims to want to give workers a louder voice in their workplaces is
leading the opposition.
It seems as if organized labor is afraid of empowering workers. It
seems that organized labor does not want workers to have their own
voice. It seems that organized labor not only does not condone
employers who seek out workers' opinions on workplace issues, but also
demands that such openness continue to be punished by law.
Mr. President, there is really very little more to say about this
measure. The TEAM Act, which would repair this ridiculous
interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act, is a good,
commonsense bill.
Once again, I want to extend my appreciation to Senator Kassebaum for
her leadership on this issue. As one who has walked a mile in her
moccasins, I know just how confounding any change in labor policy can
be. I mean, good grief, the dollar threshold for the Davis-Bacon Act
has not been raised since 1931.
I urge all my colleagues to support this measure. And, I call on
President Clinton to sign it into law.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support to the
TEAM Act. In my own State of Colorado, I have seen how beneficial the
TEAM Act can be to both employers and employees. The reason for the
success is simple, the TEAM Act makes good sense. The act ensures that
all employees have the right to be heard, thereby strengthening the
hand of U.S. companies in competitive world markets. The TEAM Act does
this without hindering the rights of employees to choose union
representation or infringing on workplace safeguards that are already
in place.
Any well-intentioned law can have harmful, unintended consequences.
The Team Act would rectify the unintended consequences of section
8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act to allow employees and
managers to address issues such as scheduling, work assignments, health
and safety, training, and work rules, all of which are now illegal
topics of discussion in nonunion workplaces.
The archaic provisions of section 8(a)(2) of the 1935 National Labor
Relations Act are entirely out of step with modern management
techniques that are mutually beneficial to employers and employees. It
is shocking to this Senator that employers and employees are not
allowed, under the law, to sit down and discuss issues of importance to
them. A regulation designed to protect American workers has been
twisted to a purpose for which it was never intended. No law should
prevent employees and employers from working together for the common
good of the employee and the company.
Management-labor cooperation makes a lot of sense. The people
actually doing the work often have a better handle on the problems and
possible solutions that can help American industry be much more
productive. The TEAM Act encourages workplace cooperation by involving
the employee in the decisionmaking process of the company. Active
participation in discussions about quality, production, and other
workplace issues makes companies like Eastman Kodak in Windsor, CO, run
more smoothly and produce a better product.
If American companies are going to remain competitive, employers and
employees must work together to improve quality productivity, safety,
and efficiency. Countries such as Japan and Sweden have already
implemented this practice of cooperation in the form of quality circles
in which managers sit down with employees to plot strategy, improve
quality and productivity, and discuss safety. To remain competitive on
the global market American companies and their employees need to be
able to come together and discuss their concerns without fear of being
penalized for violating the National Labor Relations Act.
Currently there are over 30,000 companies with workplace cooperative
programs. It is time to change an outdated law and let employers and
workers cooperate. It is my hope that we will pass the TEAM Act.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield 10 minutes or such time as the Senator from
Vermont would need.
[[Page S7480]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I have come to speak on the TEAM Act. I do so because I
feel very strongly that there is a misunderstanding as to what we are
discussing, the importance of it to this country, and that if we sat
back and took a look at where we are and what we are talking about and
understood the ramifications, there would be unanimous support for the
TEAM Act.
I come to you with somewhat of a different perspective than some of
my colleagues. I earlier today supported the minimum wage. I am not one
who has anything but respect for the various positions of labor versus
management. Sometimes I am with one; sometimes I am with the other. On
this one, I am strongly in favor of doing what must be done to improve
this Nation's productivity, and that is what we are talking about
here--this Nation's productivity--for if there is no productivity,
there is no profit. If there is no profit, then there is nothing for
the workers and the management to split up for the owners and the
stockholders.
So I come here as an original cosponsor of the TEAM Act because I
believe that cooperation between employers and employees is the wave of
the future. Unfortunately, it has been the wave of the future for our
competitors for some 40 years. We are behind. Why? The historical
confrontation and conflict models of industrial relations will not
serve us in this 21st century, the models that were created in the
1930's when we had industries taking advantage of workers, when it was
necessary for the workers to join together to fight for higher wages
and to fight for their share of productivity. We now have a realization
that the processes we utilized in the 1930's are no longer relevant.
That was learned by our competitors many years ago.
I was a senior at Yale University back in the late 1950's, and at
that time we took a look at what needed to be done to improve
productivity and to improve how our Nation could meet the demands of
the future. Many suggestions were made. I remember writing my senior
thesis, and I understood what needed to be done, in my own mind, in
order to improve the productivity of this Nation.
At that time we were discussing innovative matters, such as workers
and management getting together, learning how to split the profits
through profit sharing, stock options, and all of these matters. It was
a fascinating time for academia. As we studied and put together
imaginative ideas on how to improve productivity in the Nation, there
was just one problem. Nobody was listening, neither the management nor
the workers, for they were all still in the 1930's mode, wondering what
could be done as they fought each other to see who could get the
advantage over the other.
Who was listening? The Germans, the Japanese--the Asians, the
Europeans. What happened? If you look back now, you see such an
unbelievable contrast of what the goals were in manufacturing, and what
the results were. Ours was, ``fight, fight, fight.'' And what happened?
As we went through the years, the relationships between management and
workers did not improve. In fact they got testier, they got worse. And
in some cases, like the automobile industry, workers were in a
situation where they got tremendous advantages for themselves, but all
of a sudden they were fighting the Japanese and Germans, and those
automobiles came in with much better quality. And what happened? We
almost lost the automobile industry.
Why? Because the Europeans and the Asians had understood, as we did
not at that time, that if the workers and management could sit down
with each other, could take a look at what their problems were that
they had to face, how they could improve quality, how they could work
in order to improve productivity, could improve the profit, then they
could all sit down and have a better chance to make sure they were each
taken care of.
So, if you look back at what happened in this Nation, the
relationship between laborers and management has not improved. In fact,
it has even gotten worse in many cases: ``fight, fight, fight.'' What
happened? If you take a look at the unions, our unions have gotten
weaker. The union movement now is frustrated because it cannot organize
the companies. On the other hand, in Germany and in Japan the opposite
took place. They learned how to get together, concepts which are a
little frightening to those who were worrying about communism in the
1950's. ``My God, you cannot let workers and management get together.''
But they learned to improve their productivity and the way they did
things. When things were returned you went, not to the managers, you
went to the production line and said, ``How come all these parts came
out this way?'' And the workers sat down and said, ``If we improve
this, we will have better quality and sell more.'' And then what
happens? You then argue over how you split the increase in
productivity.
If you examine the unions in Europe, what happened to them is, using
these concepts, they got stronger and stronger. And in Asia they got
stronger and stronger. In fact, in Germany there are workers on the
boards of directors. In Japan they had worked out work security
agreements long before our workers did in this country. The main desire
there is to keep people employed, even sometimes at the expense of
stockholders; even, sometimes, at the expense of corporate profits.
So there the unions, by working together with management toward a
common goal, strengthened the union movement in those countries. In
this country what happened? We were still fighting against each other
and were not worried about productivity.
So what has happened now? This kind of, fight, fight, fight, has
resulted in weird decisions under the NLRB, saying you cannot even sit
down and do the most menial things without going through the whole
process of unionization. We have some 30,000 businesses now that can be
intimidated into doing something because, if they sit down and try to
work it out to improve productivity, they may have an action brought
against them to stop them from working together, stop them from doing
what is necessary to improve their business. They could get fined, they
could receive an injunction to prevent what ought to be done so they
can have more productivity, more profit to split among the stockholders
and workers together.
So why in the world would we now say it is a bad idea to do what our
competitors across the world have been doing, putting us out of
business, and we say we cannot sit down and work together without going
through the whole unionization process? It may not be too late for us.
But it is such a simplistic thought, that it is a good idea for us all
to sit down and figure out how we can change the production line to
improve the product, so we can sell more and then talk about an
increase in wages, instead of saying no, you cannot do that because
that may mean we are working too closely together.
If we work too closely together, my gosh, that is not good.
Why not?
Well, I don't know, but it was not good in the 1930's so it is
probably not good now.
We are not in the 1930's. Relationships between employees and
employers have changed dramatically in those areas where we figured out
the best way to work is to work together. We have shining examples in
this country, Motorola and others, who have learned how to compete, and
to a certain extent the automobile industry, that has learned how to
compete. All it means is to learn to work together.
The TEAM Act means we can work together and improve everybody's
lives. We can improve the safety, we can improve the productivity, and
we can improve the profit. Why in the world would you be against that?
Why? Because we are still in a mindset of the 1930's, which is long
gone if you want to be a competitive business in this Nation.
So I urge my colleagues to forget a lot of the rhetoric they have
heard and just think about the basics of business. That is, if we work
together, management and labor can sit down and figure out how to
improve things, how to improve safety so we lower costs, how to improve
the quality of the things we produce so they are more salable--how we
can make sure we all have a better profit, a better business, a safer
business, so we can be healthier and happier. So why in the world can
anybody be against the TEAM Act? I just do not know how.
[[Page S7481]]
I am hopeful my colleagues will understand that this is incredibly
important for the future of this Nation. For we are being driven out,
in many cases, by our competitors, who understand that teamwork is the
answer to their future. I say we had better learn that lesson. And the
way we are going to start learning it is pass the TEAM Act so those
businesses that do understand what needs to be done can do it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to
the Senator from Vermont, who has been a stalwart supporter of this
legislation, for putting it in a historical perspective that helps us
understand why it is important for us today, and relevant, to consider
the innovations that would help us establish an environment in the
workplace that will lend it great creativity.
Another stalwart supporter who has done much to enhance this
legislation and work with the business community is the Senator from
Missouri. I yield him as much time as he desires from the Kassebaum
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Kansas for her excellent work
in helping us develop the capacity as Americans to be competitive and
to be productive, and to maintain our standard of excellence around the
world.
There is no other nation that has the capacity, especially in areas
of complexity, that the United States does, whether it is in
pharmaceuticals or just in technological industry--whether it be
computers, software, or hardware, the United States is No. 1.
It comes as a result of the recognition of the importance of the
human resource in the equation. You simply cannot be competitive
without tapping every part of the resource that you have. When we think
of this summer and the excitement that will surround the Olympic Games
in Atlanta, it is unthinkable that we would send teams to Atlanta and
forbid the coaches to talk to the players. What nonsense that would be,
not to allow a player to come off the field or off the court and say to
the coach: ``This is what they are doing. This is how we can make an
adjustment to improve our performance, to make it possible for us to be
winners instead of losers.''
It is a fundamental recognition of the fact that the people on the
court will have a different perspective than the people off the court.
The people on the field will have an awareness of how things are going
that is special, different, unique, and of value.
The same is true in industry. No matter how hard a compassionate
manager tries to observe the process from outside, no matter how well
the engineer from the design room tries to structure the environment
for productivity, the fellow who is actually on the floor is going to
have an ability to say, ``This doesn't work here. It may look good in
theory, but it doesn't work in practice.''
We need to tap the resources of the broad spectrum of individuals on
the American team for productivity in order to make sure that we
continue to be winners, that we continue to forge a position for the
United States which puts us at the top of complex industries, the most
valuable services and goods in the world, and gives us the opportunity
to maintain a standard of living that makes America a great magnet.
Last I checked, people were still flocking to these shores. They were
not leaving here to go elsewhere. They were still coming here because
of the great opportunities that exist, because of the way in which this
culture recognizes the contribution that can be made by citizens
generally.
I think that is what the TEAM Act is all about. It is about
understanding and recognizing the tremendous resource that workers are,
that they can be to their own future by guaranteeing productivity and
thereby ensuring job security, that they can be to the competitive
position of this country by outproducing and outworking and outthinking
and outsmarting and outcooperating workers anyplace else in the world.
Most Americans would believe, and it is because we are commonsense
people, that it is OK for employees and employers to talk. If you would
have listened to the debate in this Chamber, you would have heard from
those on the other side of the aisle, ``Why, it's all right, it's all
OK, it's perfectly legal right now. We don't need this.''
When they say it is perfectly legal now, we do not need this, it
confounds me that they have amendments to this. Why would they want to
have a substitute proposal for something that is perfectly OK? The
truth of the matter is, it is not perfectly OK.
Let me read from a list of things that have been ruled inappropriate
for nonunion employers to talk to their nonunion employees on. Let us
just let the American people have an understanding of what the law is
here and whether it needs to be changed.
If you discuss the extension of the employees' lunch breaks by 15
minutes, that is illegal, from the case of Sertafilm and Atlas
Microfilming;
The length of the workday, to discuss how long each workday is going
to be, that is illegal, from Weston & Brooker Co.;
A decrease in rest breaks from 15 minutes to 10 minutes, that is
illegal to talk about with workers;
What paid holidays you have. The Singer Manufacturing case held that
was illegal to talk about;
The extension of store hours during the wheat harvest season. The
Dillon's company case said you cannot talk with workers about that to
get their input.
Who are we trying to kid? Workers know what kind of break they need.
Workers know what kind of workday they would like to work. I know of
one plant in my home State that decided they wanted to work 4 days of
10 hours a day instead of 5 days of 8 hours a day and have 3-day
weekends every week. Why would Government stand between workers and
manufacturers, between managers and employees or their associates to
say you cannot discuss those things, and yet that is what the law is
for eight out of nine American workers, because eight out of nine
American workers are nonunion workers.
You see, this is something that is totally and perfectly all right
for union workers to talk with employers about. It is just not legal
according to the National Labor Relations Board for nonunion.
I could talk to you about other things. Safety labeling of electrical
breakers is wrong for the managers to talk to the employees about. I
hope they go ahead and talk about it anyhow. They ought to.
Tornado warning procedures: Wrong, cannot talk about that.
Purchase of new lifting equipment for stock crew: Wrong.
Rules about fighting: Wrong.
Safety goggles for fryer and bailer operators: Wrong.
Wait a second. We do not want to rule out of the equation of American
business the contribution that employees can make to the safety and
productivity, to the efficiency, to the level of service. If the store
workers want to mention to the managers that we should stay open later
during the wheat harvest in the Great Plains of America, which turns
out to be the bread basket for the world, it seems to me that we should
not make that against the law.
The sharpness of the edges of the safety knives: That is illegal to
talk about.
Pensions, profit-sharing plans, overtime pay: Cannot talk about that.
Oh, it is said that, ``Well, if you talk about those things, the
people will think you have a union when you don't. It will be a sham
union.'' Frankly, I do not underestimate the American worker that
severely.
Over the Fourth of July, over the break of the last 10 days, I went
and worked in about five or six places in Missouri, actually on the job
side by side with people. I never met a single worker who did not know
whether he or she was in a union. They know. Who are we trying to kid?
Workers know whether union dues are being deducted. They know whether
they are in a separate organization. It is not hard. This is not above
the capacity of the American worker. What strikes me is that the
American worker is bright.
I was involved in some jobs which I thought, looking from the
sideline, might be easy or simple, and I found out that to do them
well, there were subtleties about how you did them,
[[Page S7482]]
there were challenges, and the American workers develop those
capacities and those subtle efficiencies and they know how to put them
in the system. They should be able to talk to managers about them.
The idea somehow that if we allow managers to talk to employees,
employees will be tricked into thinking they have a union when they do
not have a union is ludicrous. It underestimates the intelligence of
the American work force. American workers know, they know for sure,
they know surely whether or not they are in a union.
A second objection from the other side is, ``Well, maybe if we allow
people to talk, they will be just talking to certain employees who only
have limited views, and they will not reflect the views of employees
generally.'' There is a safeguard. If there is an unfair system
established where workers and employers are communicating with each
other and it is working against the interests of the workers, it is
easy. Workers have every right to unionize. They can form a labor
union. They can petition for a labor union. They can ask that unions
come in if they think it is unfair.
There is a structural guarantee of competition. If nonunion systems
are not working well for employees, if these things are likely to be so
distorted or so unfair, nothing in this law, nothing in this proposal
in any way derogates, undermines, erodes or otherwise lessens the right
of a worker to petition for an election to organize or unionize a
plant.
If the teams are unfair representatives or if they are shams or if
they are in some way defrauding or abusing the workers, it is clear
there is a remedy, and there is every incentive for employers and
companies not to engage in that kind of activity, because this law does
nothing, does absolutely nothing to change the right of workers to ask
that they be represented, if they choose to, by a union.
There are about 30,000 employers that would like to have such plans.
Why is it they would like to have such plans? Because they have seen
that when we work together we succeed. Strange to me, that is basically
a quote from President Clinton's State of the Union Address. He said,
and I agree, and I quote, ``When companies and workers work as a team,
they do better, and so does America.''
The real truth of that matter is understood in the hearts and minds
of everyone who has ever worked on a team, knowing that when you work
together, you do better than when you work at odds with each other. Yet
we see this administration and its representatives in the Department of
Labor opposing this opportunity, and they should not.
When I was Governor of the State of Missouri I had the opportunity to
work with companies. Like I do today, I would go and work on the
assembly line. I would go and work with people to learn about their
jobs to see what was happening.
One of the companies that was hauled into the justice system of the
Labor Department for cooperating with its employees was a company
called EFCO Corp. It was a small company in Missouri, had about 60
jobs. Now it has over 1,000 jobs. Much of its capacity was to increase
its on-time deliveries, which went from the low seventies up into the
high nineties, and which allowed workers to start working 4 days a week
instead of 5 days a week, get their 40 hours in in 4 days and have long
weekends, spend more time with their kids, accommodate the demands of
their families. It all came from these programs.
What was most distressing was that when EFCO wanted to be involved,
it was said to have dominated its discussion groups or teams because
they provided employees with pencils and pens and allowed them to have
access to the financial records of the company. That was what the NLRB
said was a violation.
You would say this company is bending over backward. It opens up the
books to the workers and says: How can we do better for you and how can
we, as a team, do better, how can we as a company have the kind of
performance and productivity that will recommend us to the world? And
indeed they are now a world-class company. But because they provided
the pens and pencils and they allowed the workers to have access to the
company's financial records, the NLRB filed charges against the
company. This is not the kind of thing that recommends America for
leadership. It is the kind of thing that takes correction.
The ability of union workers to collaborate with employers is well
ensconced. It is fought for by the unions and protected by the
employers, recognized as a great benefit. But why should we limit that
great benefit to 11 or 12 percent of our society, to the one out of
nine workers in America that are in unions? Why not extend this benefit
to all the workers in America saying that it is entirely appropriate
for nonunion workers, as well as union workers, to be involved in
collaborating and cooperating, in providing their good judgment of how
best to improve the situation for workers and to improve the
productivity and profitability of the business?
A great deal has been made by those who apparently resent this
potential, saying how terrible it would be if the employer chose which
workers to talk to. Frankly, most employers want to get a good
sampling. But it seems to me that what they want to do is impose a rule
that says there will be no talking at all for fear that someone might
chose the wrong person with whom to talk. It totally ignores the fact
that if there are really misrepresentations involved in the situation,
there is always the opportunity for those in the plant to ask that
there be a union certified. And that election would proceed under the
new law that has been proposed here just as readily as it does under
the old.
No. I do not think we would send our teams to Atlanta forbidding the
players to talk to the coaches. We have too much sense to do that. No,
I do not think that union companies are going to stop having team
discussions between employees and the company owners and managers. They
have too much sense to do that. And, no, I do not think that this
Government should stand between the owners of corporations and their
managers and the employees who work hard and want to succeed and want
to be productive and keep them from talking to each other, because I
believe the American people have too much sense to do that.
I urge my colleagues to extend this benefit which now inures to the
benefit of one out of nine workers in America to the rest of the
working population. Let us give everyone an opportunity to contribute
to a winning effort, to succeed. That will maintain America's position
as the most productive and most profitable and most rewarding place,
not just for companies, but for citizens, not just for institutions,
but for individuals. It is in fact a reason that America continues to
draw people from around the globe. It is the fact that we have
recognized the worth and value of individuals. And for us to deny their
value in a commercial setting would be a substantial error which we
must not make. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Senator from Missouri for a very sincere
and eloquent statement on a subject that he knows a great deal about.
Senator Ashcroft as both a Governor of Missouri and a Senator from
Missouri has spent a great deal of time, as he mentioned, working in
different companies around the State. He knows this issue well. He
feels very passionately and is dedicated to it. I value greatly his
help with this legislation.
Amendment No. 4438
(Purpose: To provide for a substitute amendment)
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] proposes an
amendment numbered 4438.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the first world insert the following:
1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Teamwork for Employees and
Managers Act of 1995''.
[[Page S7483]]
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.
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 who participate to at least the same extent
practicable as representatives of management 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;''.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON EFFECT OF ACT.
Nothing in this Act shall affect employee rights and
responsibilities contained in provisions other than section
8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering
conforms the TEAM Act to the bill that was passed by the House of
Representatives last fall. It just basically has three provisions that
clarify the TEAM Act.
First, the amendment includes health and safety among those issues
that may be discussed by teams. The original TEAM Act states that teams
may discuss matters of mutual interest, including quality, productivity
and efficiency issues. We always intended for teams to be able to
discuss health and safety. Nevertheless, we wanted to make explicit
that health and safety could be a topic of discussion. The amendment
makes this clarification.
Second, the amendment specifically limits the TEAM Act's safe harbor
to nonunion settings. Despite a construction clause in section 4 of the
bill that should have assured organized labor that firms could not use
teams to bypass a union, organized labor somehow apparently still
believes that teams will undermine unions. That is not the case.
Nevertheless, we make it abundantly clear that we do not intend teams
to undermine unions and we state in plain English that the TEAM Act's
safe harbor only applies to nonunion settings.
Finally, the amendment states that teams have equitable participation
by workers and managers. The purpose of this provision is to clarify
that workers may raise issues for discussion just as managers may raise
issues as well. This is not meant to be a rigid formula for
participation in the teams. It is simply meant to promote open dialog
in teams. Many unionized workplaces suffer from an ``us-versus-them''
attitude, and we do not want teams to suffer the same problem.
This has been my concern with the amendment that was offered earlier
by the Senator from North Dakota. There is a specificity and a rigidity
written into the amendment that does not allow for the flexibility that
I think Senator Ashcroft spoke to with much clarity and eloquence.
Those are the main provisions of the substitute amendment that I am
introducing.
For a point of clarification, Mr. President, I ask how much time is
left on the Kassebaum amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 14 minutes and 10 seconds remaining.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. On my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. And 30 minutes on the other side.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I appreciate that. I think that the Senator from
Vermont wishes to speak again. I yield to him now however much time he
wants out of that remaining time that is left. I yield to Senator
Jeffords.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 14 minutes
remaining.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the TEAM Act because
I believe that cooperation between the employers and employees is
critical to our future. The historical confrontation and conflict model
of industrial relations will not serve us in the 21st century. Over
30,000 American companies use employer-employee involvement programs.
The TEAM Act addresses the concern that the National Labor Relations
Board will discourage future efforts at labor-management cooperation.
Specifically, in the Electromation decision, the NLRB held that
employer-employee action committees that involved workers meeting with
management to discuss attendance problems, no-smoking rules, and
compensation issues constituted unlawful company dominated
unions. Senator Ashcroft went through a whole list of items which
obviously should not have raised the concern of the NLRB.
Congress enacted section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act
forbidding employer domination of labor organizations, to eliminate the
sham unions of the early 1930's. That was an appropriate and necessary
act. The TEAM Act is a direct recognition that the world of work has
changed since the 1930's, as I stated earlier. In that era, many in
American business believed that success could be achieved without
involving workers' minds along with their bodies. Today, recognition is
widespread among business executives that employee involvement from the
shop floor to the executive suite is the best way to succeed.
The employee involvement efforts protected by the TEAM Act are not
intended to replace existing or potential unions--not intended. In
fact, the language of the bill specifically prohibits this result. That
is why it is hard for me to concede that the opposition has any merit.
The legislation allows employers and employee to meet together to
address issues of mutual concern, including issues relating to quality,
productivity, and efficiency. However, those efforts are limited by
language that prohibits the committees or other joint programs from
engaging in collective bargaining or holding themselves out as being
empowered to negotiate or to modify collective bargaining agreements.
It is very clear, that sets the line, you cannot do what the unions are
worried about.
Mr. President, the essence of the matter is the definition of a labor
organization under the NLRA is so broad that whenever employers and
employees get together to discuss such issues, that act arguably
creates a labor organization. In that situation, the existing language
of section 8(a)(2) comes into play and the question becomes whether the
employer has done anything to dominate or support that labor
organization. It takes very little for an employer to be found to have
violated section 8(a)(2).
In prior debates, my Democratic colleagues have disputed whether such
[[Page S7484]]
domination and support can be as little as providing meeting rooms or
pencils and papers for the discussions. However, it is clear that at
present no employer can be 100 percent certain that its dealings with a
team comply with the law. The standard is simply too unclear. Thus, we
have this bill before the Senate.
In our earlier debate on this issue, I heard Senator Kennedy state
that upwards of 80 percent of American companies are engaging in some
form of teamwork or other cooperative workplace programs. His
conclusion was that all this activity is taking place now without a
change in the law, so there is no need to change the law. However, what
that argument misses, Mr. President, is the fact that much of this
activity is a technical violation of existing law.
While these programs may be doing wonders for the productivity of the
companies where they are employed, any of them are no more than a phone
call away from running afoul of the NLRA. What this does is places the
unions in a position of intimidation, to try and force organization
where they may not be able otherwise to get it.
It is no defense to an unfair labor practice charge that the program
is working, that working conditions and productivity have improved, or
that the company's bottom line has risen. None of that matters. If it
is a technical violation of the antiquated rule, the NLRB will shut
down the work team, fine the company, and force it to sign papers
swearing never to do it again. The TEAM Act would prevent the
continuation of these absurd results. That is all we are asking for
here.
I recently was visited by a workplace team from my own State of
Vermont. I am certain many of my colleagues in the Senate have had
similar visits. There are successful teams operating throughout the
country. That is the way it should be. We should keep it that way. The
workers who visited me were from the IBM computer-chipmaking facilities
in Burlington, VT. The more traditional top-down management style still
prevails in most shifts and in most departments in that plant. However,
on the night shift at this plant, the workers decided about 3 years ago
to try a cooperative work team. They chose the name WENOTI for their
group. That name is a combination of the words ``we, not I,'' to
symbolize their focus on what is good for all, not just what is good
for one.
When the team representatives came to my office a few months ago,
they were as proud a group of employees as I have ever seen. The WENOTI
team consistently leads the plant in all productivity and quality
control measures. Moreover, they told me that their job satisfaction
has risen directly to the relationship of their ability to contribute
meaningfully to the successful completion of their jobs. They were
participating, and they were seeing results.
IBM is a profitmaking organization, and it is not promoting employee
involvement solely out of altruism, but, rather, IBM has come to the
realization that employee involvement is vital to the company's bottom
line. Doing so has the added dividend of giving employees a greater
stake and a greater satisfaction in their job. Time and again, you hear
employees praise companies that do not ask them to check their brains
at the door.
So if affected employers and employees support this legislative
effort, what is the problem? It comes as no great surprise that
organized labor takes a dim view of it. Oddly enough, to do so, it also
must take a dim view of the American worker.
Organized labor's arguments are based on the assumption that workers
are not smart enough to know the difference between a sham union and a
genuine effort to involve them in a cooperative effort to improve a
product, improve the productivity, improve the profit, and hopefully,
and most likely what will occur, enhance the ability of workers to see
increased pay and benefits in their job.
In fact, Mr. President, the evil that section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA was
designed to prevent was employees being fooled into thinking a union
was in the plant to represent their interests when, in reality, it had
been set up by the employer to act in the company's best interests.
Employers may have been able to get away with that behavior in the
1930's when this provision was written, but I think today's workers are
smarter and better informed than ever before. I think that is exactly
why the employers are trying to harness their brains as well as their
backs, and in the modern-day work force, the need for brains is greater
every day.
Section 8(a)(2) needs to be amended to reflect the reality of today's
work force. That is all that this bill is trying to do.
The real problem for unions is, under current law, they have a
monopoly on employee involvement. Like the AT&T or the Vermont
Republican Party of old, nobody likes to lose their monopoly. But
consumers or voters or workers profit from choices in competition, not
from a static response to a changing environment.
This is clearly the trend of the future. We should not allow an
outmoded interpretation of law written for an early era get in the way
of this Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the TEAM Act. I urge
them to protect the future of this Nation by allowing us to be
cooperative and to be productive in the world's economy so we can
continue our domination in the world economy.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the efforts of
Senator Jeffords over a long period of time. He has been valuable in
committee as well as making a case on the floor. I thank him.
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] desires to speak. Until he is
here, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 4437, As Modified
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dorgan, I send this
modification of this amendment to the desk.
The amendment (No. 4437), as modified, is as follows:
Strike all after the word ``SHORT'' on page 2, line 1, and
insert the following:
TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Teamwork for Employees and
Management 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 American employers to make
dramatic changes in workplace and employer-employee
relationships;
(2) these 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 structures, which operate
successfully in both unionized and non-unionized settings,
have been established by over 80 percent of the largest
employers of the United States and exist in an estimated
30,000 workplaces;
(4) in addition to enhancing the productivity and
competitiveness of American businesses, employee involvement
structures have had a positive impact on the lives of those
employees, better enabling them to reach their potential in
their working lives;
(5) recognizing that foreign competitors have successfully
utilized employee involvement techniques, Congress has
consistently joined business, labor, and academic leaders in
encouraging and recognizing successful employee involvement
structures in the workplace through such incentives as the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award;
(6) employers who have instituted legitimate employee
involvement structures have not done so to interfere with the
collective bargaining rights guaranteed by the labor laws, as
was the case in the 1930s when employers established
deceptive sham ``company unions'' to avoid unionization; 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 uncertainty and apprehension among employers
regarding the continued development of employee involvement
structures.
(b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) protect legitimate employee involvement structures
against governmental interference;
(2) preserve existing protections against deceptive,
coercive employer practices; and
(3) permit legitimate employee involvement structures where
workers may discuss issues involving terms and conditions of
employment, to continue to evolve and proliferate.
[[Page S7485]]
SEC. 3. LABOR PRACTICES.
Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
158) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new subsection:
``(h)(1) The following provisions shall apply with respect
to any employees who are not represented by an exclusive
representative pursuant to section 9(a) of 8(f):
``(A) It shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair
labor practice under section 8(a)(2) for an employer to meet
with the employees as a group, or to meet with each of the
employees individually, to share information, to brainstorm,
or receive suggestions or opinions from individual employees,
with respect to matters of mutual interest, including matters
relating to working conditions.
``(B) It shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair
labor practice under section 8(a)(2) for an employer to
assign employees to work units and to hold regular meetings
of the employees assigned to a work unit to discuss matters
relating to the work responsibilities of the unit. The
meetings, may, on occasion, include discussions with respect
to the conditions of work of the employees assigned to the
unit.
``(C) It shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair
labor practice under section 8(a)(2) for an employer to
establish a committee composed of employees of the employer
to make recommendations or determinations on ways of
improving the quality of, or method of producing and
distributing, the employer's product or service and to hold
regular meetings of the committee to discuss matters relating
to the committee. The meetings may, on occasion, include
discussions with respect to any directly related issues
concerning conditions of work of the employees.
``(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply if--
``(A) a labor organization is the representative of the
employees as provided in section 9(a);
``(B) the employer creates or alters the work unit or
committee during any organizational activity among the
employer's employees or discourages employees from exercising
the rights of the employees under section 7;
``(C) the employer interferes with, restrains, or coerces
any employee because of the employee's participation in or
refusal to participate in discussions with respect to
conditions of work, which otherwise would be permitted by
subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1); or
``(D) an employer establishes or maintains a group, unit,
or committee authorized by subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of
paragraph (1) that discusses conditions of work of employees
who are represented under section 9 without first engaging in
the collective bargaining required by this Act.
``(3) An employee who participates in a group, unit, or
committee described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of
paragraph (1) shall not be considered to be a supervisor or
manager because of the participation of the employee in the
group, unit, or committee.''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wanted to just speak briefly on the
measure that is before us. I see other Senators who want to address the
Senate this evening. So I will only take a few moments.
But during the course of the discussion about what is legitimate and
what is not legitimate, under existing laws there are a number of items
that were raised, most of which were raised in a previous debate and
discussion on the TEAM Act. We asked the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board to make a comment on them.
I ask unanimous consent that his complete letter to me be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Government,
National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, DC, May 14, 1996.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Senator, U.S. Senate, Committee on Labor and Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: This is in response to your request
of May 11, 1966 for my assessment of the accuracy of certain
claims concerning the proper interpretation of Section
8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) with
reference to S. 295 (the ``Team Act''). As General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), it is my
responsibility to investigate alleged violations of the NLRA
and prosecute meritorious claims. The responses to the
questions you posed set out below are based on my considered
judgment of the proper interpretation of Board cases. They
constitute my view of the applicable law, as General Counsel,
and do not constitute an opinion of the Board or its
individual members.
1. An organization whose purpose is to deal with an
employer to discuss quality, productivity, and efficiency
would not constitute a labor organization, provided it did
not also deal with the employer concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours, or working conditions,
or exist in part for such purposes.
Assuming the employee organization did deal with the
employer concerning working conditions and thus constituted a
labor organization, the employer would not ``dominate'' such
an organization simply by providing it with office supplies
and meeting space. ``Domination'' is typically found where an
employer exercises a strong influence over the organization,
by such actions as initiating the committee, presiding over
meetings, selecting the employee representatives, or
selecting the topics to be discussed. See Electromation,
Inc., 309 NLRB 990, 995 (1992), enfd., 35 F.2d 1148 (7th Cir.
1994).
The NLRB has also made it clear that an employer would not
violate Section 8(a)(2)'s proscription on providing unlawful
``support'' to a labor organization simply by providing a
meeting room or office supplies, provided it did not do so in
the context of other acts of domination, interference, or
support of the organization. Keeler Brass Co., 317 NLRB 1110
(1995); Electromation, 309 NLRB at 998 n. 31; Duquesne
University, 198 NLRB 891, 891 & n. 4 (1972). See, for
example, Sunnen Products, Inc., 189 NLRB 826 (1971)
2. A ``labor organization'' under the NLRA is a body in
which employees participate and deal with the employer
concerning ``grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or conditions of work.'' Discussions of
quality, productivity and efficiency do not necessarily
constitute dealing with the employer on conditions of
employment within the statutory definition.
3. The NLRA does not authorize the NLRB to fine companies
for violating the NLRA. The appropriate remedy for a
violation of Section 8(a)(2) would require the employer to
cease any unlawful assistance to or disestablish an
unlawfully dominated organization and reestablish the status
quo ante.
4. Talking to employees does not constitute dealing. The
NLRB has made clear that nothing in the NLRA prevents an
employer from encouraging its employees, for example, to
become more aware of safety problems in their work, or from
seeking suggestions and ideas from its employees. Therefore,
brainstorming groups, whose purpose is simply to develop a
range of ideas, are not engaged in dealing. Similarly, a
committee that exists for the purpose of sharing information
with the employer, but makes no proposals to the employer, is
not ordinarily engaged in dealing. E.I DuPont & Co., 311 NLRB
893, 894, 897 (1993).
Dealing requires a pattern or practice whereby employees
make proposals to management and management responds to those
proposals. Where there is no dealing, there is no labor
organization and, therefore, no unlawful domination of a
labor organization. Of course, where the employees are
represented by a collective bargaining agent, the employer is
required to discuss bargainable matters through the
representative.
5. Nothing in the NLRA prohibits employees from talking to
their employer about tornado warning procedures. Talking to
employees does not constitute dealing between employees and
their employer. The NLRB's decision in Dillon Stores, 319
NLRB No. 149 (1995), does not hold that it is illegal for
workers to talk with their employers about tornado warning
procedures. That case held that the employer unlawfully
dominated employee committees that presented to management
proposals and grievances on virtually every possible aspect
of the employment relationship. Although at one meeting there
was a question and answer about tornado warning procedures,
that topic was wholly peripheral to the NLRB's decision. The
decision does not describe the nature of the question or
answer. Nor does it even remotely suggest that that exchange
was relevant to the finding that the committee existed for
the purpose of dealing with the employer in that case, or
that any discussion about that subject would necessarily
constitute dealing, or be impermissible.
6. Nothing in the NLRA prevents employers from seeking
suggestions and ideas from employees. Therefore, it does not
prevent an employer from seeking such input from employees
about how to settle a fight among employees.
7. Nothing in the Act prohibits an employer from talking to
employees, who are not represented by a union, about
extending lunch breaks. As already discussed, talking to
employees does not constitute dealing.
The NLRB's decision in Atlas Microfilming Division of
Sertafilm, Inc. 267 NLRB (1983), enfd. 753 F.2d 313 (3d Cir.
1985), is not to the contrary. That case did not involve a
violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA, nor did the NLRB
find that an employer could not discuss extending the lunch
hour with unrepresented employees. There, the NLRB found that
the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA by
unilaterally extending the lunch break an additional 15
minutes, at a time when the employer had an obligation to
bargain with a union that was the exclusive representative of
the employer's employees.
8. It is not illegal for an employer to have a dialog with
his employees about flexible work schedules. Where employees
are simply providing information or ideas, rather than making
proposals as part of a pattern or practice of making
proposals, there is not dealing between the employees and the
employer. Further, where employees seek to make proposals in
the context of an organization over which they have control,
there is no unlawful employer domination of organization.
The NLRB's decision in Weston & Broker Co. 154 NLRB 747,763
(1965), enfd. 373 F.2d 741 (14th Cir. 1967), did not make it
against the
[[Page S7486]]
law for employees to discuss working arrangements with their
employers. The employer in that case did not attempt to
discuss work arrangements with employees. Rather, in that
case, the employer unilaterally changed employees' hours of
employment, without providing notice to the union
representing the employees, or bargaining with the union, and
it was those actions that the NLRB found to be a violation of
the employer's obligation to bargain under Section 8(a)(5) of
the NLRA.
9. It is not illegal for an employer to seek input from
employees concerning improving productivity. An employer is
prohibited only from dominating, interfering with, or
supporting a labor organization. A labor organization is one
that exists in whole or in part for the purpose of dealing
with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment or conditions of work, as
set out in Section 2(5) of the NLRA. When discussions about
productivity do not implicate the subjects listed in the
statutory definition of labor organization, Section 8(a)(2)
of the NLRA is inapplicable. See Vons Grocery Company 320
NLRB No. 5 (December 18, 1995) (employee participation group
devoted to considering specific operational concerns and
problems did not have a pattern or practice of making
proposals to management on subjects listed in Section
2(5), and therefore was not a labor organization).
10. An employer can talk to employees about matters such as
day care centers, softball teams, the employee lounge,
vacations, dress codes, and parking regulations. Employees
can provide information or ideas without engaging in dealing
under the NLRA. Further, employees can made proposals through
an organization, to which the employer may respond, where the
employees have control of the structure and function of the
organization.
I reiterate that these responses represent only my
considered judgment of the applicability of Board precedent
to the questions you pose.
Sincerely,
Fred Feinstein,
General Counsel.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senators have pointed to the recent
administrative law judge decision relating to the Polaroid Corp. as an
example of what is wrong with the National Labor Relations Act. I
disagree with those Senators. Polaroid illustrates what is right with
the NLRA and wrong with the TEAM Act.
In Polaroid the employer created something it called the Employee
Owners Influence Council to replace the Polaroid's Employees' Committee
which the employer unilaterally disbanded. Polaroid got rid of the
committee when advised that the committee was a labor organization
whose officers, under the Landrum-Griffin Act, must be elected.
Polaroid's CEO unilaterally disbanded the Employees' Committee because
he believed that a companywide election would be disruptive, divisive,
and contrary to the collaborative heritage that we value at Polaroid.
When he disbanded the Employees Committee, the CEO expressed concern
that this could leave a vacuum in the company and could lead to a union
organizing drive. Polaroid therefore set about to create an alternative
structure that would be compatible with our corporate values. The
administrative law judge found that in creating this structure,
Polaroid was motivated in part by its opposition to any union, or union
not dominated by the company and by its concern that in the absence of
a company dominated structure, the resulting void might leave an
opening for such unwanted union.
Polariod selected the members of the Employee Owners Influence
Council, controlled the agenda and established all the ground rules for
its proceedings. Polaroid made clear to the employees, as the ALJ
found, that if they wished to have any voice in shaping company policy
and practices they had best do so through the mechanism of EOIC.
Polariod sought to circumvent Sec. 8(a)(2) in creating the EOIC by
transparent artifices. The members of the EOIC were told that they
reflected, but did not represent the views of other employees--although
they could report on what I have heard. The members of the EOIC
likewise were told not to make recommendations, although they could
respond to company proposals. And the members of the EOIC did not
arrive at majority decisions, although polls were taken of the EOIC
members. The ALJ had no trouble seeing through these word games and
found that the EOIC was, in fact, an employee representation committee.
In sum, the Council at issue in Polaroid was unlawful because it
violated the core purpose of Sec. 8(a)(2): it deprived employees of the
opportunity to determine for themselves how they wish to be represented
and to choose their own representatives and substituted, instead, an
employer controlled system of employee representation. S. 295 would,
indeed, allow such employer domination. That is why S. 295 should be
defeated.
Mr. President, I would like to just very quickly mention for the
Members some of the items that were brought up during this afternoon
and that had been brought up previously, and his response to them.
The NLRB has made it clear that employers would not violate section
8(a)(2)'s proscription on providing unlawful support to a labor
organization simply by providing a meeting room or office supplies,
provided it did not do so in the context of other acts of domination,
interference, or support of the organization.
The issue about employers talking to their employees about matters of
mutual interest, and talking to employees, does not constitute dealing.
The NLRB has made clear that nothing in the NLRA prevents an employer
from encouraging its employees, for example, to become more aware of
safety programs in their work, or from seeking suggestions and ideas
from employees.
Therefore brainstorming groups whose purpose is simply to
develop a range of ideas are not engaged in dealing.
Similarly, a committee that exists for purposes of sharing
information with the employer but makes no proposal to the
employer is not ordinarily engaged in dealing.
Nothing in the NLRA prohibits employees from talking to
their employer about tornado warning procedures. Talking to
employees does not constitute dealing with employees and
their employer.
That issue was raised this afternoon as well.
Nothing in the NLRA prevents employers from seeking
suggestions and ideas from employees. Therefore it does not
prevent an employer from seeking such input from employees in
how to settle a fight among employees.
That was suggested to be illegal.
Nothing in the Act prohibits an employer from talking to
employees who are not represented by a union about extending
lunch breaks. As already discussed, talking to employees does
not constitute dealing.
I believe that that activity was suggested as violating the law.
It is not illegal for an employer to have a dialog with his
employees about flexible work schedules. Where employees are
simply providing information or ideas, rather than making
proposals as part of a pattern or practice of making
proposals, there is no dealing between the employees and the
employer. Further, where employees seek to make proposals in
the context of an organization over which they have control,
there is no unlawful employer domination of that
organization.
The NLRB's decision in Weston & Brooker did not make it against the
law for employees to discuss working arrangements with their employers.
The employer in that case did not attempt to discuss work arrangements
with employees. Rather, in that case, the employer unilaterally changed
employees' hours of employment without providing notice to the union
representing the employees, or bargaining with the union, and it was
those actions that the NLRB found to be a violation of the employer's
obligation to bargain under section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA.
There has been references to that earlier in the afternoon. It is
important to put it in perspective, and I believe this comment does.
It is not illegal for an employer to seek input from
employees concerning improving productivity. An employer is
prohibited only from dominating, interfering with, or
supporting a labor organization. A labor organization is one
that exists in whole or in part for the purposes of dealing
with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment or conditions of work, as
set out in section 2(5) of the NLRA. Where discussions about
productivity do not implicate the subjects listed in the
statutory definition of labor organization, section 8(a)(2)
is inapplicable.
Mr. President, I include the whole letter. It is a very good
statement. What we have tried to do is to take a number of the
questions that were raised during earlier debate by a number of our
colleagues and asked for an explanation and for an understanding by the
chief counsel as to the conditions of the law. I think if people take
the time to review the letter and put it against what has been
suggested they would have a clearer idea.
Finally, I come back, Mr. President, to say, as I mentioned from our
previous charts earlier today, we have, No.
[[Page S7487]]
1, seen where this kind of cooperation is taking place in 30,000
businesses across the country. The number of cases that have been
brought each year is virtually a handful. This is not a problem. What
we are doing with, I believe, with the consideration of the TEAM Act is
that rather than get involved in cooperative kinds of endeavors, it is
only going to provide increasing kinds of tension.
When the employers know their rights and the employees know their
rights and they are able to work that out, then we have an increasing
understanding and increasing productivity. When you have exploitation
of one side by the other, you have tension and lack of cooperation. We
find that today there is that increasing cooperation and we support
that and believe that that ought to be the case. But we are strongly
opposed to the idea that under the label of cooperation or some idea of
``team,'' we are going to substitute carefully selected employees by
the employers to be the effective negotiators for employees in the
areas of conditions and wages. That is stated not to be the purpose of
it. If it is not the purpose of it, I do not believe this legislation
is really needed, and for those reasons and reasons outlined earlier in
the day I hope the legislation would not be approved.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I would respectfully disagree with the ranking member
of the Labor and Human Resources Committee; there is a problem. And
while there may be only 1 case out of 1,000 perhaps that is a problem,
it has, as I have said earlier, a chilling effect. And the example I
gave this afternoon was of the Polaroid decision which was in June and
was I think an enormous problem and an example of the effect and
influence on everyone.
Point of inquiry. How much time is remaining for my amendment, or on
my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes 2 seconds.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield to the senior Senator from Virginia that
amount of time plus any leader time he would desire.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, plus what other time?
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Any amount of leader time----
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. The Senator from Virginia desires.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I am here as, I believe, one of the strongest supporters
of this proposed legislation. I am privileged to serve on the Small
Business Committee. Chairman Bond and others had hearings at which I
participated.
Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts
leaves the floor, I wonder if I might ask him a question on my time.
Mr. President, in the course of the hearing before the Committee on
Labor, chaired by the distinguished Senator from Kansas and the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts as the ranking member, I put
forth the suggestion that I find this proposed legislation a first
cousin to the suggestion box which is found in industrial plants and
offices all across America. I have great difficulty in trying to
determine, if you can drop a written suggestion in the box, why can't
one or two employees verbally suggest to their employers--whether it
is, say, a day care center or needed improvements in the restaurant--
why can they not do that and then help the employer implement it? It
seems to me so elementary.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I respond, they cannot only do it but
they do much more in the 30,000 businesses across the country that the
majority report mentions. If you take the State of Washington and the
State of Oregon, the two clearest States, they have been able to save
in State workman's compensation hundreds of millions of dollars, over
billions of dollars have been realized as a direct result of this kind
of cooperation. We are all for that. As we pointed out, this is a
problem that does not exist.
Here is a map showing the virtual nonexistence of these cases before
the NLRB. No one in the State of Virginia has brought a successful case
under this section in the last 4 years. And if the Senator is here
tonight to say that there is great confusion or a great problem or
trouble among the employers, I would like to know about it because no
one has brought a case to the NLRB under this particular section.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would say in the course of the hearing
in the Small Business Committee, we had employers come up who went
ahead and violated the law knowingly and take the risk of being sued,
and one of them was a Virginia firm.
Mr. KENNEDY. The only point is that this is 1992 through 1995 and we
do not have those cases recorded. I have gone over in careful detail
the total number of cases over the period of the last 10 years that
have been brought. I will bring those charts back. I know the Senator
wants to address the Senate.
We are for cooperation. You have the examples of 30,000 different
employers where that is taking place now. We have, I believe it is 227
cases that have been brought in 4 or 5 years as compared to the 13,000
illegal firings of workers in Virginia and around the Nation and the
remedies that have been out there to provide back pay and
reinstatement. This is numbers going in the thousands.
It seems to me, if we are going to talk about doing something to
improve the climate, we ought to be trying to look out for workers'
rights. In 1994, there were 227 charges of 8(a)(2) violations of all
kinds--not just those that are the subject of S. 295. In 1994--as you
know, Electromation was 2 years before, in 1992--there were 87 cases.
You look at those where they have remedies for reinstatements by
employers, 7,900; remedies for back pay because of illegal activity,
8,500, that is a problem.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I disagree with my colleague. I find this
law is always a chilling effect, a very severe chilling effect, on the
ability of the workers of today to implement their suggestions with
management.
If I might pose a second question to my good friend and colleague,
this law was put on the books in 1935. And how well we recall the
profile of the work force in those days, having less benefit of
education, having grown up, father and son, in an atmosphere where the
workers were told what to do by the managers who were not looking for
any suggestions.
That labor force, I say to my good friend, has changed dramatically
since 1935. Today, it is a well-educated work force. It is a work force
that wants to participate and have a voice in their organization, firm,
manufacturing company, or whatever the case may be, becoming more
competitive; competitive domestically, competitive internationally. The
concept in this legislation is spreading through Asia. My good friend
is aware of that.
I would be interested in his views in comparing the work force of
1935 to the work force of 1995, 1996, 1997; and whether or not that
alone, that profile, that change in the individual, does not dictate
that the Congress should awaken to change this archaic law?
Mr. KENNEDY. I would answer it this way, Mr. President. The greatest
danger to the workers in 1935 was company-dominated unions--company-
dominated unions. Anyone who understands the industrial history of this
country understands that they were the principal vehicles which were
used to deny workers their legitimate rights.
All I am saying here is let us not repeat that unfortunate history.
This has nothing to do with the education or the ability of the
employees. It is: Let us not repeat history, to go back to company-
dominated unions. And that is the danger of this proposal.
The final point I make is this. I know the Senator is familiar with
the majority report of the committee. This is the majority report. This
is the majority report that supports the TEAM Act. Citing the
Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations, their survey
found 75 percent of responding employers, large and small, had
incorporated means of employee involvement in their operation. Among
the larger employers, those with 5,000 employees or more, the
percentage was even higher--96 percent. ``It is estimated that as many
as 30,000 employers currently employ some form of employee involvement
or participation.''
Wonderful. Amen. You have it going already and you have no complaints
[[Page S7488]]
about it. Meanwhile, you still have the growing numbers of workers
being thrown out and being reinstated because of violations of the law,
because of illegal activity from many employers, and also remedies for
back pay.
The point I am making is we have those, even in the majority report,
taking place. We are all for it. The area that is proscribed is exactly
the area which the Senator has referred to, and that is the ability of
company employers making decisions about which employees are going to
negotiate and represent employees to negotiate with the employer about
wage and working conditions. That is proscribed. That is what we are
concerned about.
I know Senator Kassebaum has spoken eloquently, and it is not her
desire to substitute the company-designated employees for that purpose.
But I daresay we are going right down the road on it. If we are able to
make progress in the other areas, I think we ought to continue to make
progress, rather than come up with a solution for a problem that I do
not think really exists. But I thank my colleague.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I
feel the workers today are far too intelligent, far too mobile, to
allow that. They will move on to another situation unless they feel
their intelligence is being utilized just as fully as their brawn and
other attributes.
I feel the TEAM Act is a common sense measure designed to eliminate a
Government-imposed restraint on America's competitiveness. This
country, our companies, and our workers must increasingly compete in a
world economy. Every shortcoming of a company, whether it is bloated
management, undereducated employees, or excessive debt, can doom that
company today. This reality faces high-tech firms with Asian
competition and traditional industries struggling against the
developing nations. It is a one-world economy, and I commend the
managers of this bill for bringing forth this legislation to free the
bonds and loosen the shackles and restraints on the American worker
today to get out and compete with workers all over the world. How
different that was in 1935 when, incidentally, this country regrettably
was in a period of isolation and our markets were within our own States
or across State borders.
Then the Wagner Act. That act presently throws into doubt all kinds
of employee involvement programs. It was enacted in 1935 when employees
were expected to do exactly what they were told. ``You are here to be
told what to do, not listened to; to be seen, not to be heard from.''
``Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do or die'' to quote
Alfred, Lord Tennyson. That was over 60 years ago, when almost every
business required a lot more physical labor than creative thinking.
That was when the struggles between labor and management were seen as
zero-sum battles, where laborers fought for every last crumb that their
industrial bosses may have given them. Those days are behind us,
fortunately.
Now we are in 1996 and everybody knows that business must have the
most effective, productive, and satisfied employees to compete in the
world economy. Which plant is going to be more successful, the one
where management calls all the shots and simply barks orders at the
employees? No. It is the company where employees' ideas and suggestions
are encouraged, listened to, respected, and utilized. It does not take
an expert on business productivity to know that employee involvement is
the key to our survival in this one world market.
I was fortunate to chair a hearing in the Committee on Small Business
on the TEAM Act. The hearing was held in April of this year. We heard
testimony from experts but we also heard testimony from the laborers
themselves. I remember one man proudly wore his blue collar outfit.
One expert witness, Edward Potter, of the Employment Policy
Foundation, testified about detailed studies concerning increases in
productivity made by American companies over the past few decades.
Three-quarters of these increases--I will repeat that--three-quarters
of the increases in the productivity were attributable to employee
involvement in their respective workplaces. The team concept was far
more responsible for productivity improvements than, indeed, education,
capital investment, or work experience. Without employee involvement we
have little improvement in productivity. And without increases in
productivity, we are doomed in this one-world market.
I believe in the smarts and talents of the American worker. Companies
and employees in my Commonwealth of Virginia have shown remarkable
ingenuity in using team concepts to take on world competition. The AMP
Corp., a worldwide corporation which manufactures electrical
connectors, has a plant in Roanoke, VA, which provides several examples
of this creativity necessary to meet the challenge of foreign
competition.
One team of workers went with their managers to another AMP facility
and learned a new stamping process. Implementing this process in
Roanoke increased output so much that 20 new jobs were created.
Another team of workers was assigned the task of comparing AMP's
production processes to foreign competitors, a job previously done
solely by management. The employee team was better able to see how
inventory levels, technology changes, and production cycles affected
productivity. As a result, quality and delivery is better, prices are
lower, and the employees have increased job security.
Last, the community education team reaches out to local schools.
Through this team, AMP has been able to recruit new workers from the
Roanoke area with the necessary technology training rather than
recruiting out of the area.
Many Virginia companies have had similar success stories. The team
concept is one that works and it is astonishing that outdated laws cast
doubt on the legality of programs that benefit both the company and its
employees.
I would like to address for a minute the amendments which will be
offered by the other side of the aisle. These amendments would require
that all teams be formed only after formal elections by the employees
affected by the decisions of the team. This is micromanagement of the
workplace at its worst: the present situation where the legality of
teams is unclear is a better one than what these amendments would
create.
Imagine the logistical nightmares of having to hold a formal election
every time more than one employee wants to discuss something with a
supervisor. Take a 20-person printing company where Fred and Jane are
two of 18 non-management workers. Their work stations are next to a
piece of equipment emitting fumes where ventilation around that area is
poor. As a result, Fred and Jane would like to have the machine moved
to an empty area with an air duct. Under these amendments, the 18
workers would have to hold a formal election before Fred and Jane could
suggest to the owner that the equipment be moved. This election no
doubt would have to comply with NLRB regulations about the notice of
the election, timing, secrecy provisions, and the like. Is this really
necessary? Can't we trust the 18 workers to be watchdogs of their own
needs? Can't we trust Fred and Jane to make reasonable suggestions to
the owner? Or do we have to micromanage every decision made in the
workplace? I think the answer is clear.
I believe enactment of the TEAM Act without harmful amendments would
be a boon to American industry and American workers. Only by allowing
them to compete freely in the world economy can we expect our companies
to be successful and their employees well-paid and satisfied. I urge my
colleagues to join me in sending the TEAM Act to the President.
I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from
Kansas, the manager of this legislation, for allowing me to participate
in this debate. I once again extend my strongest congratulations for
your leadership in seeing this legislation move forward and, indeed, to
our fellow colleague, the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, the
chairman of the Small Business Committee.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Senator from Virginia who knows well the
importance of this legislation to the effectiveness and the well-being
of employees.
As a member of the small business community, I think he has addressed
[[Page S7489]]
very effectively just how much it would be an asset to employees, as
well as employers, to have some certainty about their ability to
communicate and work together in the workplace.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.
____________________