[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7508-S7511]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TEAM ACT
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this debate about the so-called TEAM Act
has, unfortunately, produced more heat than light. I first began to
focus on the issue several months ago when I visited a small high-
technology firm in my State, Lasertechnics, in Albuquerque, NM.
Lasertechnics is a very good employer and has on staff about 60 people.
The issues related to unions organizing are far from the minds of
anyone in that firm, as far as I can tell. The company has about two
dozen different teams discussing many task-oriented items. But some of
those teams have the potential of running into subjects considered
``terms and conditions of employment,'' as that phrase is used in the
National Labor Relations Act.
Flex time to help bolster Asia-Pacific sales is one example that
stands out in my mind. If the owner of that company, Gene Borque, just
decides one day to issue flex time schedules or a policy governing flex
time, then clearly there is no violation of the law since there is no
union in that company. If he has a team decide on a policy, and the
team enters into back-and-forth discussions with him on that subject,
then according to the NLRB, there probably is a violation of the law as
it now stands.
This circumstance should be the focus of our discussion if we are
ever able to get into a meaningful discussion about these issues in the
future, because, in my view, Gene Borque, the owner of this company,
should not be in danger of violating the law by operating as he does
today.
The issues being debated are very real. First of all, how can we
assure employers the right to organize their companies to get the best
effort and
[[Page S7509]]
sense of ownership from their workers? And at the same time, how can we
assure employees that they retain an ability to organize into unions
and to bargain on terms and conditions of employment free from the
threat of sham unions being established or manipulated by employers?
These are both legitimate goals. Several weeks ago it was my hope and
my belief that we could develop language to offer as a substitute for
S. 295 that would satisfy both of these objectives.
I had hopes of offering an amendment that would substantially improve
the TEAM Act so that, first, there would be no ambiguity that workplace
teams and nonunion workplaces were permitted under the law, and,
second, that we would specify that teams that discuss terms and
conditions of employment would have to comply with certain other
requirements to assure that company dominated or sham unions could not
be established and that workers would have a determinative role in any
discussions on those terms and conditions of employment.
Mr. President, after several weeks of trying to find this common
ground to propose a substitute for the bill that we are considering, I
have concluded that it is not possible at this time. The organization
of employers that has been formed to support the TEAM Act has
determined to resist amendments and to drive toward passage of S. 295
even though this legislation faces a sure veto by the President. The
labor unions, on the other hand, have organized to oppose the TEAM Act.
Relying on the President's promised veto, they have determined that the
TEAM Act or any substitute for it which amends section 8(a)(2) of the
NLRA should be opposed.
In my view, the concerns that the unions have about the TEAM Act that
is before us are well founded. I do not want to get into a technical
discussion about the legislation, but many people, including the
Chairman of the NLRB, Howard Gould, as well as the Dunlop Commission
and others have argued that an adjustment is needed in section 8(a)(2)
of the National Labor Relations Act because of recent decisions that
have blurred the definition of what are considered terms and conditions
of employment.
S. 295 tries to remove the ambiguity by providing a sweeping umbrella
over all workplace teams and any discussions. In my opinion, this opens
the window to the possibility of company dominated or sham unions. I
have long believed that we might be able to fix the language of the
TEAM Act so as to maintain the flexibility that is required to fit with
the highly fluid nature of a modern workplace team and still build in
protections for workers' rights and interests in this process.
S. 295 needs to be fixed. We have not been able to do so.
Accordingly, I will vote against the bill. I regret that the two sides
on this important issue cannot be brought together on common ground.
Some of the explanation is in the atmosphere of hostility that has
traditionally surrounded labor-management issues in our country. In
part, the result flows naturally from the very different views that the
two sides have of the relationship between employees and employers. Of
course, to some extent, the result is a natural consequence of the
political season that we are in.
Although the script for what is to happen with this legislation this
year is known to us all, I hope that in the next Congress we can have a
more serious and constructive debate about this important set of
issues.
In many companies throughout the country, the workplace of 1996 is
not the workplace that Congress was reacting to when the Wagner Act was
passed in the 1930's. For many, the term ``empowering workers'' is not
just hollow rhetoric. On the other hand, all employers do not concern
themselves with the rights and prerogatives of workers. The concerns
that unions have raised are well rooted in our Nation's history.
At a future date I hope we can see adoption of some well-reasoned and
balanced reforms to the law that clearly is not possible today. Mr.
President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend and colleague
from North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, for allowing me to go forward
for just a few minutes.
I want to follow, very briefly, on what the Senator from New Mexico
has said and basically to say that I associate myself with his remarks,
as sad as that conclusion is here.
This is a case of the TEAM Act where, it seems to me, both sides, as
it were, labor and management, had some merit to their arguments. There
should have been a way to put this together and bring about some change
in the law that recognizes, respects, and facilitates the extraordinary
changes--in some ways the revolution--that have gone on in labor-
management circles in this country that the team proposals and programs
are part of, and thousands of employers throughout America, and yet to
have done that in a way that does not threaten the organized labor
movement and does not inadvertently, one hopes, open the door to some
of the practices of the past, as Senator Bingaman has referred to, such
as sham unions or employer dominated unions.
This was a case where reasonable people should have been able to sit
down and reach a reasonable conclusion that would have brought about
change. I really thank the Senator from New Mexico for the leadership
he showed in this in trying to make this happen. He is a consummately
reasonable person and has tried to pursue in a rational way that course
in this matter. I followed his actions and tried to support them, in
terms of the work that he was doing as they were going along.
I regret that in the end he concluded that the amendment that he had
prepared really could not be introduced because it was not going to
facilitate the kind of movement that is needed here to create change.
So the result, unfortunately, in this polarized environment is--
polarized for exactly the reasons that the Senator from New Mexico
states; one, because the debate over this bill has in some sense
continued a kind of labor-management negotiation with mistrust on both
sides; and, also, it is obviously an election year.
The result of all this, I presume, is that Congress will pass this
bill, but the President will veto it. Then we will be at the status
quo, which is not, in this case, terrible because as some I talked to
in this debate have said, well, maybe a lot of businesses are running
good employer-employee teams in their workplaces who are technically
violating the law, but the NLRB is not taking action against them
unless, in those relatively few cases, there is a complaint associated
with an organization driven by a union, and then the penalty is to
order them to stop doing what they are doing.
I wish we could have come to a better result. The truth is that these
employer-employee teams--I have seen some of them in Connecticut. When
they work well, they work very well. They not only are great for the
workers; they are great for the management and great for American
competitiveness and great for job creation and the sustaining of
existing jobs. However, like everything else, they can be misused. They
can be misused in a way that runs right into some of the original goals
of section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act. Again, there
ought to have been a way we could bring this together.
I regret the Senator from New Mexico reached the conclusion he did. I
regret that there will not be a proposal here on the floor that I feel
I can support. I am very, very sad that we as a body and I as one
Senator reach that conclusion. I can only say that I hope that all of
us can come back, both sides, outside of the Chamber and all of us
inside the Chamber, next year and work with the executive branch at
that time to fashion a bill that will acknowledge the extraordinary
steps forward in labor-management relations, and yet the continuing
need to protect workers, both in their right to organize and in their
right to be members of employee management associations that are not
employer dominated.
I thank the Chair. Again, I thank Senator Faircloth. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, the Senator from North
Carolina, Senator Faircloth, will be recognized.
[[Page S7510]]
THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK ACT
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson said, ``To compel a
man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions
in which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.'' At noon today, the
U.S. Senate will hold a historic vote on legislation to repeal those
provisions of Federal law which require employees to pay union dues or
fees as a condition of employment. This vote is long overdue for the
working men and women of this country.
Since I introduced the National Right to Work Act, 22 of my Senate
colleagues have joined me as cosponsors. We share the belief that
compulsory unionism violates a fundamental principle of individual
liberty, the very principle upon which this Nation was founded.
Compulsory unionism basically says that workers cannot and should not
decide for themselves what is in their best interest, that they need a
union boss to decide for them. I can think of nothing more offensive to
our core founding principles which we celebrated on the Fourth of July,
a few days ago, than that principle that the working people of this
country do not have the ability to decide for themselves.
With this bill, not a single word is added to Federal law. It simply
repeals those sections of the National Labor Relations Act and the
Railway Labor Act that authorizes the imposition of forced-dues
contracts upon working Americans. It simply does away with the
requirement that people have to belong to a union to hold a job.
I believe that every worker must have the right to join and
financially support a labor union if that is what they want to do.
Every worker should have that right, of his own free will and accord,
but he should not be coerced to pay union dues just to keep his job.
This bill simply protects that right, and no worker would ever be
forced into union membership unless he wants to be.
Union membership should be a choice that an individual makes based
upon merits and benefits offered by the union. If a union truly
benefits its members, then they would not have to coerce them. If
workers had confidence in the union leadership, if the union leadership
was honest, upright, and forthright, then they would not need to coerce
their members to join. A union freely held together by common interests
and desires of those who voluntarily want to be members would be a
better union than one in which members were forced to join. If the
National Right to Work Act were passed, nothing in Federal law would
stop workers from joining a union, participating in union activity, and
paying union dues.
Union officials who operate their organizations in a truly
representative, honest, democratic manner would find their ranks
growing with volunteer members who are attracted by service, benefits,
and mutual interests, not because they are forced against their will
with no options to be a member of a union and pay union fees in order
to hold a job. In addition, voluntary union members would be more
enthusiastic about union membership simply because they had the freedom
to join and were not forced into it.
When Federal laws authorizing compulsory unionism are overturned,
only then will working men and women be free to exercise fully their
right to work. When that time comes, they will have the freedom to
choose whether they want to accept or reject union representation and
union dues without facing coercion, violence, and workplace harassment
by overbearing--disreputable, in many cases--union bosses.
A poll taken in 1995 indicates 8 out of 10 Americans oppose
compulsory unionism--8 out of 10 Americans do not think you should be
forced to belong to a union to hold a job.
At noon today, it is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me
in defending the fundamental individual liberty of the right to work,
and will support this bill.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record immediately
following my remarks an editorial which appeared in today's Wall Street
Journal, setting forth clearly why this bill should pass.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, July 10, 1996]
Labor Independence
Today members of the U.S. Senate will be counted on a
fundamental issue of individual freedom: the right to work
without paying union dues or fees as a condition of
employment. It's not likely that the effort to remove
sections of the 60-year-old National Labor Relations Act that
authorize forced-dues contracts will pass. However, the vote
will serve as a useful political marker as to which Senators
want individual workers to have a say in whether they should
continue to pay the $5 billion a year in dues that private-
sector unions collect.
No one argues that unions haven't done a great deal of good
in representing their members and in the mutual aid programs
they've set up. But that cannot justify allowing the forced
collection of union dues from workers who don't want to pay
them. In many unions, upward of 75% of the dues money goes
for political and other activities that have nothing to do
with collective bargaining rights. This year unions didn't
bother to consult individual workers before they financed an
unprecedented $35 million propaganda campaign against the GOP
Congress. In its 1988 Beck decision, liberal Supreme Court
Justice William Brennan led the Court in ruling that workers
were entitled to a refund of dues money not used to represent
them, but the Clinton Administration has acted as if Beck
didn't exist. That makes today's vote to put Senators on
record on the issue of coerced dues all the more appropriate.
Union leaders themselves were once leery of laws allowing
forced membership in their organizations. Samuel Gompers, the
father of American labor, warned workers that ``compulsory
systems'' were ``not only impractical, but a menace to their
rights, welfare and their liberty.'' Public opposition to
compulsory unionism has been so great (upward of 70% in most
polls) that 21 states have passed ``right-to-work'' laws that
allow individuals to opt out of union membership. On the
national level, however, reform has been blocked by the
formidable power of the unions to raise campaign cash to
defeat their opponents.
North Carolina Senator Lauch Faircloth says the time is
right to test the power of union bosses with his bill to
remove language from federal labor law that authorizes
forced-dues contracts for workers. For the first time in a
generation, Senators from right-to-work states will be
required to choose between the political power of the unions
and the clearly expressed views of their voters. In the past,
even liberal Senators such as George McGovern felt compelled
to support their states' right-to-work laws. Today, 25
Republican and 17 Democratic Senators represent states with
such laws. If all of them supported Senator Faircloth, his
legislation would pass easily. The fact that many will oppose
it deserves to be a campaign issue in the 16 right-to-work
states with Senate elections this fall.
Compulsory union dues are not merely an esoteric issue of
whether employers or unions hold the upper hand in federal
labor law. The issue goes to the heart of individual freedom.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote that ``To compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which
he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.'' Today we will
learn how many Senators agree with Jefferson's sentiment.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. HELMS. I commend the distinguished Senator from North Carolina on
his excellent remarks about a very serious subject. I do not know
whether this Senate is going to try to act on this bill or not, but I
want him to know that I am honored to be a cosponsor of the bill.
Now, did I understand the Senator to say that four-fifths of the
American people support the concept that working people should not be
forced to associate with or support any organization or class of
organization as a condition of getting a job or keeping the job?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. That is exactly what the American people believe.
Mr. HELMS. Maybe one of these days Congress will pay attention to 80
percent of the people.
Mr. President, the National Right to Work Act stipulates that
employers and unions may no longer force American workers to pony up
union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. It is about freedom,
purely and simply. It does not discourage union membership. The
National Right to Work Act merely says that unions have to garner their
support the old-fashioned way--they have to earn it.
Of course, there are those who suggest that this legislation is
somehow antiunion, those who parrot the apocalyptic pronouncements of
the AFL-CIO that this is union-busting legislation.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I would suggest that those union bosses opposing the National Right
to
[[Page S7511]]
Work Act are insecure about their ability to earn the support of the
workers they purport to represent.
Opponents of the National Right to Work Act may also suggest that it
is fair to require employees who enjoy the so-called benefits of union
membership to share in their costs. Union leaders will complain that
this Congress should not change this policy.
Mr. President, union leaders, having bought the horse, are just
complaining about the price of oats.
Union bosses lobbied for and jealously guard the privilege of
exclusive representation. They will not give it up. And if you have any
doubts about that, then the answer is not to oppose this modest effort
to limit union coercion, but to repeal exiting provisions of Federal
labor law providing for exclusive representation. I recall that union
lobbyists say that this is a free-rider bill. The National Right to
Work Act is not so much a free-rider bill as existing Federal labor law
is forced-rider legislation.
Doubtless, too, we will hear complaints that there are more important
issues facing Americans. There will be claims that this issue is being
pursued by a narrow special interest.
My colleagues should bear in mind that polls indicate that fully 76
percent of the American people--including a clear majority of union
members--support the principle of right to work. Just yesterday, the
administration and various lobbying groups were telling us that an
increase in the minimum wage should be passed because 70 percent of the
American people support it.
My suspicion is that that they find this high level of support for
right to work to be less persuasive, just as they have failed to
support our efforts to pass a balanced budget amendment,
notwithstanding the support of overwhelming majorities of Americans.
After all, this administration's Secretary of Labor seems more
interested in advancing the agenda of organized labor, rather then the
rights and interests of all American workers. This is, after all, the
administration which attempted to rewrite Federal labor law for Federal
contractors, to deny to Federal contractors the right permanently to
replace striking employees. The courts have rightly voided this
usurpation of congressional authority.
Furthermore, the Secretary of Labor said, and I quote, ``In order to
maintain themselves, unions have got to have some ability to strap
their members to the mast. The only way unions can exercise
countervailing power is to hold their members' feet to the fire.''
Whether or not that mast is attached to a sinking ship in something
that the Secretary seems not to have considered.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. President, those who oppose this bill
today oppose freedom. They make clear their ratification of Secretary
Reich's sentiments, that this Congress believes that union bosses know
better than individuals what is in the interests of individual American
workers. I would respectfully suggest that this is a concept foreign to
the American way of thinking. And does anyone seriously suggest that
Republican majorities were sent to both Houses of this Congress in
order to perpetuate the power of union bosses to force Americans to
support their narrowly radical social and political agenda?
But perhaps there is another explanation. After all, look at the most
vocal of opponents to this act. Is it mere coincidence that they
benefit from the forced-dues, soft-money political contributions of big
labor? Is it just an accident that the bulk of union political
activities and contributions benefit my friends on the other side of
the aisle almost to the exclusion of contributions to the GOP? Is it
surprising that an administration which promises to veto this bill, if
passed, has the nearly unanimous support of the leaders of the AFL-CIO?
I urge my colleagues to support the National Right to Work Act
because it is the right thing to do. It is a vote for worker freedom, a
vote for responsible unions. American workers deserve the protection of
a National Right to Work Act, the protection of a basic personal
freedom. American working men and women deserve to be able to work and
feed their families without paying tribute to anyone, much less a class
of specially protected organizations.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
(The remarks of Mr. Conrad pertaining to the introduction of S. 1939
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
____________________