[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7614-S7619]
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 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 resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Dorgan modified amendment No. 4437, of a perfecting nature.
Kassebaum amendment No. 4438, of a perfecting nature.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have many times made statements about my
long interest in developing improved avenues of communication between
employees and their bosses, often referred to as codetermination. My
statement therefore, will be brief today.
When employees and employers decide to enter into workplace
committees to discuss workplace-related issues, both sides must place a
great amount of trust and faith in the other. But society has instilled
in workers the idea that employers are not allies but adversaries.
Employers, who must be concerned about the health of the company, often
view their employees in a similarly skeptical fashion.
For that reason, labor and management should always be commended when
they join together in sincere cooperation for the benefit of all
concerned. It is, however, important that the two be really interested
in cooperating with the other and that the cooperation be sincere. Both
employees and employers must trust the other and be sure that their
views matter to the other.
While I do not see the need to create a strict framework for these
conversations to take place, I do believe it is vital that employees
feel confident they will not be punished for sharing their honest views
with their employer. Workers must also feel that their views and
thoughts are honestly being represented by those employee members of a
workplace committee.
For that reason, I strongly oppose S. 295. Workers cannot be expected
to take part in any committee under the total control of their boss. In
any competitive job market, what right-minded worker would take the
risk of sharing unpopular views about his workplace when the boss has
complete control of the work committee?
During the 103d Congress, I introduced legislation outlining my views
on this issue. During Labor Committee consideration of S. 295, I worked
to develop compromise legislation to allow employees to select their
representatives for workplace committees, to ensure that committee
agendas are open to amendment by both labor and management and to
prohibit unilateral termination of a workplace committee.
Teamwork is important on the playing field or in the workplace. As a
old Princeton rugby player, I know you don't win the scrum unless you
and your teammates have confidence in each other and work for the
benefit of all.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in full support of teams and
yet, must voice my concerns with the proposed TEAM Act. It is very
difficult not to support the initial goals of S. 295.
Who doesn't want cooperation between employees and their managers? I
have met with countless companies from across Washington State who have
boasted of increased productivity and efficiency from these teams.
Their results have been impressive and have encouraged initiative and
employee participation.
However, these cooperative partnerships are currently in place and
functioning without disruption. Teams today, throughout my State and
across American are succeeding and thriving. In fact, 96 percent of
large employers and 75 percent of all employers report using such teams
and employee involvement programs. These facts lead to my confusion
over the need for additional legislation.
[[Page S7615]]
Employee committees, work teams, and quality circles that discuss
questions of efficiency, productivity, quality, and work practices are
currently allowed. Nothing prevents these teams from existing today and
their growing popularity in corporations everywhere is proof of their
strong existence.
I am most concerned about the delicate balance between management and
employees established by the National Labor Relations Act and enforced
by the National Labor Relations Board. This board has been charged with
investigating possible section 8(a)(2) violations which have averaged
just three violations per year for the last 22 years. In fact 20 years
ago, the NLRB ruled against 29 section 8(a)(2) violations. Last year,
the NLRB ruled against just 24 violations. There is no growing trend to
stop these partnerships. There are no attempts by the NLRB to seek out
and prevent these law-abiding employee-employer teams.
These cases can be compared to the 7,478 cases in 1995 which forced
employers to hire back unlawfully discharged employees and the 8,987
cases last year in which employers had to provide employees back pay.
I wholeheartedly support the cooperation fostered through teams in
companies both large and small. Washington State has witnessed enormous
benefits from these employee committees that discuss issued from
efficiency to quality of life. Let's continue this cooperation without
tipping the scale and sacrificing workplace democracy.
If the employer chooses committee representatives to discuss issues
of wages and hours, we will lose the entire management-employee
balance. Mr. President, I have spoken with Secretary Reich about this
issue after several meetings with concerned Washington State companies.
I am confident that the teams now in place will remain in place and
continue to prosper.
Let's maintain this current system, which is working, without
jeopardizing these critical relationships.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
Teamwork for Employees and Management Act, S. 295, better known as the
TEAM Act. I firmly believe that to be competitive in today's
marketplace managers and employees need to have open lines of
communication. The TEAM Act would amend the National Labor Relations
Act [NLRA] to clarify that an employer may establish and participate in
worker-management organization to address matters of mutual interest;
quality, productivity, and efficiency. In addition, the bill would not
allow the entity to negotiate or enter into collective-bargaining
agreements.
Many American businesses have discovered that including their
employees in workplace decisionmaking has increased their productivity.
Unfortunately, a series of rulings by the National Labor Relations
Board [NLRB] has prohibited employers from meeting with employees to
discuss issues such as productivity, safety, and quality. While the
NLRB made a decision based upon a fair interpretation which takes into
account current law, this law was written at a time when company unions
were commonly used to avoid unionization. However, I do point to the
NLRA's failure to account for today's work force situations where there
is an honest effort to increase productivity, safety, and quality among
employees and employers.
Mr. President, in my home State of Oregon we have seen tremendous
growth and development, much of it attributed to the influence of the
electronics industry. To be competitive in today's international
electronics market, employees must act in partnership with management.
These partnerships succeed in a cooperative rather than an adversarial
environment. However, under the specter of litigation, companies are
fearful of implementing employee involvement programs [EI] or have
stopped them altogether. Under the current National Labor Relations
Board interpretation of the law, the definitions are so broad as to
prohibit or restrict implementing these employee involvement programs.
Again, many of our Federal labor laws were written in the 1930's, at
time when employers used company unions or sham unions to avoid
negotiating with representatives of employee selected unions. Labor
laws such as Davis-Bacon were written in the 1930's and we know that it
is in dire need of reform. These laws need to be updated and employers
must be able to discuss the workplace environment without the fear of
litigation or violating the National Labor Relations Act.
I believe that the TEAM Act will update and improve existing law to
address the issue of legitimate company efforts to include employee
input and increase competition in the marketplace. As written, S. 295
only amends the section of the NLRA which prohibits employer-dominated
labor organizations and specifically provides that all other rights
under the NLRA remain intact. Organizations do not have the authority
to enter into or negotiate collective-bargaining agreements or to amend
existing agreements and the TEAM Act certainly does not affect an
employee's right to choose union representation. If workers choose to
work through union representation, the employer must recognize and then
arbitrate with the union.
Mr. President, my father was a longshoreman and I am an advocate for
the common worker. Yet, I support the TEAM Act. It is not a
contradiction to support labor and management when both mutually agree
to improve work force efficiency, safety, and productivity; benefiting
all those involved in the process. Give credit to today's workers who
know their options and know when they are being treated fairly or
unfairly. The TEAM Act secures an innovative opportunity for workers to
contribute to the success of their companies. Let us ensure that
workers have that option by passing the TEAM Act.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
TEAM Act.
The future prosperity of the United States depends, in no small part,
on fostering a cooperative partnership between labor and management, so
that we can continue to produce the best products, provide the best
services, and develop the best work force in the world. This
partnership is built on the principal of equality.
The United States is founded on this principal of equality. We, as a
Nation, have a strong sense of fair play and of the importance of a
level playing field. Allowing workers a real opportunity to unionize,
to elect representation, and to bargain collectively is an important
and basic part of these values.
In the 1920's and 1930's companies routinely used company unions or
employee representation plans, as they were called to rebuff attempts
by legitimate unions to organize and seek election by the workers
within the company.
These company unions were created and controlled by management and
could be disbanded or disregarded at the convenience of the company.
The employee representatives were hand-picked so that workers would not
democratically elect their own representatives.
The company unions ended with the enactment of section 8(a)(2) of the
National Labor Relations Act in 1935. Section 8(a)(2) was enacted to
provide workers with the opportunity to be represented by someone who
was not selected by the company, but rather someone who was
democratically elected. The TEAM Act erodes that essential protection,
and therefore represents a step back toward the days of company unions.
Current law does not prevent any worker from discussing any subject
with management. The law merely prohibits a worker or workers from
acting as the representative of the employees, in an employer dominated
committee, to make decisions regarding wages, hours, and conditions of
employment. Workers can meet individually, in small groups, or as a
whole with management to talk, express opinions, or give suggestions.
What Section 8(2)(a) prohibits is employer creation and domination of
employee groups where terms and conditions of employment are worked
out. This falls under the prohibition that a company may not dominate
or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor
organization.
The fear of a return to company unions as a means of preventing union
representation is very real. In fact, a company called Executive
Enterprises is holding conferences across the country this summer
entitled, ``How to Stay Union-Free Into the 21st Century.'' At a
session called ``What Your Company Can Do Now to Preserve its
[[Page S7616]]
Union-Free Status Before Organizing Starts,'' the brochure tells
participants they will learn--how your employee participation and
empowerment programs can be successfully modified to avoid unfair labor
practices and aid in union avoidance. The intent could not be more
clear, nor could a better argument be made against this legislation.
The legislation we are considering today was written based on the
false premise that the protections provided to workers under section
8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act prevent cooperation in the
workplace. Proponents argue that the National Labor Relations Act does
not allow modern management to work with employees in a cooperative
manner or in teams within the workplace.
In fact, section 8(a)(2) does not need to be weakened in order for
this cooperation or these teams to exist. Under the current protections
provided for in the National Labor Relations Act teams are flourishing
throughout the country.
There are teams operating in companies across my State of Illinois. I
have had the pleasure of talking with CEO's of Illinois companies who
highlighted the excellent results of having workers come together on
teams to address production problems and quality problems.
Under current law, companies are allowed to delegate significant
managerial responsibilities to employee work teams. Employers can put
together employee committees to consider quality, efficiency, and
productivity. Employers can use employee expertise to help them create
better, higher quality products in less time and with less cost, so
that American goods are better, cheaper, and more competitive in
overseas markets.
Thirty thousand companies across the Nation have some form of
employee teams operating in their factories and shops; 96 percent of
large employers have employee involvement programs and 75 percent of
all workplaces have such programs. The numbers speak for themselves.
This legislation goes far beyond allowing cooperative teams designed
to increase quality, efficiency, and productivity. This bill would
allow employer chosen teams to engage in give-and-take regarding wages,
hours, and other conditions of employment. Unelected employees would
have the ability to make decisions about the basic working conditions
of their fellow workers.
One of the key arguments many companies have made is that they are
concerned that the teams operating in their shops may be found to
violate section 8(a)(2) in some way. The Electromation case has been
held up as an example of teams being ruled illegal by the National
Labor Relations Board.
The background on this case is instructive. The employees at
Electromation were unhappy over a series of changes the employer had
made to compensation and work rules. The employer responded by
implementing action committees. When the employees nonetheless turned
to an outside union for representation, the employer suspended the
committees and blamed the union for the suspension. The action
committees were a vehicle to prevent union representation. A Bush
administration appointed NLRB found that, in the Electromation case,
the company had violated the law.
This case illustrates exactly the reason section 8(a)(2) exists, to
protect against abuse. Under current law, employee teams are legal and
they exist. As long as employers do not control the proceedings,
employers can talk with employees about any issue they choose.
Cooperation between employees and employers is vital to any successful
business and the law in no way prevents this cooperation. The law
merely prevents abuse.
Let us support a strong partnership between innovative employers and
creative employees, and continue to let this section 8(a)(2) of the
National Labor Relations Act protect the precious balance between the
rights of employees and employers. I urge my colleagues to vote against
the TEAM Act.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong
opposition of S. 295, the teamwork for employees and management bill.
This bill, the so-called TEAM bill, is part of the continuing
Republican assault on working families. It would virtually nullify
section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, which forms the
basis for collective bargaining procedures in the United States, and
prohibits employers from dominating or interfering with the formation
of labor organizations. Labor organizations, as defined by the NLRA,
are composed of employee participants and exist for the purpose of
dealing with employers regarding grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or working conditions.
The TEAM Act would gut section 8(a)(2). In the name of promoting
collaboration and communication between workers and managers, this bill
would allow companies to dictate the membership and agenda of workplace
teams. These teams would make recommendations to management on issues
of quality, efficiency, and productivity, but could also discuss
broader issues related to wages, hours, and working conditions.
Mr. President, I want to make it clear that I have no problem with
the concept of employers and employees working together in crosscutting
groups to develop innovative ways to improve quality or increase
efficiency in the workplace. I have visited workplaces in my State that
have implemented quality circles and labor-management committees, and
have been impressed with their results.
An example is Master Lock, Inc., which I toured several summers ago.
This leading Wisconsin company is a shining example of how employer-
employee cooperation has led to improved working relationships and
increased competitiveness. The company's joint labor and management
coalition, comprised of various committees which address issues such as
health and safety and ergonomics, has the support of the union and has
resulted in improved employee morale and productivity.
Indeed, there has been a vast proliferation of such committees, or
teams, in recent years. These organizations are useful, and legal, as
long as they do not interfere with the collective bargaining process.
Current law allows employee involvement, which I wholeheartedly
support.
What I do object to is the notion that companies should appoint all
members of workplace teams, particularly in cases in which teams are
given broad reign to discuss issues that have been the domain of
collective bargaining for the last 60 years. Under this bill, employers
would have the right not only to select who belongs to teams, but would
also be able to remove those members at any time, for any reason.
Management could set the agenda, including discussion of wages, hours,
and working conditions, as long as the employee members did not make
official recommendations on behalf of their colleagues on these issues.
This, I am convinced, would undermine the collective bargaining
process.
Senator Robert Wagner, the original sponsor of the NLRA, recognized
that employees are empowered only when they select their own
representatives in a democratic process. More than 60 years ago, he
said, ``[only] representatives who are not subservient to the employer
with whom they deal can act freely in the interest of employees. Simple
common sense tells us that a man does not possess this freedom when he
bargains with those who control his source of livelihood.'' And yet,
the TEAM Act threatens to take precisely that freedom away from
America's workers. Allowing companies to select all worker
representatives and dominate team activities would be a significant
step backward in workplace democracy. It would take us back to the days
of company unions.
Supporters of the TEAM Act are quick to point out that the language
of the bill specifically prohibits teams from engaging in collective
bargaining with management. But in fact, employees who serve on
management-selected teams will represent their coworkers. That is a
labor organization, and that is precisely what Congress intended to
prevent when it passed the NLRA. In fact, Congress has repeatedly
rejected the notion of company-dominated labor organizations--in the
1930's, and again in 1947 during debate on the Taft-Hartley Act.
This bill threatens real, democratically elected worker
representation. Even though the bill says that management-dominated
teams would not be allowed to negotiate with employers
[[Page S7617]]
about wages, benefits, or working conditions, teams can still discuss
all these issues, as long as they don't make recommendations to
management on behalf of workers. It is not difficult to imagine
situations in which managers who prefer dealing with self-selected
teams would place more weight on the ideas of teams than on the
proposals of unions. In this way, the bill threatens the viability of
unions.
Labor experts agree. The bipartisan Dunlop Commission, made up of
leading business, union, and academic representatives, conducted an in-
depth analysis of labor-management relations in 1993 and 1994. One of
their recommendations, upon completion of the study, was: ``The law
should continue to make it illegal to set up or operate company-
dominated forms of employee representation.'' Members of the Dunlop
Commission, including four former Cabinet Secretaries, the CEO of
Xerox, a representative from the small business community, and several
academics, unanimously oppose the TEAM Act. I'm sure all of my
colleagues have also read the letter signed by more than 400 of the
Nation's labor law and industrial relations professors opposing this
bill. They say in their letter, ``we are persuaded that passage of the
TEAM Act would quickly lead to the return of the kind of employer-
dominated employee organization and employee representation plans which
existed in the 1920's and 1930's.''
And in fact, that is the real goal of the TEAM Act. Management-
dominated teams are antidemocratic mechanisms for companies to fight
real worker-selected representative labor organizations. They are anti-
union tools. Research has shown that employers who establish teams, or
employee involvement plans, after union organizing campaigns are more
likely to defeat unions than those who do not. Without exception,
managers surveyed in a 1989 Harvard Business School study agreed that
employee representation plans were ``a valuable and proven
defense against unionization.''
Edward Miller, a former chairman of the NLRB and a current
management-side labor lawyer, testified in 1993 before the Dunlop
Commission, ``While I represent management, I do not kid myself. If
section 8(a)(2) were repealed, I have no doubt that in not too many
months or years sham company unions would again recur.''
There are many misconceptions among my colleagues about current labor
law, and about what this bill would do. Fred Feinstein, the general
counsel of the NLRB, investigates possible violations of the NLRA and
prosecutes meritorious claims. Mr. Feinstein recently responded to a
letter from the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, to
clarify what in his opinion were some inaccurate statements about the
NLRA and the TEAM Act, made last week on the Senate floor. In his
letter, Mr. Feinstein explained that, under current law, it is not
illegal for employers to supply office supplies and meeting space to
employee organizations, or to talk to employees or seek suggestions. It
is not illegal for employers to discuss flexible work schedules with
employees, or to seek input from them about improving productivity, or
to talk to them about tornado warning procedures. Despite assertions to
the contrary made by my colleagues last week, none of these procedures
is illegal.
The bottom line, according to the general counsel of the NLRB, is
that ``employees can provide information or ideas without engaging in
dealing under the NLRA. Further, employees can make proposals through
an organization, to which the employer may respond, where the employees
have control of the structure and function of the organization.''
If this Congress really wanted to empower workers and encourage
employee involvement and communication with management, it would allow
workers to select their own representatives to teams, so that they
would be accountable only to their fellow employees. More importantly,
it would empower the NLRB to impose more powerful sanctions on
companies that unlawfully discharge employees involved in union
organizing. According to the Dunlop Commission, union supporters are
fired illegally in one out of four elections. This rate is five times
higher than it was in the 1950's, and remedies often take place several
years after the event.
The real purpose of this bill is to undermine workplace democracy,
and to bash on unions, not to empower employees. I am pleased that
President Clinton has taken a stand on behalf of working men and women
by pledging to veto this unwise and destructive bill. But I hope the
bill never reaches his desk. I urge my colleagues to support
representative democracy in the workplace, and to oppose the TEAM Act.
Let's respect the right of employees to select their own
representation, just as we have insisted on the right of citizens to
select their own representatives to this body for over 200 years.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in
favor of the TEAM Act, S. 295. I want to commend our able chairman of
the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum, for her
vision and tenacity in shepherding this bill to the floor.
I have closely examined the arguments made by both labor and
management on the issue of teaming, and the state of current law in
this area.
In my view, Congress has a responsibility to provide an unambiguous
safe harbor for employers to utilize employee participation groups,
quality circles, and other team concepts to advance the competitiveness
of U.S. industry. The health of our economy and the jobs on which we
all depend are at stake in this struggle.
The National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] has been left with the
difficult task of administering a 61-year-old statute which has changed
little since its enactment in 1935. The state of labor management
relations was very different in those days, with unions struggling to
secure their place in our industrial fabric.
The National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] was a logical response to
this turbulent period in our labor management history. The provision of
the NLRA aimed at preventing employers from creating sham unions,
section 8(a)(2), was a direct response to this challenging period.
It is this very provision and how it is being interpreted today by
the NLRB that is the cause for this debate and the legislation now
before the Senate.
Most labor management strife faded from the industrial landscape long
ago. In contrast, today, American businesses and their employees are in
the fight of their lives to remain competitive in this global
marketplace. We have lost tens of thousands of high-paying
manufacturing jobs over this past decade to foreign competition.
Unfortunately, I can identify countless casualties in my own State of
Rhode Island.
This troubling circumstance has forced American industry to produce
better products, to become more efficient and to increase productivity.
This painful, but necessary reexamination has placed an absolute
premium on labor-management cooperation.
Those firms that have been able to succeed and adapt to this new
environment have increasingly relied upon employee participation
groups, quality circles, and other team concepts to strengthen
productivity, weed out inefficiency, and respond rapidly to changing
consumer attitudes and demands.
Mr. President, enactment of the TEAM Act would simply conform labor
law with what is already occurring on shop floors throughout America.
The fact is, employee involvement committees, quality circles and other
team concepts exist in some 30,000 workplaces across the country. All
but a small percentage of our largest employers stake their very
survival on the ability to form team mechanisms and employee
participation groups.
Here is the problem in a nutshell. Section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA
prohibits employers from interfering with the formation and/or
organization of any ``labor organization,'' or from contributing
financial support to such entities. On the surface that seems
reasonable.
However, the definition of ``labor organization'' makes illegal most
of the employee involvement committees in operation today, since it
stipulates that any organization which deals with hours of employment
or conditions of work is a ``labor organization.''
The fact is that in today's complex workplace conditions of
employment can be very broadly construed to apply
[[Page S7618]]
to how an assembly line is configured, to the kind of protective gear
employees must wear, or even to attendance policies.
Faced with this ambiguous situation, employers need to have a safe
harbor within which such employee involvement committees can operate
without fear of NLRB intervention.
The Team Act is that safe harbor. It would authorize the use of
employee participation teams to help strengthen the competitiveness of
American firms, while making clear that such mechanisms cannot be used
to subvert or replace the collective bargaining process, or an
employee's right to union representation.
Employers and employees must be empowered with the necessary tools to
compete in a global economy. S. 295 is a logical, balanced response,
which contains the necessary safeguards to protect unions and workers,
while at the same time strengthening needed employer-employee
cooperation.
I am hopeful President Clinton will reconsider his staunch opposition
to this critical legislation.
Amendment No. 4437
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment 4437 offered
by the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan]. There will be 1 minute
of debate on the amendment equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is not a disagreement in this
Chamber about whether there ought to be teamwork in the workplace. We
believe there ought to be opportunities for management and workers--
those who own businesses and those who work in the businesses--to get
together and establish conditions to work together to become more
efficient and to find ways to do things in a better way.
There is a lack of clarity as a result of NLRB decisions. I have
offered an amendment that tries to establish additional clarity that
permits workplace cooperation. There is a right way to do this and a
wrong way to do this.
The amendment that I have offered, I think, is the right way to
enhance teamwork in the workplace to achieve those goals. I believe the
underlying legislation that comes to the floor of the Senate does much
more than that in a negative way.
So I ask the Chamber to support the amendment that I have offered and
to oppose the proposal that is brought to the floor of the Senate in
the underlying piece of legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, regarding the Dorgan amendment, I
would just say that I think we are better off the way things are than
to try to develop a rigidity that I think would occur in the amendment
offered by the Senator from North Dakota. It requires a committee
structure that is very rigid and lacks the flexibility that we were
trying to address. I do not believe it in any way answers the concerns
and the questions that have been raised by the actions of the NLRB
regarding a lack of understanding on how employees get together under
the National Labor Relations Act. That was the purpose of the
legislation before in the TEAM Act, and I will address my amendment
later.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The question is on agreeing to
amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. On this question, the yeas
and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr.
Cochran] is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 63, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 189 Leg.]
YEAS--36
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Levin
Mikulski
Moynihan
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--63
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Faircloth
Feingold
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Cochran
The amendment (No. 4437), as modified, was rejected.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4438
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs
on agreeing to amendment No. 4438 offered by the Senator from Kansas
[Mrs. Kassebaum]. There will now be 1 minute of debate on the amendment
equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum].
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, my amendment is identical with the
House-passed language. I want to make a couple of points about why I
believe the TEAM Act is important. One, it applies only to nonunion
settings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold her comments until
we can get order in the Chamber.
The Senator may proceed.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. This applies only to nonunion settings.
It has been misrepresented by some as applying to union companies as
well.
Second, the purpose for this is in order to say to employers that
they should be free to discuss with employees those issues of concern
to both. It is to address an environment in the workplace that will
help us meet the new reality of our competition and our productivity
today that is important for good communication. It is a bill that only
represents common sense. It is not in any way designed to be a
destroyer of the unions, and I urge support for my amendment and the
TEAM legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
May we have order in the Senate, please.
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is a cosmetic change to the
underlying bad bill. Effectively, the TEAM Act would apply to 90
percent of American businesses. The fact is 30,000 companies now have
these joint, cooperative programs in workplaces across the country.
They cover 75 percent of all the employers, 96 percent of the Nation's
biggest employers. There have been 224 cases that have been brought
over the period of the last 4 years. There have only been 15 cases
decided by the NLRB--only 15 cases; 30,000 incidents of cooperation and
only 15 cases in the last 4 years.
This is a solution to a problem that does not exist. Basically, what
you are doing with it is opening up the very real possibilities of
companies being able to dictate who will speak for the employees on
working conditions and all other matters that concern them in the
workplace. It puts management in control of both sides of the
bargaining table. It means management will be talking to itself instead
of talking honestly with workers, and it does not deserve to pass. It
deserves the veto that it will receive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the amendment.
Mr. COHEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is
there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
[[Page S7619]]
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr.
Cochran] is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]
YEAS--61
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Coats
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Faircloth
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--38
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Cochran
The amendment (No. 4438) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate bill is
considered read a third time, and the House bill, H.R. 743, is
discharged from the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The clerk
will report the House bill.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 743) to amend the National Labor Relations Act
to allow labor management cooperative efforts that improve
economic competitiveness in the United States to continue to
thrive, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all after the
enacting clause of H.R. 743 is stricken, the text of the S. 295, as
amended, is inserted in lieu thereof, and the bill is considered read a
third time.
The question is, Shall the bill, H.R. 743, as amended, pass? A
rollcall vote has not yet been requested.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill as amended,
pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr.
Cochran] is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Faircloth
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Cochran
The bill (H.R. 743), as amended, was passed, as follows:
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives
(H.R. 743) entitled ``An Act to amend the National Labor
Relations Act to allow labor management cooperative efforts
that improve economic competitiveness in the United States to
continue to thrive, and for other purposes.'', do pass with
the following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Teamwork for Employees and
Managers Act of 1995''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the escalating demands of global competition have
compelled an increasing number of employers in the United
States to make dramatic changes in workplace and employer-
employee relationships;
(2) such changes involve an enhanced role for the employee
in workplace decisionmaking, often referred to as ``Employee
Involvement'', which has taken many forms, including self-
managed work teams, quality-of-worklife, quality circles, and
joint labor-management committees;
(3) Employee Involvement programs, which operate
successfully in both unionized 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 government 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.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________