[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12422-S12423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            CODETERMINATION

 Mr. PELL. Mr. President, for many years, I have been 
interested in the efforts of many countries in Europe to involve their 
workers in all levels of company decisionmaking. Employees serve on the 
board of directors which addresses long-term management of the company, 
the Supervisory or Administrative Board that deals with the daily 
operations of the company, and Works Councils which are localized with 
many councils existing within the same plant. This practice is often 
referred to as codetermination.
  While European-style codetermination would not be a perfect fit here 
in the United States, the concept of worker involvement remains valid. 
After years of bitter, and even violent interaction and with the ever 
increasing demands of a high-tech workplace in a

[[Page S12423]]

global economy, a more collaborative process has developed that brings 
workers and employers together on an ongoing basis. Companies ranging 
from Texas Instruments and IBM to Harley-Davidson motorcycles have 
instituted ongoing employer-employee work councils in which employees 
and employers cooperatively determine the direction of their company.
  There is, I believe, little disagreement about the value of these 
councils. There is, however, considerable debate about the legality of 
these groups. We are told by some that this disagreement produces a 
chilling effect that hinders the continued and future development of 
employer-employee work councils.
  I have worked for some time to find a balance. During the 103d 
Congress, I introduced legislation, S. 2499, which, among other 
features, established a formal election process for employee 
representatives to labor-management groups.
  During the 104th Congress, improved labor-management relations were 
highjacked by partisan politics and corporate greed in the form the 
TEAM Act which attempted to rewrite Federal labor law to give employers 
control of labor-management teams.
  I did not reintroduce that legislation but continued to explore other 
ways to accomplish change. I seriously considered offering an amendment 
to the TEAM Act to give employees the right to select their own council 
representatives; ensure that council agendas were open to both 
employees and employers and finally, prohibit the unilateral 
cancellation of a council.
  The TEAM Act, and similar ideas are certainly not the answer. I am 
concerned, however, that past labor-management relations will not 
continue to serve us well either. As a nation, we now find ourselves 
involved in a global economy competing with other countries, not other 
companies. In addition, more and more of our trade is high technology. 
The era of workers spending all day inserting tab A into slot B is 
coming to an end. Workers must be better educated and well trained in 
high technology.
  With that education, high-tech training and on the job experience, 
today's workers have valuable insights and ideas that should be 
welcomed by their employers. It should be our job to allow the exchange 
of thoughts and ideas to take place but without employees endangering 
their employment in the process.
  I sincerely hope that in the future, Congress will, without partisan 
and special interest bias, work to make it easier for employees and 
their employers to cooperatively determine the future of their 
company.

                          ____________________