[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 16 (Monday, February 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1192-S1194]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Coats, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Frist, 
        Mr. DeWine, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hutchinson, Ms. Collins, Mr. Warner, 
        Mr. McConnell, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
        Nickles, Mr. Mack, and Mr. Shelby):
  S. 295. A bill 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; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


          the teamwork for employees and managers act of 1997

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing, together with a 
number of my colleagues, the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of

[[Page S1193]]

1997. This bill is identical to the TEAM Act approved by the Senate 
last year.
  This bill responds to a series of decisions by the National Labor 
Relations Board which have cast doubt on the legality of many forms of 
workplace cooperation. Specifically, the Board held in the 
Electromation case that certain employer-employee committees violated 
the National Labor Relations Act's prohibition against employer-
assisted labor organizations.
  This ruling has had a chilling effect on some 30,000 companies that 
have employee involvement programs. The TEAM Act amends Federal labor 
law to allow voluntary workplace cooperation to continue. The 
legislation allows employers and employees to meet together to address 
issues of mutual interest, including issues related to quality, 
productivity, and efficiency as long as the committees or other joint 
programs do not engage in collective bargaining.
  This last point is important. The bill does not allow employers to 
establish company unions or sham unions that undermined independent 
collective bargaining back in the 1930's. Under the TEAM Act, workers 
retain the right, as well they should, to choose an independent union 
to engage in collective bargaining.
  More importantly, the TEAM Act gives workers the opportunity for 
greater input and involvement in the workplace. Not only does this 
allow workers to improve and expand their skills, but workplace 
cooperation also increases our productivity and competitive edge in the 
global marketplace.
  This bill received bipartisan support in the last Congress, and I am 
confident it will again this year. This bill is not about labor versus 
management. It's about clarifying the law so that workers and 
management can work together to their mutual benefit and to the benefit 
of our economy as a whole. I look forward to working with Members on 
both sides of the aisle so that the TEAM Act becomes law in the very 
near future.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I rise in support of my colleague 
from Vermont in his introduction of the Team Work for Employees And 
Management Act. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his leadership in 
helping American workers develop the capacity to be competitive, to be 
productive, and to maintain our standard of excellence throughout the 
world. The Team Act, which passed both the Senate and the House during 
the 104th Congress, but was vetoed by President Clinton, is vital to 
the survivability and strength of our Nation's economy.
  Our Nation's strength is a result of recognizing 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 the NCAA basketball tournament next month, it is unthinkable that we 
would send teams into competition and forbid the coaches to talk to the 
players. What nonsense that would be.
  It is 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 tried to observe the process from outside, no matter how well 
the engineer from the design room tries to structure the environment 
for productivity, the person who actually is on the floor is going to 
have the ability to say, ``This doesn't work here. It may look good in 
theory, but it doesn't work in practice.''
  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 the competitive position of this country by 
outproducing, outworking, outthinking, outsmarting, and out- 
cooperating 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 opponents of the TEAM Act say it is perfectly legal now, we do 
not need this law, it confounds me. Let me read from a list of things 
that have been ruled inappropriate for nonunion employers to talk to 
their nonunion employees on, so the American people have an 
understanding of what the law is 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 & Booker Co. A 
decrease in rest breaks from 15 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 wheat harvest season--the Dillon's company case 
said you cannot talk with workers about that to get their input.
  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 
where workers 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 8 out of 9 American 
workers, because 8 out of 9 American workers are nonunion workers.
  The National Labor Relations Act governs election of unions and 
collective bargaining. Section 8(a)(2) was passed in 1935 to prohibit 
the establishment of sham company unions, a tactic commonly used by 
employers to defeat union organizing. These organizations pretended to 
engage in collective bargaining, but followed management's dictates and 
typically were run by officers handpicked by management. Companies then 
pretended to enter into collective-bargaining agreements with these 
sham organizations so that when a union attempted to organize the 
workers, the companies could hide behind the exclusive representation 
and contract bar tenets of the law.
  Vigorous enforcement of section 8(a)(2) resulted in the demise of the 
company unions by the early 1950's. While sham unions should continue 
to be prohibited under our labor laws--and would remain so under the 
TEAM Act--the broad prohibition that remains in effect today prevents 
the types of legitimate cooperative working relationships that 
encourage worker participation and decisionmaking.
  Let me give you an example. 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 and talk to them about their 
concerns.
  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, having 
approximately 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 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 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

[[Page S1194]]

against the company. This is not the kind of thing that recommends 
America for leadership. It is the kind of thing that takes correction.
  Opponents say if you talk about those things, the workers will think 
you have union when you don't. It will be a sham union. Frankly, I do 
not underestimate the American worker that severely.
  Over the Christmas break I went to 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. Workers know whether union dues are being deducted. 
The know whether they are in a separate organization. It is not hard. 
This is not above the capacity of the American worker. 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.

  A second objective 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.
  There are about 30,000 employers that would like to have such 
employee-involvement programs. Why is it they would like to have such 
programs? Because they have seen that when we work together we succeed. 
Strange to me, that is basically a quote from President Clinton's 1996 
State of the Union Address. He said, and I agree, ``When companies and 
workers work as a team, they do better, and so does America.''
  The real truth of the matter is understood in the hearts and minds of 
everyone who has every worked on a team, knowing that when you work 
together, you do better than when you work at odds with each other.
  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 1 out of 9 
workers in America that are in unions? Why not extend this benefit to 
all 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?
  No. I do not think we would send our teams to the NCAA tournament 
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 1 out of 9 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.

                          ____________________