{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12422-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "CODETERMINATION", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12422", "S12423", "[{\"name\": \"Claiborne Pell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"2499\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. S12422", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12422-S12423]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                            CODETERMINATION\n\n Mr. PELL. Mr. President, for many years, I have been\ninterested in the efforts of many countries in Europe to involve their\nworkers in all levels of company decisionmaking. Employees serve on the\nboard of directors which addresses long-term management of the company,\nthe Supervisory or Administrative Board that deals with the daily\noperations of the company, and Works Councils which are localized with\nmany councils existing within the same plant. This practice is often\nreferred to as codetermination.\n  While European-style codetermination would not be a perfect fit here\nin the United States, the concept of worker involvement remains valid.\nAfter years of bitter, and even violent interaction and with the ever\nincreasing demands of a high-tech workplace in a\n\n[[Page S12423]]\n\nglobal economy, a more collaborative process has developed that brings\nworkers and employers together on an ongoing basis. Companies ranging\nfrom Texas Instruments and IBM to Harley-Davidson motorcycles have\ninstituted ongoing employer-employee work councils in which employees\nand employers cooperatively determine the direction of their company.\n  There is, I believe, little disagreement about the value of these\ncouncils. There is, however, considerable debate about the legality of\nthese groups. We are told by some that this disagreement produces a\nchilling effect that hinders the continued and future development of\nemployer-employee work councils.\n  I have worked for some time to find a balance. During the 103d\nCongress, I introduced legislation, S. 2499, which, among other\nfeatures, established a formal election process for employee\nrepresentatives to labor-management groups.\n  During the 104th Congress, improved labor-management relations were\nhighjacked by partisan politics and corporate greed in the form the\nTEAM Act which attempted to rewrite Federal labor law to give employers\ncontrol of labor-management teams.\n  I did not reintroduce that legislation but continued to explore other\nways to accomplish change. I seriously considered offering an amendment\nto the TEAM Act to give employees the right to select their own council\nrepresentatives; ensure that council agendas were open to both\nemployees and employers and finally, prohibit the unilateral\ncancellation of a council.\n  The TEAM Act, and similar ideas are certainly not the answer. I am\nconcerned, however, that past labor-management relations will not\ncontinue to serve us well either. As a nation, we now find ourselves\ninvolved in a global economy competing with other countries, not other\ncompanies. In addition, more and more of our trade is high technology.\nThe era of workers spending all day inserting tab A into slot B is\ncoming to an end. Workers must be better educated and well trained in\nhigh technology.\n  With that education, high-tech training and on the job experience,\ntoday's workers have valuable insights and ideas that should be\nwelcomed by their employers. It should be our job to allow the exchange\nof thoughts and ideas to take place but without employees endangering\ntheir employment in the process.\n  I sincerely hope that in the future, Congress will, without partisan\nand special interest bias, work to make it easier for employees and\ntheir employers to cooperatively determine the future of their\ncompany.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12422-3"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.1469279997982085, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}