Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

KF27
E347

1979

vol. 4

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky, Chairman FRANK THOMPSON, JR., New Jersey

JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana

JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California

JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., Alabama WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont PHILLIP BURTON, California

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania JOSEPH M. GAYDOS, Pennsylvania

MICKEY EDWARDS, Oklahoma WILLIAM (BIL CLAY, Missouri

E. THOMAS COLEM N, Missouri MARIO BIAGGI, New York

KEN KRAMER, Colorado IKE ANDREWS, North Carolina

ARLEN ERDAHL, Minnesota PAUL SIMON, Illinois

THOMAS J. TAUKE, Iowa EDWARD P. BEARD, Rhode Island

DANIEL B. CRANE, Illinois GEORGE MILLER, California

JON HINSON, Mississippi
MICHAEL O. MYERS, Pennsylvania

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania
TED WEISS, New York
BALTASAR CORRADA, Puerto Rico
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. PEYSER, New York
EDWARD J. STACK, Florida
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana
WILLIAM R. RATCHFORD, Connecticut
RAY KOGOVSEK, Colorado
DON BAILEY, Pennsylvania

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

FRANK THOMPSON JR., New Jersey, Chairman WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri

JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana

JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois WILLIAM D. RD, Michigan

KEN KRAMER, Colorado GEORGE MILLER, California

DANIEL B. CRANE, Illinois PHILLIP BURTON, California

JON HINSON, Mississippi
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
TED WEISS, New York
RAY KOGOVSEK, Colorado
MARIA BIAGGI, New York
PETER A. PEYSER, New York
CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky

(Ex Officio)

Plele

[blocks in formation]

Hearing held in Washington, D.C., on September 3, 1980

Statement of -

Hobgood, William P., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management

Relations, U.S. Department of Labor, accompanied by Beate Bloch,

Associate Solicitor, and Herbert Raskin, Chief, Branch of Interpreta-

tion and Standards..

Lubbers, William A., General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board,

accompanied by John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy General Counsel.
Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, etc.-
American Management Associations:

"Fair Information Practices for Managers and Employees,” an AMA

survey report entitled ..
"Theft by Employees in Work Organizations-A Preliminary Final

Report," executive summary entitled...
Bernstein, Jules, Connerton & Bernstein, letter to Fred Feinstein, coun-

sel, with enclosure, dated September 18, 1980.

Department of Labor:

Agreement and activities report, form LM-20...

"Employer and Consultant Reporting,” publication entitled..

Employer report, form LM-10

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, access to employee

exposure and medical records, from the Federal Register, May 23,

1980.

Receipts and disbursements report, form LM-21

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, final guidelines on sexual

harassment in the workplace.
Garvey, Edward R., staff director, North American Soccer Players Associ-

ation, letter to Chairman Thompson, with enclosures, dated September

23, 1980
Hoffman, Herbert E., director, American Bar Association, letter to Acting

Chairman William Clay, dated September 17, 1980
Kimble, Versie, former employee, D. J. McDuffy, Inc.:

“Discharged Employee's Action Under Federal Conspiracy Law Set

for Rehearing En Banco
Versie Kimble, plaintiff-appellant v. D. J. McDuffy, Inc. and Industri-

al Foundation of the South, and all of its subscribers, defendants-

appellees, court case dated August 14, 1980..

Published articles:

"Sexual Harassment Lands Companies in Court,” article from Busi-

ness Week, October 1, 1979.

“Sexual Pressure Still a Hazard for Working Women," article from

Philadelphia Inquirer, June 15, 1980.
"The Impact of Unionization on Productivity: A Case Study,” article

from Industrial Labor Relations Review, July 1980

"The New Pinkertons, for These Union Busters, Brass Knuckles Are

Out; Mind Control Is In,” article from Mother Jones, May 1980....

"The Personnel File-What and Whose?" article from The Personnel

Administrator, February 1977.
"When Does Representing Management Become Union Busting?"

article from Student Lawyer, May 1980....
Seligman, Naomi O., McCaffery, Seligman & Von Simson, Inc., testimony

of, before the Department of Labor regarding workplace privacy in the
private sector, dated February 19, 1980 ..

181

203

141

(III)

PRESSURES IN TODAY'S WORKPLACE

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1980

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William Clay presiding.

Members present: Representatives Clay, Kildee, Weiss, Kogovsek, and Erlenborn.

Staff present: Frederick L. Feinstein, counsel; Jeffrey Friedman, research assistant; and Edith Carter Baum, minority counsel for labor

Mr. CLAY. The subcommittee will come to order.

In all likelihood, this will be the last day in this session of Congress of the subcommittee's oversight hearings concerning pressures in today's workplace.

We initiated these hearings nearly a year ago in order to help us better understand the kinds of pressures and influences today's workers face while on the job.

We have attempted to provide a platform for workers, their union representatives, management and others, to discuss and describe some of the realities of the modern workplace.

One of our goals has been to better understand how different workplace practices combine to shape the broader work environment. We have managed to compile an extensive record that to date is more than 1,500 pages long. The issues covered have included worker privacy, preemployment screening practices, employee access to personnel files, use of lie detector tests, and the most extensive part of this record has covered the growing use of management consultants.

The staff has begun to study the hearing record, and we are hopeful a report will be prepared that will analyze the testimony and materials presented, as well as assess how the different parts interact and affect the reality faced by working people today.

Labor management consultants have clearly emerged as a dominant topic of the hearing. It is an issue that has generated great emotion and controversy.

Today's hearing deals with a subject that has been raised repeatedly throughout the course of the hearings, reporting and disclosure of the activities of management consultants.

We are hopeful that our first witness, Bill Hobgood, Under Secretary of Labor for Management Relations, who has responsibility for administering the provision of title II, the Labor-Management Re

porting and Disclosure Act, will be able to clarify the Department of Labor's policy toward administration of this important provision.

We are also hopeful that Mr. Hobgood will assist us in understanding, the historical development of this provision, and any future plans that the Department of Labor may have in regard to its implementation.

Mr. Erlenborn, did you have an opening statement?
Mr. ERLENBORN. No.
Mr. CLAY. It is a pleasure to have you with us.

Without objection, your entire statement will be included in the record, and you may proceed as you desire. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. HOBGOOD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF LABOR FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, U.S. DE-
PARTMENT OF LABOR, ACCOMPANIED BY BEATE BLOCH, AS-
SOCIATE SOLICITOR, AND HERBERT RASKIN, CHIEF, BRANCH
OF INTERPRETATION AND STANDARDS
Mr. HOBGOOD. Thank you very much.

With me today is Beate Bloch, Associate Solicitor for the Department of Labor, and Mr. Herbert Raskin, Chief, Branch of Interpretation and Standards.

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the activities of management consultants and the Labor Department's administration of the employer and management consultant reporting provisions of the Landrum-Griffin Act, formally known as the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.

While I have not made a scientific survey, I believe it is accurate to say that labor relations consulting is a growth industry. The number of consultants, and the scope and sophistication of their activities, have increased substantially over the past decade or so.

One disturbing result of this growth is that in labor-management relations more and more time and effort is being spent on procedural skirmishing. Both labor and management have been concentrating on learning how to fight, rather than on the resolution of problems through the proven process of collective bargaining.

Employers have every right to hire consultants to advise and assist them on labor-management relations. But when consultants set out deliberately to frustrate the collective bargaining process, sometimes through means of questionable legality, there is cause for concern among those who believe, as I do, that collective bargaining has made a significant contribution to the economic and social welfare of the Nation.

One of the purposes of the Landrum-Griffin Act is to safeguard and strengthen collective bargaining. The declaration of findings in the act states that it is in the public interest for the “Federal Government to protect employees' rights to organize, choose their own representatives, bargain collectively and otherwise engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection."

As the members of this subcommittee know, the Landrum-Griffin Act's provisions on employers and labor-relations consultants seek to regulate them primarily by requiring the disclosure of certain activities rather than by detailing what they can and cannot do.

This act is administered and enforced by the Department of Labor. However, actual limitations on the labor-relations activities

« AnteriorContinuar »