KF27 .E347 1979 vol.4 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky, Chairman FRANK THOMPSON, JR., New Jersey EDWARD P. BEARD, Rhode Island BALTASAR CORRADA, Puerto Rico PETER A. PEYSER, New York EDWARD J. STACK, Florida PAT WILLIAMS, Montana WILLIAM R. RATCHFORD, Connecticut RAY KOGOVSEK, Colorado DON BAILEY, Pennsylvania JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio E. THOMAS COLEMAN, Missouri THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS FRANK THOMPSON JR., New Jersey, Chairman WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan GEORGE MILLER, California PHILLIP BURTON, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan (Ex Officio) JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois KEN KRAMER, Colorado DANIEL B. CRANE, Illinois JON HINSON, Mississippi THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 2/26/61 Hearing held in Washington, D.C., on September 3, 1980. 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- Lubbers, William A., General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, accompanied by John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy General Counsel. "Theft by Employees in Work Organizations-A Preliminary Final 114 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, access to employee 123 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, final guidelines on sexual 178 Garvey, Edward R., staff director, North American Soccer Players Associ- 181 Hoffman, Herbert E., director, American Bar Association, letter to Acting 203 "Discharged Employee's Action Under Federal Conspiracy Law Set 424 Versie Kimble, plaintiff appellant v. D. J. McDuffy, Inc. and Industri- 425 "Sexual Pressure Still a Hazard for Working Women," article from 403 "The Impact of Unionization on Productivity: A Case Study," article 405 "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 139 "When Does Representing Management Become Union Busting?" article from Student Lawyer, May 1980.... Seligman, Naomi O., McCaffery, Seligman & Von Simson, Inc., testimony 141 PRESSURES IN TODAY'S WORKPLACE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1980 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, 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 (1) 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. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ACCOMPANIED BY BEATE BLOCH, ASSOCIATE 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 |