The first is that it is a terrible idea to allow labor-management cooperation outside of a formal union-management negotiating session; that we are still, in America, in the position we were in the 1930's in which most people who work and most people who are employers or supervisors regard themselves in polar opposite camps with antagonistic kinds of interests. The second argument made by the Senator from Massachusetts seems, paradoxically, quite different and that argument is that there are so many of these teams and so much cooperation going on at the present time without any harassment being aimed at it, that we do not need this legislation. Mr. President, I think that both arguments are in error, as largely inconsistent as they may be.
T. Gorton: “The first is that it is a terrible idea to allow labor-management cooperation outside of a formal union-management…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing objections to the TEAM Act during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from T. Gorton
I would agree that the U.S. Forest Service should preserve the option to use such fire retardants in order to minimize the long-term visual impacts of wildfires.
The Senator is correct. Section 156 states, ``nothing in this section shall be construed to expand the existing statutory authority of the Secretary.'' The interpretation suggested by our House colleagues would require additional statutory…
In response to my colleague, the senior Senator from Nevada, let me say that your understanding of the issues affecting Lake Tahoe is correct. Your concerns seem reasonable, as does your interpretation of the language in question.
This bill includes appropriations from the Historic Preservation Fund that could be used for eligible projects such as that for the Great Falls in Paterson.





