WASHINGTON / CATHERINE COLLINS : Bills Seek to Restrict Firms From Eavesdropping on Employees

If Big Brother is listening or watching while you work, Uncle Sam wants you to know.

Legislation passed in 1988 prohibited the use of the polygraph as a prescreening tool in the private sector. Since then, employers have switched to other technologies to check up on workers.

According to the Communications Workers of America, 6 million workers are subject to telephone monitoring and two-thirds of those using video display terminals are monitored. Telephone operators, insurance and bank personnel, government workers, direct-mail marketers and airline and hotel reservation clerks are among those monitored regularly.

Two pieces of legislation in Congress would impose restrictions on such techniques. They are Illinois Democrat Sen. Paul Simon’s employee monitoring bill (S. 2164) and Missouri Democrat Rep. William Clay’s privacy for consumers and workers act (H.R. 2168). Neither bill prohibits monitoring but requires employers to provide prior written notice and alert employees and consumers during the monitoring with either an audible tone or a visual signal.

“There are certain basic invasions of privacy that our system of government was designed to prevent,” said Simon. “You cannot get a search warrant to invade someone’s house just because you want to go in and look around. You should not be able to secretly invade someone’s phone conversation either.”

The House bill is more far-reaching. It would regulate all electronic monitoring of employees. Monitoring would have to be relevant to work performance, and disclosure of information would be restricted.

Business interests view both bills as a hindrance. “In many instances, employers use monitoring devices to train employees, and restrictions on an employer’s use of those monitoring devices can hinder an employer’s ability to carry out that specific purpose,” said Roger Middleton, counsel for corporate policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The Senate bill is pending in the Labor and Human Resources Committee. The House bill has been referred to the Labor Management and Employment Opportunities subcommittees.

Ban Sought on PACs of Foreign-Owned Firms

When the Senate considers campaign reform legislation, possibly later this year, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.) plans to offer an amendment to ban contributions from political action committees at foreign-owned companies.

“We may not be able to avoid increasing foreign involvement in our economy, whether through financing of our deficits or direct purchase of stock, whole companies or real estate. But we can and should draw strict limits when the economic power threatens to inject itself into our political process,” Bentsen wrote Senate colleagues.

Bentsen’s amendment would prohibit contributions from PACs at firms that are controlled at least 50% by foreign interests.

Foreign investment is a hot issue in Washington, as the Senate and House consider a score of bills on the subject. Even before being introduced, Bentsen’s proposal has sparked a fiery reaction.

“We consider ourselves an American company with more than 7,000 American employees, and we would like to continue to participate in the American political process,” said Don Spetner, spokesman for Nissan Motor Corp. in USA in Gardena.

Jim Olson, vice president of external affairs for Toyota Motor Sales USA in Torrance, said: “What bothers me, not just as a representative for a subsidiary of a foreign company but as an American, is that they are seeking to disenfranchise subsidiaries of foreign companies and their thousands of employees. They are saying, ‘You don’t have a right to participate in the political process because you work for a company that is partially owned by a foreign company.’ ”

“It’s open season on foreign investors in Washington,” said Brad Larschan, general counsel for the Assn. for International Investment, a lobbying group.

Current law prohibits a foreign national from making direct contributions to U.S. candidates or parties. But the Federal Election Commission allows U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies to set up PACs, as long as PAC officers and contributors are Americans.

Bentsen said: “The trouble with this interpretation is that it permits foreign companies to buy into our political process by acquiring U.S. subsidiaries and then creates inevitable pressures on employees to use their PAC muscle in ways acceptable to the corporate masters in London or Frankfurt or Tokyo.”

Pat Choate, director of policy analysis for TRW Inc. and author of the upcoming book on foreign interests, “Agents of Influence,” said: “Our own money politics is bad enough; foreign money politics is out of the question. I hope Sen. Bentsen can muster enough votes to make it a flat prohibition.”

Bill Seeks U.S. Law on Some Foreign Ships

Fair labor practices are all wet when it comes to foreign-flag ships, according to several who testified recently before the House subcommittee on labor-management relations.

“Normally those doing business in our country are required to abide by our laws,” said Rep. William L. Clay (D-Mo.). “For example, a foreign employer that owns and operates a factory in this country must abide by our labor laws. This legal principle, for no apparent reason, stops at the water’s edge.”

Clay complains that foreign-registered vessels, including those owned by American firms, are free to ignore U.S. laws even when they operate exclusively in U.S. ports. Some believe that escaping tougher U.S. laws has contributed to the decline of the nation’s commercial fleet. In 1956, American registered ships carried 21% of all imports. Today, they carry 4%.

In an effort to remedy the situation, Clay has sponsored a bill (H.R. 3283) to extend the coverage of certain federal laws to foreign-flag ships.

Rev. James Lingren, director of the New England Seamen’s Mission, said escaping U.S. labor laws allows shipowners to abuse and exploit workers. A typical seafarer works 100 hours a week, seven days a week, with no time off for up to a year at a time, he said. For the 400-plus hours a month, these men often receive a $300 salary.

Because U.S.-registered ships are subject to U.S. labor laws, the current law gives foreign-registered ships an unfair advantage, said Rep. Helen Bentley (R-Md.). “In fact, (they) encourage foreign-flag ships to come to the United States and effectively set up shop.”

The legislation has run into stiff opposition from literally every country represented in U.S. waters.