PBS NewsHour - 1996-03-18
Channel: malgent
Transcript
Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)
[0:05] Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the
[0:07] NewsHour tonight, part one of a series
[0:09] on the realities and politics of
[0:11] economic security with Margaret Warner
[0:13] in Dayton, Ohio, side of the big GM
[0:16] strike, and pollsters Linda DiVall and
[0:18] Stanley Greenberg. A new battle over
[0:21] timber in the Pacific Northwest, Robert
[0:23] Minett reports. And the fight over
[0:25] product liability laws, Elizabeth
[0:27] Farnsworth runs a debate. It all follows
[0:29] our summary of the news this Monday.
[0:32] Major funding for the NewsHour [music]
[0:34] with Jim Lehrer has been provided by the
[0:35] Archer Daniels Midland Company, ADM,
[0:38] supermarket to the world.
[0:42] And by New York Life, yet another
[0:45] example of New York Life's wise
[0:47] investment philosophy.
[0:51] And by the Corporation for Public
[0:53] Broadcasting, and by the annual
[0:55] financial support from viewers like you.
[0:58] Around the clock negotiations continued
[1:01] today in Dayton, Ohio to end the General
[1:03] Motors strike. The talks began yesterday
[1:06] morning. The 14-day old strike at two GM
[1:08] brake plants in Dayton has shut down 25
[1:11] of GM's 29 North America assembly
[1:14] facilities. More than 142,000 workers
[1:17] have been idle. A key issue between the
[1:20] United Auto Workers Union and GM is the
[1:22] buying of parts from outside suppliers.
[1:25] Dayton is the starting point of our
[1:27] week-long look at the realities and
[1:29] politics of economic insecurity. It
[1:31] begins right after this news summary. In
[1:33] another economic story today, MCI met
[1:36] rival AT&T's offer to give customers a
[1:39] free trial on the internet. MCI is the
[1:42] country's second largest long-distance
[1:43] telephone company. MCI will give
[1:46] customers five free hours of internet
[1:48] access per month.
[1:50] In Massachusetts today, 24-year-old John
[1:52] Salvi was convicted of killing two women
[1:55] in a shooting at two abortion clinics.
[1:57] He received a mandatory sentence of life
[1:59] in prison without parole. He was also
[2:01] convicted of armed assault with intent
[2:03] to murder five other people wounded in
[2:06] those 1994 attacks at the Boston area
[2:08] clinics. Salvi had pleaded not guilty by
[2:11] reason of insanity. In Washington today,
[2:14] the US Supreme Court agreed to review
[2:16] the size of buffer zones set up to
[2:18] shield abortion clinics from protesters.
[2:21] New York's current 15-foot zone was
[2:23] challenged by anti-abortion
[2:24] demonstrators in New York. They said it
[2:26] violated their free speech rights. In
[2:28] 1994, the court upheld a 36-foot zone
[2:32] around a Florida clinic.
[2:34] In New Orleans today, President Clinton
[2:35] made a pitch for his free trade
[2:37] policies. He participated in a
[2:39] ribbon-cutting ceremony at the opening
[2:41] of an enlarged wharf in the city's port.
[2:44] Mr. Clinton replied to claims that open
[2:46] markets mean lost jobs for American
[2:48] workers.
[2:50] 90,000 men and women across Louisiana
[2:54] already earn their living because of
[2:56] this port. The future is going to bring
[2:58] more trade, more opportunities, and more
[3:01] jobs because you embraced the challenge
[3:04] of change and look to the future with
[3:06] confidence.
[3:08] What we need is trade that is both free
[3:10] and fair, truly open, two-way open
[3:13] trade. The Port of New Orleans proves
[3:15] that if you have two-way open trade,
[3:17] Americans will do very well and we'll be
[3:20] just fine in the future.
[3:22] After his speech, Mr. Clinton went to
[3:24] Fort Polk in western Louisiana. He
[3:26] reviewed army troops just back from
[3:28] Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti. He
[3:31] decorated five soldiers representing
[3:33] each branch of the armed services
[3:34] participated in that Haiti mission. He
[3:37] also paid tribute to families of service
[3:39] personnel now in Bosnia.
[3:41] In Bosnia news today, more than a dozen
[3:44] arson fires raised in a Sarajevo suburb.
[3:47] It is the last of five Serb districts
[3:49] scheduled to be transferred to
[3:51] Muslim-Croat control tomorrow. Serb
[3:53] gangs burned and looted the main market,
[3:56] warehouses, and dozens of apartments.
[3:58] United United Nations official called it
[4:00] a deliberate campaign of arson, robbery,
[4:03] and intimidation. Secretary of State
[4:06] Christopher met with the Balkan leaders
[4:07] today in Geneva, Switzerland. He sought
[4:09] to reaffirm their compliance with the
[4:11] Bosnia peace accords. Christopher
[4:13] praised the peace implementation force
[4:15] called IFOR.
[4:17] The killing has ended.
[4:20] The armies have withdrawn.
[4:21] [clears throat]
[4:23] This is an extraordinary accomplishment,
[4:26] one that many people thought would never
[4:29] be possible. So today, we will enter a
[4:32] new phase.
[4:33] As IFOR continues its mission, the
[4:36] international community will intensify
[4:38] its focus on the critical issues of
[4:41] human rights, freedom of press, war
[4:43] crimes, freedom of movement, and
[4:45] reconstruction.
[4:47] On the Taiwan story today, Chinese ships
[4:50] and planes again held military exercises
[4:52] southwest of Taiwan. In response,
[4:55] Taiwan's military demonstrated how it
[4:57] would repulse an attack from the
[4:59] mainland. The Chinese war games coincide
[5:01] with the run-up to Taiwan's presidential
[5:03] election this Saturday.
[5:05] In the Philippines, at least 80 people
[5:07] were killed and many more severely
[5:09] burned in a disco fire in a Manila
[5:11] suburb. The disco was filled with
[5:13] students celebrating the end of the
[5:15] school year.
[5:17] And that's it for the news summary
[5:18] tonight. Now it's on to our new series
[5:20] on economic insecurity,
[5:22] timber in the northwest,
[5:24] and a product liability debate.
[5:37] We begin tonight in Dayton, Ohio.
[5:39] There's a presidential primary there
[5:40] tomorrow as there is throughout most of
[5:42] the Midwest, and there's a strike at two
[5:45] GM brake plants there today as there has
[5:48] been for the last 14 days. Both events
[5:51] are relevant to economic security or
[5:53] insecurity, the new issue that is
[5:55] sweeping through the worlds of politics
[5:57] and economics right now. We will examine
[6:00] that issue throughout this week. Part
[6:02] one begins in Dayton with Margaret
[6:03] Warner.
[6:05] When workers went on strike at two
[6:07] General Motors brake plants in Dayton
[6:09] this month, it was just the latest
[6:11] economic jolt to a city that's had more
[6:13] than its share.
[6:15] This city of 200,000 is a resilient
[6:18] place. It has a rich history of
[6:20] invention and entrepreneurship. Dayton
[6:22] natives invented the cash register and
[6:25] built it into a worldwide business,
[6:27] National Cash Register or NCR.
[6:30] Daytonians Orville and Wilbur Wright
[6:32] invented the airplane. Other inventions
[6:34] helped make Dayton a major manufacturing
[6:37] center for auto parts, machinery, and
[6:39] tools.
[6:41] Today, manufacturing still provides 1/3
[6:43] of the jobs in Dayton. Fortune 500
[6:46] companies like multinational Mead
[6:48] Corporation are prospering. Smaller
[6:50] high-tech companies are growing.
[6:56] Unemployment in the Dayton area is just
[6:58] 5.1%
[6:59] better than the nation as a whole. The
[7:02] median family income is slightly below
[7:04] the national average, however, about
[7:06] $36,000.
[7:07] And it now takes most families two wage
[7:10] earners to achieve that.
[7:13] Still, this is a dramatic turnaround
[7:15] from the recession and double-digit
[7:17] unemployment of the late 1970s when some
[7:20] thought towns like Dayton would die.
[7:23] And yet, there seems to be a sense of
[7:25] unease.
[7:26] People don't feel that the community is
[7:28] on its back. They don't feel that the
[7:30] community is threatened per se. They
[7:32] just feel uneasy about their particular
[7:34] situation and how that's going to
[7:36] evolve. I think below that, there is
[7:38] kind of a fragility that people feel.
[7:40] They don't feel that uh perhaps uh if
[7:43] it's going well today, that it'll
[7:44] necessarily be going well tomorrow.
[7:46] Corporate takeovers and restructurings
[7:49] at companies like NCR helped create that
[7:51] insecurity. NCR, which in its heyday
[7:54] employed 25,000 people here, shrank to
[7:57] 5,000 local workers before AT&T took it
[8:00] over 5 years ago. Since then, its
[8:03] workforce has been cut to half that.
[8:06] Those jobs are being replaced, but many
[8:09] are in the lower-paying service sector.
[8:11] And few of the newer manufacturing jobs
[8:13] at smaller firms offer the hefty wage,
[8:16] overtime, and benefit packages that
[8:18] blue-collar workers had come to expect.
[8:23] One Dayton institution is profiting from
[8:25] all this upheaval. Sinclair Community
[8:28] College does a booming business in
[8:30] retraining.
[8:32] Tens of thousands of Daytonians have had
[8:34] to cope with these changes in their
[8:35] professional and personal lives.
[8:38] David Gaylor, who's 45, had parlayed his
[8:42] master's degree into a 13-year career in
[8:44] human resources at NCR, then AT&T. But
[8:49] last fall, he was downsized out of his
[8:51] job. For now, he's working for NCR as a
[8:54] short-term independent contractor and
[8:56] counts on his wife's teaching salary to
[8:58] help them support their three teenagers.
[9:03] At 57, Lucille Dursch is taking computer
[9:06] classes at Sinclair after being
[9:08] downsized out of NCR AT&T.
[9:11] First, her NCR assembly line job was
[9:13] moved to Colorado, so she joined the
[9:15] company's cleaning staff. Last summer,
[9:18] AT&T eliminated all its union janitorial
[9:21] jobs and contracted out the work. She
[9:24] took early retirement to preserve her
[9:25] health insurance.
[9:28] Union membership has helped protect
[9:30] 45-year-old Tony Currington so far. A
[9:33] worker at one of the GM brake factories,
[9:35] he isn't taking part in the strike there
[9:37] because he works on non-GM contracts.
[9:40] This father of five enjoys a comfortable
[9:42] life thanks to his $19-an-hour wage and
[9:45] his wife's salary as an emergency room
[9:47] nurse.
[9:49] The fact that Jeff Woodward, 48, has his
[9:51] own plane helped salvage his career
[9:53] prospects. He left LexisNexis last
[9:56] spring after Mead Corporation sold it to
[9:58] foreign owners. After 6 months out of
[10:01] work, he began commuting each week to
[10:03] work as chief financial officer of a
[10:05] company in Florida. His wife teaches
[10:07] school.
[10:10] Gina Clark, 35, is a single mother who
[10:13] used to make good money in the cable TV
[10:15] business. But a series of restructurings
[10:18] in the communications industry left her
[10:20] without steady work a year and a half
[10:22] ago. She now does temporary work at $10
[10:25] to $12 an hour, most recently at NCR
[10:28] AT&T and at Lexus Nexus.
[10:31] See how
[10:32] you kind of see how this part fits
[10:34] together,
[10:35] At 39, Harvard Business School graduate
[10:38] Jim Whalen is doing well. He's executive
[10:41] vice president of Gem City Engineering,
[10:43] a growing high-tech manufacturing firm.
[10:46] Gem City sells automation equipment to
[10:48] microelectronics companies worldwide.
[10:51] His wife used to teach school, but now
[10:53] stays home raising their four children.
[10:58] We gathered these six Dayton residents
[11:00] to talk about how they've come to terms
[11:01] with this time of economic change. We
[11:04] met last Friday morning at the Engineers
[11:06] Club, a downtown landmark founded in
[11:09] 1914
[11:10] by two of the city's business pioneers.
[11:14] Thank you all very much for being with
[11:15] us. Dave Geller, let me start with you.
[11:18] How different is your economic situation
[11:20] today than what you expected, say, when
[11:22] you got out of college? What you thought
[11:24] your life, your professional life was
[11:25] going to be like? Well, I think when I
[11:27] graduated from college back in the '70s,
[11:29] I had a I had a perception that my
[11:31] career would be with maybe one or two
[11:33] companies and that it would last as long
[11:36] as I wanted it to, but the security
[11:38] would be there. And I think that over
[11:39] the over the past two decades, I've I've
[11:42] had an awakening to the fact that it's
[11:43] not that way anymore. I myself have been
[11:45] with a number of companies, the last one
[11:47] being
[11:48] AT&T GIS here in Dayton. The former NCR.
[11:51] The former NCR, right. And that was a
[11:54] 13-year relationship and unfortunately,
[11:57] uh
[11:58] that ended. My my whole outlook on
[12:02] career has changed and moved from a
[12:04] security standpoint to one that I think
[12:07] the key is going to be flexibility. I
[12:09] have to be flexible and probably other
[12:10] people in the workforce are going to
[12:11] have to be flexible to be able to adapt
[12:13] to the needs the changing needs in the
[12:15] workforce and be able to meet those
[12:16] needs with some kind of skill set that
[12:18] we hopefully have. So.
[12:20] Um Lucille, there's you've had to go
[12:21] through a lot of
[12:22] changes also. Um tell me how you've
[12:25] coped with that. You're very insecure.
[12:28] I haven't got the skills for today's
[12:31] work world
[12:32] and I'm going back to school at Sinclair
[12:35] and hopefully I can find a good job. I'd
[12:38] love to go back to AT&T GIS.
[12:41] Um but not in the area that I was in.
[12:45] Maybe on the same floor, but um
[12:48] because I cried when I left there.
[12:50] And um
[12:51] my financial status has dropped
[12:55] dramatically. Tony Cranston, you are at
[12:58] the GM plant. You're not on strike
[12:59] because you're working on parts for
[13:01] non-GM plants, but tell me
[13:04] how has your career
[13:07] followed or not followed the
[13:08] expectations you had when you started
[13:10] out? My expectations of my career was in
[13:13] banking. I did that for 10 years and I
[13:16] always wanted to get into a field where
[13:19] I could kind of grow and and and and
[13:22] earn a decent wage to provide for my
[13:23] family. So,
[13:25] I had the opportunity to join the GM
[13:27] family. It's not really what I like
[13:29] doing, but I I don't think anybody
[13:32] and I tell my kids this too that, you
[13:33] know, you're going to always
[13:35] get into something that you think you
[13:36] like and after a while you find that you
[13:38] don't like it, but you stay there
[13:39] because of the rewards or financial
[13:41] security that you have.
[13:42] So, how secure do you feel
[13:45] financially or or economically? We've
[13:47] had a lot of plants that through GM
[13:49] that's closed and and gone south and
[13:52] gone north the borders. So,
[13:55] uh we're always in a tenuous situation,
[13:57] and and everybody's stressful and
[13:59] everybody's on pins and needles, but
[14:01] everybody's kind of
[14:02] got to keep a positive note about it.
[14:05] Jeff Woodward, you've also had to make
[14:06] some rather major changes in your life
[14:09] after leaving Mead Nexus Lexus.
[14:13] How how secure are you feeling? I think
[14:15] the realization for me is that uh
[14:18] uh the kind of lifelong security my
[14:21] father father retired from NCR after 35
[14:23] years uh
[14:25] here in Dayton and uh those kind of days
[14:27] are gone.
[14:28] And um we are all, I think, moving
[14:30] toward becoming really a nation of uh
[14:33] independent contractors to a large
[14:35] extent. Once you accept that,
[14:39] if you have the skill sets and and the
[14:41] educational background to adapt, if you
[14:43] can be an adapter,
[14:45] then really, in a way,
[14:47] there's about as much security from
[14:49] being able to do that
[14:50] as there was from
[14:52] being associated with a major company on
[14:54] a lifetime situation. Explain that. What
[14:56] do you mean? Well, just like a company
[14:59] has a product, you have a product to
[15:00] offer. The product is yourself.
[15:02] And if you if you can keep that product
[15:05] new and alive and if you can keep it
[15:07] optimistic
[15:09] and meet the challenges, then I think
[15:11] you're absolutely in better shape to
[15:14] dictate your own future
[15:16] than you are if you are a cog in a wheel
[15:19] and the wheel gets sold from machine to
[15:22] machine
[15:23] and the new owner of the machine may not
[15:26] think that wheel's very important.
[15:28] And I would rather be in control.
[15:31] Gina Clark,
[15:32] you've also gone through some a lot of
[15:34] changes. Starting with an acquisition in
[15:37] going all the way back to 1987, the
[15:40] company I was working for was was
[15:41] bought. So, I was displaced and so I
[15:44] moved to Dayton in 1988 and very quickly
[15:46] after moving to Dayton, the company I
[15:47] was working for was bought and sold
[15:50] again.
[15:52] So, this is this has gone on for several
[15:53] years, but most recently I've gone from
[15:55] making well over 50,000 to making less
[15:58] than $12 an hour. So, yeah, not feeling
[16:01] real secure.
[16:02] And last night I was doing my taxes and
[16:04] it wasn't counting the numbers on my
[16:05] W-2s, it was counting the number of my
[16:08] W-2s because I'm now currently working
[16:09] as a temporary. And Jim Whalen, now your
[16:12] company
[16:13] is uh benefiting from this changing
[16:17] economy.
[16:18] >> And we are a designer and builder of
[16:20] automation equipment and our niche is
[16:22] really in the microelectronics, the
[16:24] computer field. We've been able to
[16:26] increase our exports and also increase
[16:29] our business domestically to the point
[16:32] where over the last uh 6 years we've
[16:34] we've more than doubled our business,
[16:36] grown at it over 15% annually. So, we've
[16:39] been a real success story, I feel like,
[16:41] in Dayton, Ohio. And how personally
[16:43] secure do you feel?
[16:45] I I feel very secure.
[16:47] Let's talk a little bit about, in fact,
[16:49] what impact as you're all coping with
[16:51] the changing economy it does have on
[16:53] your family life. Dave? Well, I think
[16:56] there's there's there've been some pros
[16:57] and cons to it. The cons, of course,
[17:00] the boys I have two teenagers or three
[17:03] teenagers for that matter, but the two
[17:04] younger ones have
[17:06] periodically asking, "Have you got a job
[17:08] yet? Have you got a job yet?"
[17:10] Uh on the other hand, they see me more
[17:12] and I've been able to do more things
[17:14] of personal interest off
[17:17] with the community as well as
[17:19] uh spending more time with them. Jeff,
[17:21] what about you?
[17:23] Really, um even though I commute to
[17:25] Gainesville, Florida, the reality is the
[17:28] family tells me that I'm easier to live
[17:30] with now than I was before when I was
[17:32] spending uh 60 or 70 hours a week
[17:35] with Lexus at that time. I I have to
[17:38] disagree. I have to disagree because I
[17:40] have been a single parent for years
[17:42] and when you're making the kinds of
[17:44] money I was making with an expense
[17:46] account, with the ability to as as you
[17:48] said to come and go as you please, um I
[17:50] never had I never understood all of the
[17:52] the
[17:53] slings and arrows that were, you know,
[17:55] thrown at single parents because we just
[17:56] never experienced any of that. I had
[17:58] when I lived in Houston, I had a nanny
[17:59] and a housekeeper and never had to do
[18:01] any of those, you know, things. I could
[18:03] spend time with my son and do my job
[18:05] well. And when that kind of income goes
[18:07] away and you have to work, you have to
[18:08] be someplace at 8:00 and leave, you
[18:11] know, whenever the boss's project is
[18:12] done and get permission to go to a
[18:14] dentist appointment, much less your
[18:15] son's football game, it changes your
[18:17] whole life. And my son, Jordan, has been
[18:19] extremely patient, but his patience is
[18:22] running thin, I think.
[18:24] Lucille, what about you?
[18:26] As as you get older, you find out your
[18:28] skills aren't up to
[18:30] date and as you get older, I don't you
[18:33] can't prove it, I guess, but they don't
[18:35] want to hire the older folks
[18:37] for all kinds of reasons and I'm also
[18:40] kind of being educated on that at school
[18:43] about how the
[18:45] work world looks at older employees.
[18:47] They may be dependable, but sometimes I
[18:49] guess they're set in their ways and
[18:50] they're not flexible.
[18:52] And I'm very flexible and I'm very
[18:54] dependable.
[18:55] >> [laughter]
[18:56] >> Jim, let me ask you, what
[18:59] I mean, you your company is very
[19:00] involved in the global economy. Do you
[19:03] think that's all to the good as we
[19:06] as we move, all of us, into this global
[19:08] economy or do you think there downsides?
[19:11] Of course, one of the political issues
[19:12] is the whole issue of of trade barriers
[19:15] which Pat Buchanan advocates. I think a
[19:17] free
[19:19] uh world
[19:20] trading society is is important. Um I
[19:23] think that if we put any kind of
[19:24] barriers up that we're going to keep
[19:27] competition out, we're going to become
[19:30] um more inefficient. I I'm not against
[19:33] multinational competition. I mean, I
[19:35] want to make myself extremely clear. I I
[19:37] love the fact that while I was with AT&T
[19:39] for a short time, that all the work that
[19:41] I did was international. I was
[19:42] constantly on the phone to to Russia, to
[19:44] Hong Kong, you know, it was fascinating
[19:46] and it was leading edge and it was
[19:47] wonderful, but the people that I was
[19:49] working around had watched people that
[19:50] they'd worked with for 35 years lose
[19:52] homes, commit suicide. So, I'm thinking
[19:55] to myself, if that's the cost of
[19:58] branching out into this many markets
[20:00] this fast, then maybe we need to step
[20:02] back and take a look at this. And I'm
[20:03] not saying slow down the process, but
[20:05] let's let's take a look at it and say,
[20:07] are we going the right way? One of the
[20:09] unfortunate things with these
[20:10] multinational companies is that they
[20:13] have pressure, they're publicly traded,
[20:14] they have pressure for quarterly
[20:16] earnings results, period. And
[20:20] you know, if they have to they're very
[20:22] blatant about if they have to lay people
[20:24] off or cut costs, that's what they do to
[20:26] meet their quarterly earnings so their
[20:27] stock price can stay up. One advantage
[20:30] that Jim City Engineering has is that we
[20:32] are a a smaller company, we have 500
[20:34] employees, we've been in business 60
[20:36] years, privately held, and we don't have
[20:39] these quarterly pressures. We have a
[20:40] tremendously loyal workforce. Our
[20:43] average tenure of people is is more than
[20:45] 12 years, and we've been able to to do
[20:48] that because we're good to the people
[20:51] when times are
[20:52] tough or whatever, we don't go through
[20:54] those exercises. So,
[20:56] it's unfortunate that these
[20:58] multinationals, but it's a reality that
[21:01] they have to
[21:03] they're victims of the shareholders in
[21:05] this quarterly earnings.
[21:07] >> I'm not too sure that I buy that. I'm
[21:09] not too sure it's not AT&T management
[21:12] responding to bonus plans.
[21:14] AT&T lays off 40,000 people and the
[21:18] chairman gets a $5 million
[21:20] bonus payout.
[21:21] There's something not right about that
[21:23] equation. Oftentimes companies look for
[21:26] the magic fix it. We're into
[21:28] reengineering, we're into
[21:29] infrastructural changes and things like
[21:31] that. Kind of like the soup of the day,
[21:32] what works today. And the issue is we
[21:35] don't give it time to nurture, to to to
[21:38] progress, to check it out. We want to go
[21:40] for the next quick fix, and oftentimes
[21:42] when that happens, people get caught in
[21:44] that shuffle. To me, the the movement of
[21:47] the workforce is going to be more
[21:48] towards the area of small business. I
[21:50] think we're going to see a
[21:52] a boom in in people looking at small
[21:55] businesses as an option career-wise and
[21:58] as a as a professional
[21:59] direction for their for themselves
[22:02] and less so on the big corporations.
[22:04] >> Do you think that
[22:06] this changing economy has affected the
[22:08] whole loyalty issue, the loyalty
[22:10] question, the loyalty employees feel to
[22:12] companies as well as vice versa? Well,
[22:14] you know, I can kind of simplify it by
[22:16] by saying there isn't any. I think
[22:18] loyalty is pretty passe. I think most
[22:21] people would settle for fairness at this
[22:23] point in time. That that treat me
[22:25] fairly.
[22:27] Treat me if you come in and buy my
[22:29] company, learn my skill set, learn if I
[22:31] what I can do for you before you just
[22:33] lop off 20% just to make the numbers.
[22:37] Make sure it's the right 20%. Does
[22:39] anybody here think that the government
[22:41] should be stepping in to try to soften
[22:44] the effects of all these political
[22:45] change of all these economic changes
[22:47] we're seeing?
[22:48] I I think we've proven to ourselves in
[22:51] the past that whatever the government
[22:53] steps into it mucks up.
[22:57] At least that's what's proven to me.
[22:59] Does anyone feel differently on this
[23:00] question about government's role?
[23:02] Lucille?
[23:04] Well, I would just like to see them
[23:05] continue or improve
[23:07] uh
[23:09] the assistance to help displaced workers
[23:11] to get back on their feet. I would like
[23:14] more, I guess you'd say, financial
[23:15] assistance trying to get my education up
[23:18] to some kind of skill. We need an an
[23:20] environment nationally and locally
[23:23] that's going to be conducive to small
[23:25] business and growing small business and
[23:27] and making that the backbone of the
[23:29] United States.
[23:31] The other important point though is
[23:32] education and training. We need to have
[23:35] that addressed at the local levels, at
[23:37] the state levels, and at the national
[23:39] level. And and I think that that's
[23:41] crucial to develop a a good quality
[23:44] workforce in the United States.
[23:45] >> And are any of the major political
[23:47] figures on the national scene do you
[23:48] think speaking to these issues in a
[23:50] compelling way?
[23:52] Well, you read where Pat Buchanan has
[23:54] come out and
[23:55] we've talked about AT&T
[23:57] this this day that and he's pretty much
[24:00] skewered Bob Allen for the layoffs. And
[24:03] yet US News and World Report said he is
[24:05] not releasing any of his AT&T stock. So,
[24:08] yeah, the words are there. You hope that
[24:10] what they're saying is valid and true,
[24:12] you trust it is, but on the other hand
[24:14] actions can speak louder than words. And
[24:16] and is that just a ploy to be elected or
[24:19] is it in actuality his stand and his
[24:22] concern about the future work workplace
[24:25] impact? Gina? And I also think you know,
[24:28] actions do speak louder than words. I
[24:29] would really like to see the current
[24:31] administration just stick to the
[24:33] original promises that it made.
[24:35] Do I trust any of the candidates?
[24:38] Not very much.
[24:39] >> Tony?
[24:39] >> That's that's my sentiment there.
[24:41] I have
[24:42] absolutely no trust. If I can't reach
[24:44] out and touch them, I you know, I just
[24:45] don't trust them. But this this is the
[24:47] thing that Jeff is talking about that
[24:49] every time a government gets in, you
[24:51] know, it seems like there's more hands
[24:53] in the pie. Somehow somebody else
[24:54] benefits other than the small businesses
[24:57] or the person who's actually doing the
[24:59] work. I agree with him completely. I
[25:01] think a lot times they promise you what
[25:03] they think you want to tell you what
[25:04] they think you want to hear. Then when
[25:06] they get in there,
[25:07] either they've changed their mind or
[25:09] somebody vetoed them down.
[25:11] So, they don't tell you they haven't got
[25:13] the all in all power to do everything
[25:15] they're promising you. When this country
[25:18] started, the people in government were
[25:19] something else before they were in
[25:21] politicians. We now have professional
[25:23] politicians. The idea that you can be a
[25:25] politician all your life and be prepared
[25:28] to deal with the kind of problems and
[25:29] questions that this country has anymore,
[25:31] I think I think we're past that point.
[25:33] Well, thank you all very much. This has
[25:34] been terrific. Thanks.
[25:36] Now, put in these Ohio voices into a
[25:39] national political context, it will be
[25:41] done by two pollsters, Republican Linda
[25:43] DiVall who worked on the Gramm
[25:45] presidential campaign and Democrat
[25:46] Stanley Greenberg who worked on the 1992
[25:49] Clinton-Gore campaign. Linda, are those
[25:51] folks in Dayton representative of the
[25:53] country as a whole right now? I I think
[25:55] they are for a couple of reasons. Number
[25:56] one, you see that people are struggling
[25:58] with concern about their future economic
[26:00] security.
[26:01] What we're seeing today is that people
[26:03] now begin are beginning to understand
[26:04] that they will go through five, six,
[26:06] eight different career changes, that
[26:07] it's not the same as it was 20 or 30
[26:09] years ago where you will be with one
[26:10] corporation. And that means that there's
[26:12] uncertainty perhaps not so much about
[26:14] the job they hold today, but five, 10
[26:16] years hence about their long-term
[26:18] financial security and their kids' place
[26:20] as well. What was interesting about that
[26:22] piece is how many of the people felt it
[26:23] was necessary to take on more personal
[26:25] responsibility for themselves in terms
[26:27] of job retraining, not just looking at a
[26:29] government hand up, but better preparing
[26:30] themselves to compete in an
[26:32] international global marketplace. A kind
[26:34] of an acceptance Stanley Greenberg up
[26:37] that this is the new reality. Do the
[26:39] polls Do the polls reflect that
[26:40] nationally?
[26:41] >> Um they do. And this is painfully real.
[26:44] I mean, this was a this is a
[26:45] I think an exceptional focus group
[26:47] discussion and I think brought out many
[26:49] of the currents that are there in the
[26:50] country. You've got people that are
[26:52] scrambling to put together an economic
[26:54] life, many jobs. One of the participants
[26:56] talked about multiple W-2s.
[26:59] The people feel they're on their own,
[27:01] they're putting these jobs together
[27:02] themselves. I mean, the economy is
[27:04] creating a lot of jobs, but they are
[27:05] perceived to be, and I think accurately,
[27:08] lower-paying jobs which requires that
[27:10] they have more family pressures, put in
[27:12] more work time, more overtime, multiple
[27:14] jobs. And it leaves people feeling that
[27:16] they are under enormous pressure. A lot
[27:18] of a lot of a lot of sense here that the
[27:20] family was under pressure as a
[27:22] consequence of this kind of economic
[27:23] change.
[27:24] >> What do you make of the line that we are
[27:25] a nation of independent contractors now?
[27:28] One man said.
[27:29] I think it's both true both as a I think
[27:32] an empirical statement and for some, I
[27:33] think particularly for the better
[27:34] educated and the professionals,
[27:36] I think exciting. For most of the
[27:38] others, I think they were scared of that
[27:40] of that role. And I think one of the
[27:41] problems that they have of government is
[27:43] the government [clears throat]
[27:44] hasn't been there. Their perception is
[27:45] the government hasn't been for them.
[27:47] They'd like to see that there's help for
[27:49] education and training in order to put
[27:50] together those skill sets to be able to
[27:52] be sure that you're going to be able to
[27:53] have portable health care or pensions if
[27:55] you're going to have this kind of
[27:56] instability. And I think they're looking
[27:58] for a different kind of government role
[27:59] in this new period. We'll get back to
[28:01] the government in a minute, but this
[28:02] independent contractor concept is as
[28:06] Stan Greenberg says, it only applies to
[28:07] people with
[28:09] a lot of training or a lot of experience
[28:11] or a lot of education, does it not?
[28:12] >> Well, not necessarily. I think there are
[28:13] a lot of people who are looking for
[28:14] flexibility in the workplace and they
[28:16] don't want to be wedded to going to a
[28:18] company and working 9:00 to 5:00. So,
[28:19] they're looking at working out of their
[28:21] house or working out of their plane or,
[28:23] you know, the golf course in my case,
[28:24] that's what I would strive for. But I
[28:25] think people are looking for some
[28:26] flexibility in the workplace where
[28:27] they're not wedded to sitting in a chair
[28:29] working 8 hours a day. So, they are
[28:31] saying to themselves, as as Jeff I
[28:32] believe said, you know, the product to
[28:34] offer is yourself. How is it that you
[28:36] can sell yourself and say to that
[28:37] corporation that they need you. Now,
[28:40] there a number of different ways of
[28:41] doing that, but I think flexibility,
[28:42] which a lot of people mentioned in that
[28:44] article, really is key and having the
[28:46] freedom from your workplace to spend
[28:47] more time with your family to eliminate
[28:48] some of those pressures that we're
[28:49] seeing in all of our [clears throat]
[28:50] polling data is very dominant.
[28:52] >> But my point my question is, does it
[28:53] have relevance beyond a certain economic
[28:56] and educational level?
[28:57] >> Well, I said we can [clears throat]
[28:58] romanticize this. I mean, for the for
[29:00] the professionals, this you know, and
[29:01] who can fly off to Florida for a job,
[29:03] that's one thing. My sense of these of
[29:05] these voters both in our research and
[29:07] also the ones you spoke to in Dayton,
[29:09] these are people who feel very
[29:10] vulnerable, powerless relative to the
[29:12] companies, knowing that they can be
[29:13] dropped in the next, you know, next
[29:15] quarter if they need to cut 20%.
[29:17] And I think they feel very much on their
[29:19] on their own and powerless and they're
[29:21] trying to deal with the consequences in
[29:22] their lives. How do you have to now have
[29:24] to permission in order to, you know, go
[29:26] to your kids' football game. They're
[29:28] living they're living the consequences.
[29:29] Now, let's go to this government
[29:30] question, Linda.
[29:32] The it was clear that none of those
[29:34] folks are depending on the government or
[29:36] expecting the government to do anything
[29:38] to help them out of this problem that
[29:39] they quote have right now. And it's a
[29:41] big problem. It's varying degrees and we
[29:44] heard the varying degrees here, but they
[29:46] don't look to government. Is that a new
[29:48] development? No, it's not and I think
[29:50] it's a very strong Midwestern flavor
[29:51] that you saw here as well, but a couple
[29:53] things on that point. Number one, I
[29:54] thought the participants in this group
[29:56] showed a remarkable degree of
[29:57] resiliency, that they were going to do a
[29:59] lot to take care of themselves and yes,
[30:00] they were going through some economic
[30:02] downturns. And the survey data is
[30:03] interesting because people believe that
[30:06] the future for this country will be
[30:07] optimistic, but they're worried about
[30:08] the standard of living and about a
[30:10] majority people said that the standard
[30:11] of living will fall, which is reflected
[30:12] in a couple of the uh respondents in
[30:14] terms of their view. But ultimately,
[30:16] when you look at prescriptions, they're
[30:18] saying, I think job retraining at the
[30:19] local level or the community level
[30:20] because they know our problems best. But
[30:22] if the government comes in, they'll just
[30:24] make the situation worse. Their
[30:26] intervention from up here does not do
[30:28] anything to take care of our local needs
[30:29] in terms of understanding our community.
[30:31] And if you just look at Dayton in terms
[30:32] of the small business creation,
[30:35] unemployment rate being only 5% uh if
[30:37] you go back and look at 1982, the height
[30:39] of the recession during Ronald Reagan's
[30:41] administration, we found in our survey
[30:43] research in that state that 80% were
[30:45] concerned about losing their job in the
[30:47] next year.
[30:48] Well, I think they're heroic. I mean,
[30:50] not just not just resilient, I think
[30:51] they're heroic and I think we're being
[30:53] too literal in their reaction to
[30:55] government. I mean, what they are saying
[30:57] is that we are scrambling, we're we're
[30:59] we're making this this personal effort
[31:01] to put together an economic life.
[31:02] Government hasn't been there for the
[31:03] small business, government isn't there
[31:05] for the person who works who works hard,
[31:06] plays by the rules. They want to make
[31:09] sure that there is support for
[31:10] education, training, there is support
[31:12] for the things that they are doing in
[31:13] order to rate you know, to support their
[31:15] families. They think the government's
[31:17] not been there, uh but that's not the
[31:18] same thing as saying government
[31:19] shouldn't be there. They're angry that
[31:20] the government hasn't played a more
[31:22] important role in support of their
[31:23] needs. There's another element to it,
[31:25] too, there at the end. There's this just
[31:26] absolute uh mistrust of the people,
[31:28] whether they're Democrats as you are,
[31:30] Mr. Greenberg, or Republicans as you
[31:32] are, Ms. DeVall. They don't trust any of
[31:34] you all.
[31:35] That's a That's a fair statement. I was
[31:36] let Linda answer that one.
[31:38] >> [laughter]
[31:38] >> Well, I think there is going to be a
[31:39] burden on on both presidential nominees
[31:41] as we go into this election to talk
[31:43] about which party is most capable of
[31:45] restoring economic prosperity and
[31:47] speaking to the middle class,
[31:48] particularly the financially squeezed
[31:50] middle class, which is vast at this
[31:52] stage.
[31:53] We did a survey not too long ago and we
[31:54] found out that it was just very evenly
[31:56] divided on this issue of restoring
[31:57] economic prosperity. 42% favored the
[31:59] Republicans, 37% favored the Democrats.
[32:02] That could flip anyway. What voters want
[32:04] to hear is not so much more government
[32:06] intervention, but who who which of these
[32:08] two candidates speaks directly to them
[32:10] and understands this tension that they
[32:12] experience on a daily basis, that they
[32:14] are financially pressed. And not that
[32:15] they want to have government step in and
[32:17] solve their lives. You saw that. They
[32:18] know that that's not possible, but
[32:20] understands their concerns and can try
[32:21] to get local government more involved.
[32:23] >> Well, there's also some basic conditions
[32:24] that make it possible to put together
[32:26] those W-2s. The administration's created
[32:28] 8 million jobs over the last four years.
[32:30] They know they're [clears throat] they
[32:31] don't believe they are high-paying jobs,
[32:33] but they do believe they're at least
[32:34] able to scramble and put together an
[32:36] economic life. If this had been four
[32:38] years ago with unemployment 7% this
[32:40] would have been a different kind of
[32:41] conversation. They wouldn't be able to
[32:42] pursue these personal strategies. So,
[32:45] the kind of growth we had over the four
[32:46] years makes this possible, but it's not
[32:47] enough. They want I think they want
[32:49] political leaders to recognize their
[32:51] struggle uh and they want to know that
[32:52] political leaders have a vision on how
[32:54] this can change. I don't think people
[32:56] are going to settle for this this uh
[32:57] this this outcome. Is recognize you both
[33:00] of you you used the word understand, you
[33:01] used the word recognize. Is that what
[33:03] the folks want now from their political
[33:05] leaders? Even if they can't solve the
[33:06] problems, at least talk about it and
[33:08] understand what they're all about.
[33:09] >> is a feeling that once people
[33:11] get elected to Congress and come to
[33:13] Washington, once the plane lands at
[33:15] Washington National Airport, that they
[33:16] have totally lost the ability to read
[33:20] into their voters why they got there in
[33:21] the first place in terms of any type of
[33:23] sensitivity to the problems that they
[33:24] experience. There is this disconnect and
[33:26] particularly on the presidential level,
[33:28] when you fly from airport to airport,
[33:29] tarmac to tarmac, people feel that
[33:31] they're really not in touch with voters'
[33:32] lives and that's And that's true
[33:33] elsewhere than
[33:35] Ohio. Oh, for sure. I mean, they're
[33:37] >> [clears throat]
[33:37] >> they're making an heroic effort. They
[33:39] want the political leaders as a as a
[33:40] starting point to recognize that they
[33:42] should be that what of their effort.
[33:44] They want to be the center of the story.
[33:45] They think our politics ought to be
[33:47] about their lives. Well, they're going
[33:48] to be the center of the story on the
[33:49] NewsHour all week. We're going to be
[33:50] talking about this. Thank you all for
[33:52] helping us helping us get it started
[33:53] tonight. Thank you.
[34:02] Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a
[34:03] new battle over logging in the Pacific
[34:05] Northwest and the product liability
[34:07] debate. Rod Minear of KCTS, Seattle has
[34:10] the timber story.
[34:13] I'm ready to go to my sacred place and
[34:15] invite all my brothers and sisters to
[34:17] come with me.
[34:19] Defying [cheering] police orders,
[34:21] environmentalists recently marched up a
[34:23] logging road in the Olympic National
[34:24] Forest. You are subject to arrest beyond
[34:28] this point. In all, 89 arrests were made
[34:31] as protesters attempted to halt the
[34:33] clear-cutting of giant old-growth trees
[34:35] on a piece of US Forest Service land.
[34:38] Hey, Ben. How come I keep finding you up
[34:40] a tree? One protester climbed a tree
[34:42] hoping to escape capture.
[34:44] >> you all don't argue that clear-cutting
[34:46] of old-growth is is is, you know,
[34:50] a practical way of forestry, do you?
[34:52] Others voiced outrage at being
[34:54] handcuffed. I have not hurt anybody and
[34:57] I want these off. This scene is being
[34:59] repeated in national forests across the
[35:01] Northwest, which until recently had seen
[35:04] a truce in its war over timber. I'm
[35:06] aware I'm trespassing on public land.
[35:08] Yes. But some environmentalists say they
[35:10] have no choice but to break the law
[35:12] because of legislation Congress passed
[35:15] and President Clinton signed last
[35:16] summer. It's known as the salvage timber
[35:19] rider, which suspended some
[35:21] environmental protections and encouraged
[35:23] stepped-up logging of dead and dying
[35:25] trees. But the timber industry defends
[35:27] the special rider as vital to saving
[35:29] jobs. Chris West is with the Northwest
[35:32] Forestry Association. The bottom line is
[35:34] if we didn't have some protection from
[35:37] litigation, um we have continued
[35:39] gridlock. And the environmental
[35:41] community is upset because they can't
[35:44] uh use the courts to be obstructionists.
[35:52] With environmental laws on endangered
[35:54] species and clean water temporarily
[35:57] lifted, thousands of acres of federal
[35:59] forests in Washington and Oregon have
[36:01] been opened up to cutting through the
[36:03] end of this year.
[36:09] Supporters promoted the rider as a way
[36:11] to improve forest health by allowing the
[36:13] logging of timber that have been damaged
[36:15] by fire or bugs. But one section, which
[36:18] had nothing to do with dead or dying
[36:20] trees, also required the government to
[36:22] waive environmental laws in some areas
[36:25] so that healthy old-growth trees could
[36:27] be cut.
[36:31] Ostensibly, this was going to allow the
[36:33] harvest of dead and dying trees. Okay,
[36:35] well, sounds good. Uh what happened was
[36:37] the day after the president signed the
[36:39] bill, the timber industry went into
[36:40] court and succeeded in getting a whole
[36:42] series of judgments that had the effect
[36:45] of of expanding the scope of this
[36:47] logging rider. Across the country, it's
[36:50] estimated that 6 billion board feet of
[36:52] wood will be cut under the rider. Of
[36:54] that, about 600 million board feet of
[36:56] mostly healthy old-growth will come from
[36:58] Northwest forests. By comparison, it
[37:01] takes about 10,000 board feet of timber
[37:03] to build the average home. We've lost
[37:06] money uh the last several years trying
[37:08] to stay operating. Log shortage, price
[37:11] of logs and
[37:12] uh
[37:13] and uh the lumber market have all
[37:15] combined to to make it real tough for
[37:18] not only us, but most of the mills
[37:20] around this area that depend on public
[37:21] timber. For mill owners like Dave
[37:23] Beusée, the timber rider comes as a
[37:25] relief. It's the 55-acre stand of
[37:28] old-growth he's purchased rights to log
[37:30] in the Olympic National Forest that has
[37:32] been the focus of protests. Sales like
[37:34] this just give you that little lift
[37:39] out of the hole that sometimes make all
[37:41] the difference in the world to whether
[37:43] you survive or don't.
[37:45] Beusée's logging is well underway. Some
[37:47] of the trees here are 250 years old.
[37:50] Until the salvage rider passed, this
[37:52] site, like many others, was off-limits
[37:54] to cutting because of concern over
[37:55] harming fish and wildlife.
[37:58] Beusée says he's taken extra steps to
[37:59] protect the sale from environmental
[38:01] harm, such as leaving a 50-ft buffer of
[38:04] trees along a stream that drains into
[38:06] spawning grounds for trout and salmon.
[38:09] But critics say any clear-cutting like
[38:10] this threatens fish and wildlife.
[38:16] What we're seeing under this rider,
[38:18] big, ugly clear-cuts of ancient uh
[38:22] cathedral forest in the Northwest, this
[38:24] is the kind of thing that um
[38:27] the rider has enabled and
[38:29] um is really tragic because the
[38:31] consequences of it are that we're seeing
[38:34] the salmon streams running brown, uh
[38:37] we're seeing our formerly clean water
[38:40] uh
[38:40] uh being uh degraded. Quality of life
[38:43] here in the Northwest is is a function
[38:45] of healthy forest. It's all It's all
[38:47] going down the tubes and it's because of
[38:49] this rider.
[38:51] But the timber industry continues to
[38:53] insist the clear-cutting poses little
[38:55] threat.
[38:56] The release of these existing sales may
[38:59] result in the harvest of 10 to 12,000
[39:02] acres, which is a lot of land, but the
[39:04] president's forest plan uh covered 24
[39:08] million acres
[39:09] and 19 million acres of that was
[39:12] permanently preserved and protected. So,
[39:15] the harvest of 10 to 12,000 acres out of
[39:19] uh 24 million acres is just a drop in
[39:21] the bucket. Clinton, repeal the
[39:24] clear-cut deal. Environmentalists also
[39:27] remain angry at President Clinton for
[39:29] signing the salvage rider. To step up
[39:31] pressure for repeal, they recently
[39:33] staged a protest to coincide with a
[39:36] Seattle visit by the president.
[39:39] At a campaign event later that day,
[39:41] President Clinton said he had heard
[39:43] their message. We've done a lot of good
[39:45] things in the last 3 years
[39:47] and we made one or two and
[39:52] and we made one or two mistakes under
[39:54] the law of unintended consequences.
[39:57] And one of them was the unintended and
[40:00] unwarranted consequence of way that
[40:02] timber rider's been carried out. Patty
[40:04] Murray's going to help us fix it and I
[40:06] thank her for that.
[40:07] >> [cheering]
[40:07] >> Despite that presidential support,
[40:10] Senator Murray's proposal to repeal the
[40:12] rider was defeated last week in the US
[40:14] Senate. Congress is now considering
[40:16] another amendment attached to the
[40:18] omnibus budget bill that would slightly
[40:20] modify but not repeal the salvage timber
[40:22] rider. It would allow the government to
[40:24] offer timber companies either a
[40:26] substitute stand of trees or buy back
[40:29] their logging contracts in exchange for
[40:31] saving old-growth forests. Meanwhile,
[40:33] many environmentalists vow until
[40:35] lawmakers vote for repeal, they will
[40:37] continue their fight with civil
[40:39] disobedience in the forests of the
[40:41] Northwest.
[40:46] >> [music]
[40:51] >> Finally tonight, product liability.
[40:53] Elizabeth Farnsworth has that story. Are
[40:56] courts awarding excessive amounts to
[40:58] consumers who sue for defective
[41:00] products? That is the issue once again
[41:02] before Congress. Republicans had tried
[41:04] to limit awards as part of their
[41:06] contract with America last year, but
[41:07] that effort was defeated. Now they are
[41:09] back with a compromise version and with
[41:11] the support of some key Democrats. The
[41:13] Senate is expected to vote as early as
[41:15] tomorrow, the house later this week.
[41:18] President Clinton announced this weekend
[41:19] he would veto the bill. The legislation
[41:22] would limit punitive damages to either
[41:24] $250,000
[41:25] or two times so-called compensatory
[41:27] damages, awards for economic loss and
[41:30] pain and suffering. The higher amount
[41:31] would be awarded to the plaintiff.
[41:33] Businesses with 25 or fewer employees
[41:36] would pay the lower amount. A judge
[41:38] would be permitted in some cases to
[41:39] assess additional punitive awards for
[41:41] egregious conduct by large manufacturers
[41:44] and municipalities.
[41:45] The measure would limit each company's
[41:47] liability for non-economic damages such
[41:49] as pain and suffering to the business's
[41:51] percentage of responsibility for damages
[41:53] and would reduce the amount of damages
[41:55] that are awarded if the product was
[41:57] misused or altered. We now turn to two
[41:59] people who've been involved in the
[42:00] debate, Joan Claybrook, the president of
[42:02] Public Citizen, the consumer advocacy
[42:05] organization founded by Ralph Nader, and
[42:07] Paul Heward, a senior vice president for
[42:09] the National Association of
[42:11] Manufacturers. Thank you both for being
[42:13] with us. Mr. Heward, this bill is far
[42:15] more focused, more limited than a bill
[42:17] that had passed the house. Is it worthy
[42:19] of support? Oh, absolutely. I think uh
[42:22] what has happened here is that the uh
[42:25] practical realities have settled in on
[42:27] the house, which was much more ambitious
[42:29] uh
[42:30] and did have a uh so-called contract
[42:32] with America provision. They have fallen
[42:34] back basically to a bill that has been
[42:36] in the making for close to 15 or 20
[42:38] years
[42:39] uh which has strong bipartisan support,
[42:41] indeed was developed primarily while the
[42:44] Democrats were in control of both houses
[42:45] of Congress, has supporters such as
[42:47] Chairman Dingell
[42:48] uh
[42:49] of the House Commerce Committee, uh an
[42:51] ardent Democrat
[42:53] uh who supports this bill, Senator
[42:55] Rockefeller,
[42:56] uh a moderate if anything, hardly uh
[42:59] uh a man who is a front for the business
[43:01] community. Uh this again, uh a very
[43:03] reasonable, moderate bill
[43:05] uh
[43:06] goes back many years, is not really
[43:08] something that sprang out of whole cloth
[43:10] in the contract with America was the
[43:11] charge now being leveled by some people
[43:14] uh and we hope the president will
[43:16] reconsider his decision and sign it.
[43:18] Joan Claybrook, the bill does have wide
[43:19] part bipartisan support. What's wrong
[43:21] with it in your view? Well, it also has
[43:23] wide bipartisan opposition, I should uh
[43:25] point out. Uh uh what's wrong with this
[43:27] bill is that it would remove law and
[43:29] order for American corporations when
[43:30] they manufacture defective products that
[43:32] harm individuals. Uh the whole purpose
[43:35] of our court system uh where uh these
[43:37] cases are litigated, the civil justice
[43:39] system the envy of the world, by the
[43:41] way, uh is so that individual consumers
[43:43] can go into state court and to challenge
[43:46] manufacturers when they misbehave. And
[43:48] it's a very potent and powerful uh a
[43:51] capability. It's one of the few things
[43:53] that
[43:53] >> still do that though under this,
[43:54] couldn't But in a much more limited way
[43:56] and it's a it's so uh potent uh because
[43:59] it allows the average consumer to
[44:00] challenge the largest corporation
[44:02] America. We talk today uh particularly
[44:05] the business community talks today about
[44:07] personal responsibility for welfare
[44:09] mothers. And yet here they are fighting
[44:12] to get rid of their own personal
[44:13] responsibility when they manufacture
[44:15] their products. And indeed that will
[44:16] happen because the purpose of the civil
[44:19] justice system is to compensate
[44:21] individuals to deter manufacturers from
[44:25] uh manufacturing unsafe products, to
[44:27] punish those who engage in egregious
[44:29] misconduct, and to provide information
[44:31] to the rest of the consumers and prevent
[44:33] unsafe products from being manufactured.
[44:35] >> go through some of the specifics and let
[44:37] you describe why you think this would
[44:39] remove protections and you describe why
[44:40] you think it wouldn't. The caps on
[44:42] punitive damages.
[44:43] Well, caps mean that the largest
[44:45] corporations get the most protection.
[44:48] Uh that is if you're General Motors and
[44:50] you have uh billions of dollars of
[44:51] profits every year and a $250,000 cap is
[44:55] applied to uh you, it's like a fly swat.
[44:58] Uh and so they're doing exactly the
[45:00] opposite of what should do, which is uh
[45:02] what and what juries do on their own
[45:04] without this interference from the
[45:05] federal government, which is to apply a
[45:07] larger award for a larger corporation.
[45:09] Okay, Mr. Heward on that.
[45:10] >> Well,
[45:11] uh I think one of the long-standing
[45:14] concepts of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence is
[45:17] that the punishment ought to fit the
[45:18] crime. Uh and the opponents of this bill
[45:21] are constantly talking about the need to
[45:22] punish corporate wrongdoers.
[45:24] Uh I can well imagine in the criminal
[45:26] justice system the outrage that would
[45:28] occur uh if you could draw 30 years uh
[45:31] in prison for jaywalking. And what we're
[45:33] saying is there ought to be some
[45:34] proportionality. There are indeed many
[45:37] large compensatory damage awards. Where
[45:39] a compensatory damage award for instance
[45:41] of 5 or 10 million dollars is awarded,
[45:43] the punitive damages would be 10 or 20
[45:46] million. And there are many cases of
[45:47] egregious conduct where you get large
[45:49] punitive damage awards. What we're
[45:50] saying here is if you have a relatively
[45:52] small economic injury, you know, and I
[45:55] will cite the proverbial $400 paint
[45:58] scratch on the BMW, you oughtn't be hit
[46:00] with 21 million in punitive damages.
[46:02] That's just ridiculous. It ends up
[46:04] costing the American consumer a lot of
[46:05] money because people have to build this
[46:07] into the cost of the product. Mr. Ms.
[46:09] Claybrook, what about the the compromise
[46:11] that was reached? A a judge, if there
[46:13] were really egregious wrongdoing by a
[46:15] company, could go beyond the
[46:18] limitations. Doesn't that provide some
[46:20] of the protection you would want? No, it
[46:22] really doesn't and there there two
[46:23] defects. The second defect in this
[46:25] punitive damage provision is that it
[46:26] bases it on your uh your damages. The
[46:30] way that punitive damages really should
[46:31] be awarded is to look at the conduct of
[46:33] the manufacturer, the size of the
[46:35] manufacturer, how long they knew the
[46:36] product was defective uh how many people
[46:38] were injured, whether they resisted
[46:40] taking it off the market. All of those
[46:42] are the factors that should be
[46:43] considered and are considered by juries
[46:45] today. This bill prevents that and says
[46:47] for example, if you're a woman who had a
[46:49] Dalcon Shield and you could no longer
[46:51] have children as a result you have small
[46:53] economic damages, you can't punish that
[46:55] manufacturer or allow the jury to to
[46:58] decide they want to punish that
[46:59] manufacturer for knowingly selling that
[47:01] product knowing that people wouldn't be
[47:02] able to have children uh if they used
[47:04] that product. And so the added to
[47:06] provision which you're asking about uh
[47:08] which was added to the bill is very
[47:10] complex and difficult, uh very um
[47:12] cumbersome and costly and difficult to
[47:14] to administer and the the managers
[47:16] report says in fact that the conference
[47:18] report on this bill that it's unlikely
[47:20] to be used with great frequency and in
[47:22] fact in state law where they have it,
[47:24] it's not there's not used very
[47:25] frequently. Mr. Heward. Well,
[47:27] uh
[47:27] the fact is is that uh the punitive
[47:30] damage cap is not limited
[47:32] uh to economic damages and indeed if you
[47:35] have a woman who has lost the right to
[47:36] bear children and the jury chooses to
[47:38] award her 10 million dollars for pain
[47:40] and suffering, which they easily could,
[47:42] the punitive damage cap is 20 million
[47:43] dollars. This is not insignificant. Uh
[47:46] people that are painting this
[47:48] uh
[47:49] as protection for American corporations
[47:52] >> on the pain and suffering or you could
[47:53] say there is there isn't in some cases
[47:55] compensatory damages. Well, there is
[47:56] there is in in joint and several cases,
[47:57] that is in cases where there's more than
[47:59] one defendant, non-economic damages are
[48:01] are completely limited. So in fact
[48:03] that's not true. There are many tricky
[48:05] things in this highly complex bill which
[48:07] are very difficult for the American
[48:09] public to understand and even very
[48:10] difficult for most lawyers to
[48:11] understand. Indeed it is a federal
[48:14] overlay you understand on state law.
[48:17] Today these cases are litigated under
[48:19] state law. Now we're going to have a a
[48:21] federal overlay that's been written by
[48:23] the business community. It's a one-way
[48:24] street just for them. There's nothing in
[48:26] there really for consumers. And the the
[48:29] the state courts and juries are going to
[48:30] be limited. They're not going to be able
[48:32] to use their judgment, listen to the
[48:34] evidence and the facts that they hear
[48:35] and make their own judgments.
[48:36] >> This is one of the reasons that the
[48:38] president has given for vetoing the law
[48:40] that there is this federal involvement.
[48:41] What do you think about
[48:42] that?
[48:43] >> describe that as egregious hypocrisy.
[48:45] You know, this is based on the
[48:46] Interstate Commerce Clause. I can
[48:47] imagine the howls we would hear from
[48:49] Ralph Nader if we said let's let the
[48:51] states determine whether you ought to
[48:52] have airbags in cars or seatbelts in
[48:54] cars. Basically, we are talking about
[48:56] products, we're talking about products
[48:58] that move in Interstate Commerce and
[49:00] about having uniform standards. But
[49:02] these aren't uniform. They're one-way
[49:03] street. They're uniform for the business
[49:06] community. If a state law is more
[49:08] disadvantageous to consumers, this bill
[49:10] leaves it alone. If a state law is more
[49:12] advantageous to consumers, it's limited
[49:14] by this bill. This is not a uniform
[49:16] bill.
[49:16] >> Okay, Mr. Heward, I want to move on to
[49:18] the whole question of joint liability,
[49:20] which would be abolished. Tell us why
[49:21] this is important. Explain what is in
[49:23] the law and why you think it's
[49:24] important.
[49:25] >> Well,
[49:26] again, uh I've heard the other side here
[49:28] talk about personal responsibility. Uh
[49:30] if you're only 2% liable for an injury
[49:33] uh and the other side was 98% liable, in
[49:35] some cases it's going to be the
[49:36] plaintiff. You know, this says if you
[49:37] alter or misuse the product, you remove
[49:40] the safety bars from the equipment, then
[49:41] you lose a finger.
[49:42] Uh if you're 98% responsible for your
[49:44] injury, the other side is 2%
[49:46] responsible, they're only going to have
[49:47] to pay 2%. Now, in the case of joint and
[49:49] several liability, this is being limited
[49:52] only to non-economic damages. Your full
[49:54] loss of wages, your compensatory damages
[49:57] uh for medical expenses, you can still
[49:59] go to the deep pockets and hit someone
[50:00] who is only 1% liable for 100% of your
[50:03] economic damages. Only in the area which
[50:06] tends to be a little fuzzy wuzzy, the
[50:07] pain and suffering awards, that they're
[50:08] going to say a manufacturer that's 2%
[50:10] liable only has to pay 2% of the award.
[50:13] Now, if that's not personal
[50:14] responsibility and if that's not
[50:15] reasonable, I don't know why we're here.
[50:17] What do you think what is wrong with
[50:18] that in your view? Well, first of all,
[50:20] this is is really a damages provision
[50:22] and it was designed by judges in order
[50:24] to have fairness to the consumer. Where
[50:26] there's more than one defendant, it says
[50:28] that whatever defendants are there and
[50:31] that caused the injury. Remember, these
[50:33] all have to be people who caused the
[50:34] injury, all entities that caused the
[50:35] injury, then the consumer must be fully
[50:38] compensated. And if it has to come from
[50:40] one, that's fine. If it can be shared,
[50:42] that's fine. That's the reason for the
[50:44] rule and they're denigrating pain and
[50:46] suffering uh uh
[50:48] uh awards and and damages by saying,
[50:50] "Well, in the case of pain and
[50:52] suffering, we dismiss that as being
[50:53] terribly important and therefore you
[50:55] don't get full recovery." And so, again,
[50:58] in the case case of someone who loses
[50:59] their reproductive rights, they don't
[51:01] get full recovery where there's more
[51:02] than one defendant, for example.
[51:04] >> reject the argument that the supporters
[51:06] of this bill, including Democrats, make
[51:08] that there needs to be a reform of tort
[51:11] law because there have been there there
[51:13] there are damages that are given that
[51:15] are way out of proportion to what
[51:17] happened I completely reject it. I
[51:19] completely reject it for two reasons.
[51:20] One is the current system has the
[51:22] capacity to deal with that. That's what
[51:24] the appeals courts are all about, the
[51:26] right to a new trial, the decisions by
[51:28] the judges to reduce the the award if
[51:30] they think it's egregious. So
[51:31] >> Okay, let me stop right there. What
[51:32] about that argument? What what's wrong
[51:34] with the way the current system's
[51:35] dealing with it?
[51:36] >> The current system's loaded against the
[51:37] defendants. What happens is is products
[51:39] get withdrawn from the market even
[51:41] though they're valuable products because
[51:42] companies make a common sense
[51:44] calculation.
[51:45] Uh there was something called Bendectin,
[51:47] an anti-nausea drug. Uh the company's
[51:49] annual profits from that selling it were
[51:51] $13 million. Their liability costs were
[51:53] $15 million. They withdrew it from the
[51:55] market. But lots of them they don't uh
[51:56] withdraw and so
[51:58] the issue is, first of all,
[52:00] does the current system handle it and
[52:02] the answer is yes. And the second issue
[52:04] is, is there an overload of cases that
[52:06] warrants making some enormous change
[52:08] like this? This is the most massive
[52:10] preemption of state law in the history
[52:11] of the United States. You don't think
[52:13] the figures are there to show that
[52:14] there's an overload of cases?
[52:15] >> There absolutely is not. The the total
[52:17] number of product liability cases is
[52:18] something under 100,000 a year. It's
[52:20] closer to 60,000 a year. The number of
[52:22] punitive damages in the last 25 years is
[52:24] 355.
[52:26] The the um the uh cases themselves are
[52:29] so small compared to all the other cases
[52:31] in the court system, the the the
[52:33] insurance for liability has gone down by
[52:35] 40% since 1987. The total cost of
[52:38] liability system is $4 billion, which is
[52:41] what we pay for dog food every year.
[52:42] This is not an overloaded system. What
[52:44] about these figures? Well, like a lot of
[52:47] figures, it's half full, half empty. Uh
[52:49] what they don't tell you is how many
[52:50] manufacturers
[52:52] uh pull products off the market because
[52:54] of the threat of litigation. What they
[52:55] don't tell you is how many manufacturers
[52:57] settle for outrageous sums because of
[52:59] the fear of punitive damages.
[53:01] >> figures are there.
[53:02] >> the total of $4 billion.
[53:03] This this is from the National
[53:04] Association of Insurance Commissioners
[53:06] who did a calculation of the total cost
[53:08] the total cost of attorneys' fees and
[53:10] compensation in the liabilities in the
[53:12] product liability system.
[53:13] >> Okay, in the little time we have left,
[53:14] if the President the President has said
[53:16] he will veto this bill, does it mean
[53:17] it's dead?
[53:20] Well,
[53:21] it may mean it's dead for this Congress.
[53:23] Uh we certainly uh having fought for
[53:24] this for close to 20 years, uh we'll
[53:26] come back next year if we have to.
[53:29] Uh we still hope the President will
[53:30] change his mind. I realize that's an
[53:32] uphill fight, so it may well be dead. It
[53:34] should be dead and we applaud the
[53:36] President for doing this. These guys
[53:38] have spent hundreds of millions of
[53:39] dollars pushing a bill that in any other
[53:42] uh situation would have died a natural
[53:44] death because it's not needed, not
[53:45] wanted, and it will harm consumers. But
[53:47] because they have an endless supply of
[53:49] cash to put behind this and pay their
[53:51] lobbyists and and give uh campaign
[53:53] contributions, they just keep pushing
[53:55] the same bill and the members keep
[53:57] pushing it because, you know, the the
[53:59] cash rolls in and they keep doing it.
[54:00] Trial lawyers are the biggest campaign
[54:02] contributors. And not compared to the
[54:04] business guys. time we have. Thank you
[54:05] both very much.
[54:15] Again, the major stories [music] of this
[54:16] Monday, around-the-clock negotiations
[54:18] failed to end the strike against General
[54:20] Motors brake plants in Dayton, Ohio.
[54:22] 142,000 GM workers have been idle. John
[54:25] Salvi was found guilty of murdering two
[54:27] women in a 1994 shooting at two Boston
[54:30] area abortion clinics. He was sentenced
[54:33] to life in prison without parole. And
[54:35] Chinese ships and planes held more
[54:37] military exercises southwest of Taiwan.
[54:39] They are expected to continue through
[54:41] Taiwan's presidential election on
[54:43] Saturday. And we'll see you tomorrow
[54:45] night with part two of our look at
[54:47] economic security and insecurity, among
[54:49] other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you
[54:51] and good night.
[54:55] Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim
[54:57] Lehrer [music] has been provided by the
[54:58] Archer Daniels Midland Company, ADM,
[55:01] supermarket to the world.
[55:05] And by New York Life. Yet another
[55:08] example of New York Life's wise
[55:10] investment philosophy.
[55:14] And by the Corporation for Public
[55:16] Broadcasting and by the annual financial
[55:18] support from viewers like you.
[55:41] >> [music]
[55:52] [music]
[56:21] >> Video cassettes of the NewsHour with Jim
[56:23] Lehrer are available from PBS video.
[56:26] Call 1-800-328-PBS1.
[56:34] >> [music]
[56:34] >> This is PBS.
[56:45] Funding for the NewsHour has been
[56:46] provided by Davis Wright Tremaine, an
[56:48] international law firm serving
[56:50] individuals and businesses with 11
[56:52] offices along the West Coast,
[56:53] Washington, D.C., and Shanghai, China.
[56:56] And by Portland Nursery with locations
[56:58] at 50th and Stark and 90th and Division
[57:00] where customer satisfaction comes before
[57:03] all else.
[57:12] >> [music]
[57:18] >> I'm singing
[57:20] in the rain, just singing in the rain.
[57:25] It's one of Hollywood's most Sorry.