The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news today, a maintenance worker was charged with setting the Puerto Rico hotel fire. The Supreme Court handed down a major ruling on maternity leave. And another Frenchman was kidnapped in Beirut. We will have the details in our news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne? CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After tonight's news summary, the News Hour starts off with some light and some heat over today's Supreme Court ruling on maternity leave. Then more heat over a new government proposal to help displaced workers. And finally, a report on how California is vying to replace Detroit as the motor city.News Summary HUNTER-GAULT: Federal officials in San Juan, Puerto Rico, today arrested a hotel maintenance worker and charged him with 96 counts of murder, one for each of the victims of the New Year's Eve fire at the Dupont Plaza Hotel. The man, Hector Escudero Aponte, shown here in the blue and white sports shirt, was also charged with arson and damages. The FBI claimed Escudero Aponte used a sterno like fuel to torch new furniture stacked in the hotel's ground floor ballroom. Earlier, the governor of Puerto Rico had suggested that tense labor management relations between the Teamsters Union and the hotel may have been a motive for the fire -- a charge the union has repeatedly denied. The FBI saidEscudero Aponte, a member of the Teamsters Union, confessed. A union lawyer said that he did not know the suspect and called the fire an individual act of a person in the hotel. But Puerto Rico's justice secretary said he didn't believe Escudero Aponte acted alone. Jim? LEHRER: The Supreme Court today affirmed a working woman's right to maternity leave. The court upheld a California law requiring employers to grant pregnant women leaves of absence up to four months and to give them their jobs back on return. Eight other states have similar laws. They are Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio and Washington. Today's High Court decision came on a six to three vote. There were four separate opinions, but no majority opinion, meaning the six in the majority did not agree on the reasons for voting the way they did. All did agree in dismissing arguments from employers in the case that maternity leave discriminated against men and non pregnant women. HUNTER-GAULT: In Moslem West Beirut, gunmen kidnapped French freelance journalist Roger Auque as he left his apartment today. A colleague escaped and described what happened. So far, no group has claimed responsibility. Meanwhile, Anglican envoy Terry Waite continued to press his solo campaign to win the release of foreign hostages in Lebanon. Today, he met with Druse leader Walid Jamblatt.

WALID JAMBLATT, Druse leader: We are blessed to have Mr. Waite and his humanitarian mission to release the foreign hostages. And I think, as last time, he did an excellent job. HUNTER-GAULT: Afterwards, Waite went off to the Chouf Mountains to meet with the spiritual head of the Druse -- that is an offshoot of Islam. Elsewhere in the Middle East, an Israeli official said Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told a Knesset committee today he warned U. S. officials a year ago they had only a 25% chance of gaining freedom for U. S. hostages by selling arms to Iran. In the Gulf war, Iran claimed its forces broke through Iraqi defenses today and moved closer to the Iraqi city of Basra. Iraq denied the claim, saying it turned back the Iranian assault. It said its jets struck at cities in Western Iran in retaliation for a surface to surface missile that hit a densely populated section of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. LEHRER: Back in this country, it turns out both trains involved in last week's railroad tragedy were speeding. The National Transportation Safety Board said today the Amtrak passenger train was travelling 128 miles per hour, rather than an authorized 105. And the Conrail freight was going 63 to 64 miles per hour in what was a 60 mile per hour zone for it. But NTSB member Joseph Nall told reporter the test run yesterday still showed the Conrail had time to stop after a warning signal flashed. He also said the Amtrak speed did not cause the collision, but may have increased the damage.

JOSEPH NALL, National Transportation Safety Board: We have not drawn any conclusions. We are looking at how that additional speed would have changed the impact forces. We are continuing our investigation in the human factors issues. We are continuing to look at the survival aspects of the accident, at the operation of the train, the system of dispatch, the system of the controllers. We're looking at the track location and how the track is configured. We are, as we told you earlier, looking at similar configurations of track on other parts of the northeast corridor. LEHRER: The death toll in the January 4 collision also went up to 16 today. A 31 year old Connecticut woman died in a Baltimore hospital from injuries suffered in the crash. One hundred and seventy five others were also injured. HUNTER-GAULT: In New York today, a federal judge handed out 100 year jail terms for seven men who made up a kind of board of directors that coordinated the loan sharking, drug trafficking and other illegal activities of New York's mafia crime families. In imposing the prison terms, as well as heavy fines and court costs, Judge Richard Owen said the men had spent their lives terrorizing the country for financial gain. Those sentenced included 76 year old Antony Salerno, head of the Genovese crime family, and Carmine ''Junior'' Persico, 53, boss of the Colombo syndicate. LEHRER: The Internal Revenue Service has come up with a new way to handle 3 million hard core tax cheaters. There is now a computer that will automatically make out returns and tally up taxes on those who refuse to do it themselves. The new program was announced in Washington today.

WILLIAM WAUBEN, assistant IRS commissioner: There are a number of these cases presently beginning to move through the stream. And for fiscal '87, we anticipate processing between 300,000 and 400,000 of them. And that will produce additional tax assessments of in excess of $2 billion. Most of that, quite frankly, is new money. HUNTER-GAULT: That's our news summary. Still ahead on the News Hour, light and heat over today's Supreme Court decision on maternity leave, heat over a federal plan for displaced workers, and a look at California's efforts to become to new motor city. Beneficial Ruling LEHRER: Our lead story tonight is that lead story from the Supreme Court today. The court said states can require employers to grant leave and job protection to pregnant workers. A majority rejected the argument that such special treatment discriminates against men and non pregnant women. We'll have a debate on the issues raised by the decision. But first, the case on which it was based. It came from California, as does this background report from Jeffrey Kaye of public station KCET, Los Angeles.

LILLIAN GARLAND: Which one do you want to do today? You want to do your ABC or you want to do Bears on Wheels? KECHERY GARLAND: Bears on Wheels. JEFFREY KAYE [voice over]: When Lillian Garland gave birth to her daughter Kechery in 1982, she expected to take a maternity leave, then go back to work within four months. She says her boss led her to believe she'd continue in her job as a receptionist for California Federal Savings and Loan Association in Los Angeles. Ms. GARLAND: I expected them to have me return to work when I was supposed to, which was 4 21 82. Otherwise, why all this big to do about when are you leaving, when are you coming back? I thought I would be returning to my job. KAYE [voice over]: But it didn't turn out that way. California Federal had hired a replacement. Garland lost her job, although she eventually did return to the company. She now works as a real estate agent, but she claims her firing in 1982 resulted in seven months without an income and severe hardships. Ms. GARLAND: I would not want any other woman in life to have to go through what I had to go through because I chose to have my baby. I was eventually evicted from my apartment, because I could not afford to pay the rent, naturally. I ended up losing custody of my child. Her father now has custody of her, because I didn't have a place to live. KAYE [voice over]: According to California Federal, Garland's troubles were of her own making. She did turn down positions the company offered her. But Garland claims she either wasn't qualified for those jobs or couldn't get to them, because she didn't have a car. California Federal Vice President William Callender says the company never guaranteed Garland she would have the same job after she had her baby. WILLIAM CALLENDER, California Federal Savings: She was told that when she was ready to return from disability that she would be given the same job if it was available or a comparable job or any other job for which she was qualified. When she came back in April, we did not have that job open. The individual that she had trained was in that position. KAYE [voice over]: Garland took her complaint about California Federal to the state's Fair Employment Department. The state of California sued the S&L, claiming California law requires employers to offer reasonable maternity leaves. California Federal Savings fought back, all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court. Federal law requires businesses to offer men and women the same disability leaves, but California law goes further. It allows women to reclaim their old jobs after maternity disability leaves. Mr. CALLENDER: If we had accorded her priority treatment different from in kind from what we would have accorded to, say, a male employee returning from disability leave -- in other words, if we had guaranteed her the same job on her return from disability leave due to pregnancy that she had when she left and we didn't do the same thing for our male employees, we would be in violation of federal law. KAYE [voice over]: California's Chief Assistant Attorney General Andrea Ordin disagrees. She sees nothing discriminatory in the state law requiring reasonable maternity leaves. ANDREA ORDIN, assistant attorney general: Because of the unique biological difference between men and women -- our ability to have children -- that we are placed or potentially placed in a disadvantage in the workplace if we can't have disability leave for that short, reasonable period of time. It is women only that are disabled because of pregnancy. And therefore, we have attempted to remedy that, to allow an unpaid disability leave that's reasonable, but in any event, no longer than four months. And what we're saying and what our state legislature has said is, that's a way toward equality. It is not preferential treatment. Mr. CALLENDER: That argument has an emotional appeal. If you start creating preferential treatment for one group of people, even though here you have a biological difference, it is going to have a chilling effect on the employment of women and could have repercussions far beyond what are manifest at the time that you enact the law. KAYE [voice over]: Today at the real estate office which she now co owns, Lillian Garland tried to conduct business as usual, but persistent calls from the media made that nearly impossible. She says an early morning phone call informed her of today's ruling. Ms. GARLAND: First I screamed, and then I praised God, and then I said, ''It's long overdue. It's about time. '' KAYE: What does this mean for you? Ms. GARLAND: I'm overwhelmed that other women will have protection. That's what it means for me. They'll have protection and security in the work force if they decide to become a mother. KAYE [voice over]: Garland says that she feels as if she carried the banner for all women. Ms. GARLAND: It's definitely made me a lot stronger. And I hear from a lot of women that, ''I wish somebody had done this 20 years ago or 25 years ago. '' And my question to them is, ''Well, why didn't you do it?'' KAYE [voice over]: In the swirl of today's activity, Garland says she hasn't heard from anyone at California Federal, and she doesn't plan to contact them. The ruling could make it easier for her to sue her former employer for damages and back wages, but she says she hasn't decided on her next step. [on camera] California Federal Savings had no official comment on today's ruling. A spokesman said he hadn't had the opportunity to review the decision. LEHRER: Today's Supreme Court decision was unusual, in that it was done with four different opinions and no majority opinion. Lyle Denniston, Supreme Court reporter for the Baltimore Sun, is here to explain that, as well as other legal ramifications of what the justices did. The vote was six to three, so the six in the majority agreed on some major things. What were they? LYLE DENNISTON, Baltimore Sun: Well, there were clearly five votes, Jim, for the rationale of the court opinion, which is that the 1978 Pregnancy Disability Act allows preferential treatment -- LEHRER: That's the federal court -- that's the federal law they were talking about on the tape. Mr. DENNISTON: That's the federal law that they passed. And in fact, this was passed in response to a 1976 Supreme Court decision which said that you can't protect pregnant women against discrimination on the job. Congress said, ''We're going to protect pregnancy against discrimination on the job. '' And today the Supreme Court, five clear votes -- that's the four that joined with the Marshall opinion and Justice Stevens in a separate opinion -- said that the 1978 federal law permits preferential treatment based on pregnancy. LEHRER: And the preferential treatment -- they even went further, did they not? I mean, the six went further, as far as the California law. Explain that. By the ruling today, what have they said that this -- that the federal law permits? Mr. DENNISTON: Well, they've said that the federal law permits California -- and I think there are five other states; four other states and Puerto Rico -- which have laws saying that you can give -- workers must be given pregnancy disability leave that's in excess of what workers with other disabilities would ordinarily get under the union contract. But in addition to that -- allowing states to require that -- this permits employers, if they're willing to do so, to voluntarily give greater maternity leave or greater disability leave, if you will, based on pregnancy. So it's both allowing states to do it, allowing companies to do it if they wish to do it voluntarily, without them running afoul of the civil rights law which otherwise says you've got to treat everybody the same. LEHRER: So they rejected the argument -- the basic argument against this -- which was that it discriminated against men and non pregnant women, right? Mr. DENNISTON: That's right. And in other words, Jim, what they said Congress had done in 1978 was not to require equality, but to prevent discrimination. And that to laypeople may sound like no difference at all, but that is exactly the basis of the opinion. LEHRER: Well, but I'm not sure I understand that either. Explain that a little further. Mr. DENNISTON: Okay. You can not discriminate against a woman worker because she may become pregnant or does become pregnant. But you can give her a favored position to accommodate the fact that she will have a disability for a period, perhaps, that might run longer than for another disability. LEHRER: And that does not add up to discrimination against others, which would be men and non pregnant women who would not get that same treatment. Is that right? Mr. DENNISTON: No, it does not. Because the employer, if the employer wished to do so, and the state, in this case California, could go on and say, ''You may do the same thing for every other worker if you wish to do so. '' In other words, you may give every other worker four months of unpaid leave time for a disability, and you may guarantee all of them that when they come off of that disability leave, they may go back to work and have a job waiting. LEHRER: So it's up to you what you want to do with the rest, but you must do it for pregnant women. Mr. DENNISTON: You must do it for pregnant workers, but you are not forbidden to do it to other workers. So if you wish to, if you're willing to pay the cost, you can make it all square and equal. LEHRER: What about -- what does this decision say specifically about the question that was raised in the piece from California about what kind of job the returning pregnant woman is entitled to? Mr. DENNISTON: Well, I think the California law is quite clear on that. It says that you must be given the same job or a similar job, which means that, if you were working, let's say, as a junior or middle level executive, you can not be given a job at a lower pay scale and more -- or less attractive duties. You must be given the same job or a comparable job. And the interesting question that's going to arise in applying this law in California and in other states is, does an employer who has filled the job have to create a new one for the returning worker? That's something we don't know yet. It's implicit, I think, in the decision today, which says that you must give them their job or a comparable job back. LEHRER: Are there any other maternity leave or similar cases on the docket, or is this the Supreme Court's statement on this subject for a while? Mr. DENNISTON: Well, this is the first of two decisions, Jim, that we will get sometime between now and next summer on the question of how federal civil rights law protects women workers against discrimination based on sex. We will have later in the term a decision -- another one out of California -- whether or not you can have an affirmative action plan that is a hiring plan or a promotional plan designed to give women a proportion of the jobs in your employ that equal their percentage in the work force generally. And this one, I think, Jim, would indicate that there are at least five votes, and maybe more. There are five solid votes in favor of pretty strongly allowing affirmative action to go forward to eradicate sex discrimination. LEHRER: A Supreme Court question: among those of you who watch and study the Supreme Court for a living, did this ruling today come as a surprise, or had you expected it to come down this way? Mr. DENNISTON: I think the only surprise that I experienced when I saw it was that Justice Scalia voted in the majority. Justice Scalia, who's the newest member of the court and is very conservative and has, in fact, in the past made it quite clear that he's quite hostile to affirmative action in the civil rights area, voted with the majority. He did so on -- and he was the sixth vote that made it six three. He did so on a very narrow ground, and I think he did so out of another kind of conservative instinct, which is, ''We're going to let Congress do what Congress wants, since it's not the court's doing something else. '' So it was a kind of a deference across the street to Congress, rather than Antonin Scalia voting for something that he liked as a Constitutional matter or statutory matter. LEHRER: I see. All right, thank you very much, Lyle. We move now from the decision to its impact with two very interested parties: Virginia Lamp, a labor attorney for the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, which filed a friend of the court brief opposing the California pregnancy law; and Democratic Congresswoman Pat Schroeder of Colorado, an ardent supporter of pregnancy leave who has introduced legislation that would require it nationally. Congresswoman, what do you make of today's decision? What do you think of it? Rep. PATRICIA SCHROEDER (D) Colorado: I'm delighted. It says the Reagan Supreme Court has understood what a tremendous change there has been in the world, especially in the United States, in the work force. And I thought Justice Marshall kind of summed it all up. They're trying to find a way that women can work and have families and not be discriminated against. And this is a key way. They're saying that equality doesn't necessarily mean the same, because we know that men and women are not the same. And trying to figure out how you deal with equality, with the real world, with all of that -- I thought it was a sophisticated analysis, and I hope that my colleagues in the Congress are as aware of how things have changed as the Supreme Court appears to be today. LEHRER: Ms. Lamp, what do you think of this decision? VIRGINIA LAMP, U. S. Chamber of Commerce: Well, I guess we're going to have to disagree on this one. The business community, I think it's fair to say, was shocked and disappointed by the decision. It was a victory today for those who are proponents of special treatment for women in our laws. And that cuts at a very fundamental principle in our laws. And for those who are proponents in the women's movement, because a lot of the women's groups are proponents of fair treatment, equal treatment, not special treatment such as the days when we had protective legislation. Interestingly enough, as you mentioned, the Chamber -- LEHRER: But you mean in the past when there was protective legislation for others, you mean. Ms. LAMP: For other women. LEHRER: For other women. Okay. Ms. LAMP: Right. Interestingly enough, as you mentioned, the Chamber of Commerce joined with some women's groups who saw this special law benefiting women workers or pregnant workers as contrary to those federal laws that require equal treatment. LEHRER: What do you think the impact of this is going to be, though, around in business or in any way you want to interpret it? You say it's bad, it's a disappointment, and it's a shock. What -- what are the implications? Ms. LAMP: Well, I think there's two dangerous implications for the employers. One of them, as was mentioned, is that I think we're going to see a lot more legislative activity, political activity, on this, trying to get legislative bodies like state legislatures or Congress into deciding what the benefit packages of employers should be. And on another point of view, you're going to see a lot of pressure, say in the state of California, for new benefits -- disability benefits given to men in the states where you don't have mandated benefits for disability to try to bring benefits up to the level -- LEHRER: What women have. Ms. LAMP: Right. LEHRER: I see. Congresswoman, youagree with that? How would you see the implications? Rep. SCHROEDER: Well, I'm more positive. And I would hope that the chamber would join the Reagan Supreme Court and deal with the real world. I think what's going to happen, I hope, is that Congressman Clay's bill and my bill that we've introduced before then passes. Because realistically -- LEHRER: Tell me again about your bill. Rep. SCHROEDER: Well, sure. Realistically, what this decision does is, it extends these benefits to women in California, period. And what we're trying to do is say -- LEHRER: Though there are eight -- Lyle said five, but our count, Lyle, was that there were eight other states that had similar laws to California's. Did anybody -- do you agree with that, or was that -- Mr. DENNISTON: Well, there's some varying interpretations as to what's in the laws and which are like California's. Rep. SCHROEDER: And which is similar and which isn't. LEHRER: What is your count? Rep. SCHROEDER: Well, what I'm trying to say is, I think I've got something I can even get Virginia and the chamber on. If she's worried about inequality, what we are trying to do is say at the federal level there should be a parental leave policy. And that is that either a male or a female could have four months off of leave without pay at the birth or adoption of a child. LEHRER: Required by federal law? Rep. SCHROEDER: Absolutely. And we look at that as a minimum labor standard. You put that down. Employers can build on it if they want to. But that's the bottom line. And so mothers and fathers are treated the same anywhere they live in America, not just in the few states that have moved forward. LEHRER: Is it your feeling that if this were to be enacted into law that this Supreme Court, based on this decision today, would approve it -- say it was constitutional? Rep. SCHROEDER: Yes, I think they would. And I think they'd applaud it. Because the real problem that you have here is we all know that the child and the parent need a period of time to bond -- that it doesn't happen in the delivery room. So just the physical health of the mother is not relevant. And we know that that bonding is very, very, very important. We've done the research, and our country's showing that. Every other country in the world, except five, has passed legislation dealing with this. And it seems to me we need to. LEHRER: Congresswoman Schroeder says that you'll agree with her on this, or she's looking for you to agree with her. Will you? Ms. LAMP: I doubt it. The answer to some of the points she's raised, there are a lot of countries who offer generous maternity leave policies. It just so happens that our country has, perhaps, the highest wage levels in the whole world, as far as the wages we give to our workers. It just so happens that we have some of the most freedoms -- some of the basic fundamental freedoms, economic and political, than a lot of those countries. I would hate to give up either of those things for new federal standards that tend to reduce entrepreneurial activity, reduce job creation which -- jobs are probably the fundamental job family -- pro family stance. And a healthy economy is the best thing for a family; not a rigid, inflexible, costly federal standard. We just don't need to turn in that direction. Rep. SCHROEDER: Well, the reason I'm laughing is, first of all, you said you were concerned because it wasn't extended to men. So I'm saying here we are, let's extend it to men. That makes sense to me. Secondly, the cost of ours is shameful, compared with everywhere else. We are talking about leave without pay. And we're talking about a world where that freedom that you're talking about, Virginia, isn't extended to the average American family. I mean, when I came out of law school, yes. But today, an automobile costs what a house cost when I came out of law school, and salaries haven't stayed up there. So people are having to choose between having a child and having a job. And I think this has permeated the skulls of the Supreme Court. Hooray. I applaud it. I think that's wonderful. And I hope it permeates the skulls of the Congress and also the chamber. But we're talking about every major industrialized country that's moved in in this area. I mean, the five that haven't done it are the United States, South Africa, Upper Volta, the Sudan and Ghana. Now, everyone else is out there competing with us, knocking our socks off, and has gone way beyond this. They've given up to a year, they give pay, they give everything. We're saying as a federal policy, four months leave without pay. LEHRER: What would be the harm of that, Ms. Lamp -- of a four year federal -- I mean, a four month federally mandated maternity leave without pay for everybody? Ms. LAMP: Well, the problem with this kind of debate is that you try to impose one rigid federal standard on a variety of industries, a variety of sizes of governments. Small business can't afford generous leave policies. Maybe they can do some other things to accommodate -- LEHRER: Give me some examples there of how it affects small business or would adversely affect a small business. Ms. LAMP: Say a construction site, where you have specifically, specially trained workers who know their job, know how to do it. Say you have a pregnant person on that work site or a parent -- a father who wants to take four months off to spend with their child to bond. You have a problem. The job might be over by the time they come back. What are they to do? Are they to be employed at a different work site? What if that's in Texas and this one was in California? You have all sorts of practical problems from that perspective. Dry cleaners -- perhaps they don't have enough people to replace trained workers. LEHRER: Do you buy the congresswoman's argument that it takes four months to bond, to bind? Ms. LAMP: Well, I'm not a sociologist. And I'm a little bit fearful that there aren't many in Congress who are qualified for that kind of decision making. I think you have a lot of employers who are recognizing that family people who are working for them need some flexibility to meet their responsibilities and are accommodating them in different ways, not perennially -- LEHRER: Let me ask Lyle a question. Lyle, do you read the Supreme Court decision today at least that the majority feels that four months is a -- because that was in the California law -- has now the Supreme Court made that a standard of some kind? Mr. DENNISTON: No, that's what lawyers would call a policy question, and the Supreme Court doesn't make policy questions. Congress having said that ''We're going to prevent discrimination based on pregnancy,'' and California having said, ''We want to go a step further and grant four months,'' the only question before the court today is, had Congress allowed California to make that policy judgement. LEHRER: Did California have the right to make the decision. Not that the decision was necessarily right. Mr. DENNISTON: California had the legal right to make that decision, the authority to make that decision. By the way, you asked, Jim, a moment ago whether or not, if Congresswoman Schroeder's bill was passed, whether the Supreme Court would uphold it. That, I think, is almost an open and shut question. The Congress has such incredible authority when it passes laws to deal with the regulation of commerce -- that is, business. That's a constitutional question. Today was simply an interpretation of what Congress meant in passing a law. LEHRER: So Ms. Lamp, do you feel that -- you're position has been dealt a very serious blow today by this court ruling, correct? Ms. LAMP: Well, from the lobbying point of view, we were more involved with whether parental leave as a national mandate would be a wise decision for society to make; not whether, as he mentioned, whether Congress has the power or whether the states have the power to impose such a policy. That was relevant, and we got involved in that issue, but the broader, more important question is whether it's good for society and good for business and good for women and all sorts of other issues. LEHRER: Are you going strong now on this to try and get your law enacted? Rep. SCHROEDER: Absolutely. In fact -- LEHRER: It has never gone anywhere in the past. Rep. SCHROEDER: Well, now, that's not right. LEHRER: Well, never been enacted. All right. Rep. SCHROEDER: We introduced it a year ago, and it moved at light speed through the House, because we got it through all the committees, through the Rules Committee, and it was ready to go to the floor. The only reason it wasn't brought up in the final days was it hadn't had a hearing, even, in the Senate. And the Senate was where it was absolutely in the quagmire. But this time, we have a new Senate. And Congressman Clay and I will be reintroducing it at the end of this month. Senator Dodd's already introduced it in the Senate. Hearings are scheduled. LEHRER: He has a similar bill to yours in the Senate. Rep. SCHROEDER: Absolutely. And we've already -- the hearings have already been set in early February. Let me tell you, for the Congress, that's an incredible, neck break speed. LEHRER: Ms. Lamp, is this a big deal to the Chamber of Commerce? Are you going to go to the mat with Congresswoman Schroeder, etc. , or is this just something that you're mildly interested in defeating? Ms. LAMP: It's a priority issue. And it's a priority not because the chamber says it's a priority; it's because our members tell us it's a priority issue to them. LEHRER: Costs a lot of money -- you mean in money terms? Ms. LAMP: They want flexibility. They want to decide what their employee benefits should look like and what leaves they should give to which employees, good ones versus bad ones. They want flexibility, and we want to try to preserve that for as long as we can. Rep. SCHROEDER: And we say that it's very important for America, if we're going to have families, to deal with the fact that families are going to have to be in the workplace. And you know, we're going to pay one time or another. We either pay now or we pay later. And we know the cost of not getting children off to a good start. LEHRER: Okay. Congresswoman Schroeder, Ms. Lamp, Lyle Denniston, thank you all three very much. No Job, No Future? HUNTER-GAULT: What should the federal government do for hundreds of thousands of workers who lose their jobs each year through no fault of their own? Labor Secretary William Brock provided some answers on Capitol Hill today, where he outlined the administration's $1 billion proposal to retrain such displaced workers. Secretary Brock's comments came a day after he received a major report from a Presidential task force calling for massive federal assistance to help displaced workers. We'll debate the merits of the task force and Secretary Brock's recommendations in a moment. But first, some background on the problem.

[voice over] Snapshots of industrial America in the 1980s: abandoned plants, idle workbenches, workers with a question mark for a future. It's a small but unprecedented problem in the economy -- workers who lost not just their jobs, but their whole industry. Once they had at least steady incomes in basic manufacturing industries like steel or apparel or engine parts. They had a family, a house, a car, a set routine, a lifestyle. But while the workers punched in and punched out, other workers in faraway countries began doing the same work at lower wages, or they worked with newer technology that made them more efficient, or the old factory was bought by a conglomerate that couldn't squeeze enough profit from the existing business, so the old plant closed. The capital went overseas or into new industries. The old workers couldn't go anywhere. Prof. MARK BENDIK, economist: The typical dislocated worker who has a serious re employment problem is a white male who is in his 40s or 50s who has worked for many years stably for a major manufacturing company as a semiskilled operative. He does not have a great many highly developed technical skills. He's been an assembly line worker. And he has a relatively weak general educational background. He's a high school graduate or less than a high school graduate. He has very rusty job search skills, because he's had such long tenure with one employer. And he comes from a unionized industry where he's earned high wages over time. HUNTER-GAULT [voice over]: Such workers are still a minority among the employed, but a minority that still numbers in the millions. The problem isn't always widespread, but that does nothing to ease the pain and bewilderment of the victim. RAYMOND ELDRIDGE: It's hard enough now, because, like I say, we were making, like, $13, $14 an hour. And then we started being laid off, and it's like worse than a death, see, because it's something you've worked all your life -- 9, 10 years, 20 years, whatever the case may be, even seven years. And there's a lot of us in the age bracket that's over 40, all right? Now, what happens to us? I'm 51. I'm going out looking for a job. HUNTER-GAULT [voice over]: It doesn't always help to look for another job in the same business. Chances are, the plant down the road closed too. These apparel workers in Pennsylvania have lost a whole series of jobs in succession. ELLEN MESSINGER: Back in '67 when the plant closed, I was making around $4. 97 an hour. And the minimum wage then was really low. So then I went to work for $1. 40 an hour. So I got myself up to $3. 61. Well, that place closed, and I was off for a couple years, 'til '77. I went to work for $2. 65 an hour. And I worked my way back up to $5. 12 an hour. So now I went back to work, and I'm making a little over $4 an hour. So every time you start into a new job, you start at a lower rate. HUNTER-GAULT [voice over]: The problem isn't just finding a job; it's finding a job with good pay and a future. The economy in Western Massachusetts, where this factory was closing, was doing well. But the new jobs are often service jobs, often with a lower pay scale, and without unions. Even those who wind up back in manufacturing usually have to take a pay cut. PAUL EDWARDS: Well, I'm currently around close to $14 an hour now. And my pay fluctuates between 13 to 15, because we're on an incentive system. And the odds are, close to 50 years old, going out and being able to get $15 an hour again are very small. Very small. I've got two children in college, one more headed this fall, and I don't know how we're going to do it. HUNTER-GAULT: We focus now on the debate over how to reemploy displaced workers. Howard Samuels is a member of the Presidential task force which yesterday called for a $900 million federal program to attack the problem. He's president of the Industrial Union Department at the AFL CIO. An opposing view comes from Richard McKenzie, an economics professor at Clemson University. He was also a member of the Presidential task force but dissented from the group's final report. He joins us from public station WRLK in Columbia, South Carolina. Going back to Washington and you, Mr. Samuel, your major recommendation in the task force report called for the establishment of a federal unit that would deal with displaced workers. Can you tell us a little bit about what that unit would do and how it would work? HOWARD SAMUEL, AFL CIO: Yes. The displaced workers unit would be located in the Labor Department, and it would be responsible for setting the guidelines and providing the oversight and monitoring of programs which would actually be carried out by the states -- by parallel displaced workers units in each of the states, under the control of the governor. Actually, in the states and the localities is where the problems occur. And they are much closer to trying to solve the problem. So we think this is probably the best and most suitable way to meet this problem which, as you suggest, is a steadily growing one. HUNTER-GAULT: And specifically, what would this unit do? Mr. SAMUEL: It would -- it's a fairly comprehensive program. As soon as we hear -- as soon as the federal government hears -- or a local government -- hears of a plant closing or a permanent layoff, there should the capability of having an instant response, of getting to the worker as early as possible, before he walks out the plant door for the last time. The earlier we can do it, the better. And what we should do is set up a committee of the workers and management to try and develop various programs for job search, job search guidance, employment information, training, retraining and so forth that are required to help that worker get back into the labor force as quickly as possible. HUNTER-GAULT: And the reason that you think it should be a federal effort, is it because the problem is so big or -- just why federal and not, as you suggested, where the problem really exists -- on a state by state -- Mr. SAMUEL: Well, the actual carrying out of the program is going to be done not at the federal level, but at the state and local level. It's the federal government that has the resources, however, to apply to this program. And so we think the resources should be raised through our general revenues and applied by the federal government in each of the states and localities as needed. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. McKenzie, you don't agree with that. Why? RICHARD McKENZIE, economist: Well, I don't, because you've got to understand the full magnitudes of the program that they are recommending. They're recommending a whole new federal agency to spend 500 to $600 million additional federal dollars. In total, they'rerecommending a $1 billion program. They're recommending clone state agencies that will be controlled by the federal government. And to some extent, there is a risk that you will stifle state creativity in the area of helping worker productivity. They're looking for tripartite councils that will be representatives of -- include representatives of business, government and labor. But those are going to be interest groups. They're going to try to use these councils to favor their own particular interests. HUNTER-GAULT: But your principal objection is what? Mr. McKENZIE: Well, the principal objection is, one, there are reservations about the accuracy of the report and the data that they use. There is a whole question about the effectiveness of the programs that they recommend. In fact, the task force never once investigated to any serious extent the likely effectiveness of the programs that they recommend. It is also fiscally irresponsible for any task force to come forth recommending 500 to $600 million of additional expenditures without saying where the revenues are going to get. Now, they tell us it's going to come from the general revenues, which, in my view, means it's going to be added to the general deficit. What the task force really has in mind and what many of the members want is a new payroll tax which is going to be applied to a lot of workers, many of whom will never see the benefits of the program and many of whose jobs will be jeopardized by the very tacks that they are recommending. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. McKenzie, you've laid out quite a list there. Let's go back to Mr. Samuel. Just on some of his basic points, I mean, he says that generally -- what I hear him saying is that the commission didn't do its homework, and the conclusions that it's come up with are fiscally irresponsible. I guess that's the main charge. What do you say to that? Mr. SAMUEL: Well, I guess the best thing to do is to refer back to the task force. It consisted of 21 individuals representing quite a wide spectrum of American life: business, labor, public officials, academic. It spanned the spectrum of conservative to liberal. It included one, for example, professor from a rather conservative think tank. All 20 agreed on the basic thrust and details of the program. Only one did not. We gave very serious consideration to many of the questions that Professor McKenzie suggested. He himself attended the meetings, participated very actively, made a good effort to try and persuade us to his point of view. He did not succeed in even one single case. HUNTER-GAULT: Are you saying that this is the sour grapes minority litany we just heard? Mr. SAMUEL: Well, I don't want to comment in any way about that. I would like to suggest one total inaccuracy. Professor McKenzie suggests that it is a secret longing in our hearts that we really want a payroll tax. Just the opposite is true. None of us wanted a payroll tax. It was a desperate alternative that we gave some consideration to, in the event that general revenue sources would not be available. When the President in his budget message a few weeks ago indicated that he also favored general revenues as a source, the issue quickly disappeared. It is a non issue. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. McKenzie? Mr. McKENZIE: Well, the chairman pleaded with the task force to adopt a payroll tax and said that it would be fiscally irresponsible to not say how this program would be funded. There were also members of the task force who agreed. By the way, it's been set up as if this task force represents 20 against 1. First off, I am the only vocal dissenting member. That doesn't mean that the task force in any way is in full agreement behind this report. HUNTER-GAULT: What about that -- Mr. McKENZIE: And in fact, several have told me. Let me tell you about the homework. You would think, reading this report, that this task force undertook a year long study of policy options. As a matter of fact, after being organized in November, 1985, when all this rolled around, the subcommittee on public policy would not even divulge the policy options that they were considering. It wasn't until September -- the middle of September -- that we received anything in the order of what the policy options were. And it was a two page, double spaced memorandum. We really didn't get into serious debate until November, and we only had two to three meetings. And we're talking here about a program that is a radical change and departure from past policies. It seems to me that you need more study than that. HUNTER-GAULT: But Mr. McKenzie, let me just ask you, isn't this essentially the same program, give or take a few dollars, that the Reagan administration has endorsed through Secretary Brock yesterday and today? Mr. McKENZIE: Well, I think that's very interesting that the two came out with very similar programs. You would think that this task force were independent. Whereas, in fact, it appears as though we had interlocking research staffs. And also, I mean, the figures are almost exactly the same. How did they do that? Well, the chairman delayed a press conference on this thing to make sure that the wording in the task force was consistent with the wording in the budget. Now, I find that somewhat difficult to accept -- that we were operating as a totally independent operation. HUNTER-GAULT: But what do you think the Reagan administration is up to, if what you're suggesting is a complicity that you don't feel is appropriate? Mr. McKENZIE: Well, I think there's a hidden agenda here. And Mac Lovel, the chairman of the task force, and I have discussed it to some extent. One of the main arguments behind this report is that we've got to do something in order to reduce the interests and protectionists. We're trying to buy off the protectionists. And I think such a policy is going to be about as effective as trying to buy off the Iranians. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Samuel? Mr. SAMUEL: Much of what you've heard from Professor McKenzie is really fantasy. The conspiracy theories between this task force and the administration are just totally bizarre. Many of us on the task force, as he knows, do not favor much of what this administration has done. We were delighted that they chose to take or recommendation seriously. Every member of the task force participated. All of them read the report. All of them signed it willingly, without any pressures. The fact is that Professor McKenzie finds himself way off in one corner, and without a really serious objection. I have yet to hear or read anything he has done which provides a serious objection or limitation. The fact is that the need is clear. There's between a million and two million people a year who have proved their attachment to the labor force and who suddenly find themselves without work. We have made some efforts in this country to meet their needs. They have been inadequately funded, inadequately administered. Today, as a result of the task force, we can take the first step toward meeting that need. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, very briefly, I mean, given the division that exists here -- and it's difficult to know the extent to which it exists within the task force -- with that many people joining the ranks of displaced workers, what do you see lying ahead if this isn't resolved? Very briefly. Mr. SAMUEL: I think the situation will get much more serious in the future. The forces of international competition and the forces of technological change are increasing, not lessening. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you see, Mr. McKenzie? Mr. McKENZIE: Well, unfortunately, I see a political plot underway to pass this sort of legislation. But what we're going to see is more of the same -- more federal control of state programs. We're going to see more federal expenditures, more deficits. And I think that somewhere at some point in the future, we've got to recognize that deficits, taxes and so forth are part of the adjustment problem that this country is facing. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, unfortunately, we have to go. Thank you very much for being with us, Mr. McKenzie and Mr. Samuel. California Cars LEHRER: Finally tonight, another displacement story. It's about what has happened to the people who design automobiles for a living. They used to all operate out of Detroit, the car capital of the world, Motown. Well, no more. From Los Angeles, here is a report on what happened from Jeffrey Kaye of public station KCET.

KAYE [voice over]: At a remote racetrack in Southern California's Mojave Desert, Jean Lindamood, executive editor of Automobile magazine, is taking an advanced driving course. She's enjoying a brief sojourn in the car culture of Southern California. At home in Detroit, Lindamood specializes in covering automotive design. But increasingly, she finds the stories are in Southern California. JEAN LINDAMOOD, Automobile magazine: Detroit is setting up their studios in California to sort of get their people -- their creative people -- away from the cold, dead hand of corporate involvement, you know? Detroit tends to be fairly provincial. It takes a long time to go from pen to paper to driving down the road. So you won't really see the effects of the California studios just yet. Just now you're going to be seeing them. Nissan just came out with a very exciting, interesting new car called the Pulsar. [clip from ad] ANNOUNCER: Introducing the all new '87 Nissan Pulsar NX.

KAYE [voice over]: In November, 1986, Nissan unveiled a new version of its Pulsar NX. This is the first car designed by a Japanese company's U. S. subsidiary, Nissan Design International in San Diego, California. JERRY HIRSCHBERG, Nissan Design International: In a word, what we hope we've created is a spirited vehicle that has a sense of play and fun about it. KAYE [voice over]: Jerry Hirschberg worked in Detroit for nine years as the chief designer for Pontiac and Buick. He now has the same job at Nissan Design International. Mr. HIRSCHBERG: I think what's happening is that satellites are being born. And what's healthy and delightful, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that no longer in America will one city and one region speak for the entire country. There is going to be some diverse alternative points of view that represent America. KAYE [voice over]: There was a practical business reason for Nissan to open a design facility here. Twenty five percent of its worldwide sales are in the U. S. , so it needs to keep in touch with American tastes. Southern California is a logical choice, because it's the port of entry for Nissan's cars and trucks. Toyota, Honda and Mazda have moved their studios here for similar reasons. The domestic companies -- Ford, General Motors and Chrysler -- have also established Southern California design studios. The West Coast design consultant for Ford is Richard Hutting. RICHARD HUTTING, Ford consultant: The question why, for example, the companies have all come here is to tap a phenomenon that has occurred, that being the buying habits of the Southern California consumer tend to lead the typical habits of the rest of the country by about three years. KAYE [voice over]: Automotive designers based here agree that Los Angeles' love affair with a variety of cars offers a certain inspiration. Mr. HIRSCHBERG: The international nature of the automobile market is probably one of the most significant aspects of inspiration for us. When we sat in Detroit in studios and somebody said, ''Have you seen the new rover,'' we'd flip through magazines, and we could see the new rover. Here, we can go out in the street, and we're likely to see a rover right away, as soon as it's available in the country. That brings the impact of alternative design right to our front door, and it's invigorating. KAYE [voice over]: Imported automobiles, exotic and otherwise, are just part of Southern California's motoring scene. The area's car enthusiasts, professional fabricators as well as back yard mechanics, busily turn out custom jobs, adding to an environment auto designers consider stimulating. Mr. HIRSCHBERG: I would suspect that the concept of a van was born by some kid in a garage in Bakersfield, California, who took a truck and draped some fabric over it or bent some tin and made the world's first van. There is a certain energy that exists around California, in terms of playing with the car, that makes it easy for us to play with the car in the same region. DRIVER: -- person in the back, as you can see, one of our guys waving to us, telling us we're on camera. The camera is mounted in the center of the rear license plate. KAYE [voice over]: Another reason car companies are flocking to Southern California is the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena. In the last 40 years, the center's transportation design department has trained more than half of America's car designers. The center students work on projects sponsored by industry professionals. These young designers have been asked by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to design a car for senior citizens. Today is show and tell time. STUDENT: Do you know what bumper cars are? NHTSA OFFICIAL: Right. STUDENT: We kind of want that idea, where you feel really safe in it. I'm thinking you'd have this bumper surrounding you. NHTSA OFFICIAL: I mean, I think the sketch is really gorgeous. I like the proportions of it. Have you considered access to the engine? STUDENT: Yeah. KAYE [voice over]: Citroen's chief designer, Carl Olsen, has flown in from Paris to see how the students are doing on an assignment to design an updated version of the Citroen BX Sedan. CARL OLSEN, Citroen: We're here because the Art Center School is probably the oldest school specializing in automobile design in the world, has perhaps the highest reputation of any school in the world teaching automobile design. Now, what we all hope is there will be some young student here who will have that magic catalyst that will give us a new direction. KAYE [voice over]: Citroen is not alone in its assessment of the center. Other car companies often pay to send their professional designers here. We found Hiroshi Kakimoto, a designer from Nissan headquarters in Japan, helping in the Citroen class project. [on camera] Why can't you find this new concept in Japan? HIROSHI KAKIMOTO, Nissan designer: The 99th person is just Japanese. So it's easy to make just a closed society. KAYE: Closed society. Mr. KAKIMOTO: Yes. But now we have to knock the door for the whole world. Because just, you know, Japanese company have to survive. KAYE: Has to survive. Mr. KAKIMOTO: The future. And that's why I came here. KAYE [voice over]: While Southern California's influence is spreading, auto designers agree that it's hard to define a Southern California look. Car designer Strother MacMinn, a long time teacher at the Arts Center, put it this way. STROTHER MacMINN, Art Center College of Design: I'd say the more informal aspects of sedans, probably, come from this area. The originality that Californians enjoy in their lifestyle is certainly enhanced here by cars that have a little sleeker look. They're perhaps a little bit sweeter, a little more fun to look at and enjoy and have more personality. KAYE [voice over]: Nissan's designers say that California playfulness influenced a modular design on the new Pulsar. The world of auto design is such a secretive one that no one in the business would divulge other innovations in the offing. But with ten major car design studios already here and more in the planning stages, Detroit designers are taking a back seat to their Southern California counterparts. HUNTER-GAULT: Again, the top stories on this Tuesday. A maintenance worker was charged with setting the Puerto Rico hotel fire that killed 96 people. The Supreme Court upheld a state law requiring employers to give pregnant workers up to four months maternity leave and reinstate them in the same or a similar job. And in Beirut, another French journalist was kidnapped. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.