[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 126 (Tuesday, August 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H8139]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               CUTS IN NLRB BAD FOR MANAGEMENT AND LABOR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how this 
Republican juggernaut continues on its way, not thinking and 
unconcerned about the consequences of its actions. A case in point is 
found in the labor appropriations bill we are considering this week.
  The Appropriations Committee proposes reducing the funding of the 
National Labor Relations Board by 30 percent. They also, of course, 
propose to change certain statutory rules--rules that have stood the 
test of time, and which used to be the province of authorizing 
committees.
  Why? So that the employers of this country will be freed from the 
yoke of labor--and can return to being productive and profitable in 
this highly competitive world economy. If anyone really believes this, 
I have some oceanside property in Arizona I will sell you--what's been 
happening for years is that those employers who aren't capable of 
changing their business operations to keep up with the times, and who 
only look on labor as a tool, not a partner, and who can't force lower 
wages and benefits on their workers have been moving to Mexico and the 
Far East with impunity. And those that can't move will now work with 
impunity to eliminate workers' right to organize and to force down 
wages and benefits. Since the NLRB will no longer be able to carry out 
its responsibilities.
  Lost in their zeal to unlevel the playing field is the real reason we 
have the NLRB in the first place--to bring balance to the management-
union-employee situation, to protect each of the three elements from 
the others.
  So, cutting the NLRB will mean less protection for the employers and 
employees who have had to go to the Board for redress against 
unreasonable actions by unions.
  When the Portland Local of the United Food and Commercial Workers 
attempted to force grocery store owners into firing employees because 
of failure to pay union dues, the Board stepped in to prevent the union 
from doing something clearly in violation of the law.
  The fact that these workers were not represented under a union 
contract was central to the decision.
  This bill would prevent the NLRB from prosecuting employers who find 
union organizers taking jobs in a nonunion firm solely to organize the 
workers, a practice called salting.
  I know that employers who find themselves the subject of salting 
think they will be assisted by this bill, because it allegedly makes 
such action illegal--but, cut 650 full-time-equivalent positions and 
see how many of these employers are going to be able to secure the 
assistance of the NLRB to bring a cease-and-desist order against the 
union that continues to use these tactics and disrupt the workplace.
  What I really want to ask is: How will causing inordinate delays in 
processing complaints--including disposing of frivolous or 
unsupportable complaints--be beneficial to employers?
  Employers, employees, or unions who go to the NLRB sometimes do so 
because that is the only way to avoid escalating a disagreement to the 
level of confrontation or violence.
  That is why the Board was created in the first place.
  If you take away the capability of the Board to deal efficiently and 
quickly with those disagreements, you are ensuring that there will be 
confrontations and battles.
  This proposal is, like the rest of this appropriation bill, a perfect 
example of shortsightedness.
  Because well over 90 percent of all Labor disputes are settled before 
they become the subject of a formal NLRB action, because the staff of 
the Board is now available to resolve disputes before they grow.
  Cut this budget by 30 percent and employers, employees, and unions 
will wait months instead of days for resolution of complaints. And the 
number of complaints is unlikely to drop--the NLRB does not bring the 
complaints--unions, workers, and employers bring the complaints.
  So, how can reducing the budget of this agency get Government off the 
backs of workers and employers?
  It cannot.
  Vote against this bill.

                          ____________________