[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 26 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           SPRINT'S FIRING OF 235 EMPLOYEES IN SAN FRANCISCO

                                 ______


                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 29, 1996

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on July 14, 1994, the Sprint Corp. abruptly 
closed down La Conexion Familiar, its San Francisco telemarketing 
subsidiary, and fired all 235 La Conexion Familiar workers. These 
employees were let go just 1 week before they were scheduled to vote in 
an organizing election under the supervision of the National Labor 
Relations Board. A majority of the employees at La Conexion Familiar 
had signed a petition indicating their desire to unionize. The 
employees said that they were seeking to improve working conditions 
which included restrictions on drinking water and bathroom breaks.
  The National Labor Relations Board charged Sprint with over 50 
Federal labor violations and with illegally closing La Conexion 
Familiar. An administrative law judge upheld these 50 labor violations, 
but offered no assistance or remedy to the fired employees. The NLRB 
general counsel has appealed to the full Board charging that the 
closing was an illegal effort to thwart a union organizing drive.
  The U.S. Department of Labor held a public forum in San Francisco 
this week, entitled ``Public Forum of the Effects of a Sudden Plant 
Closure and the Impact on the Principle of Freedom of Association and 
the Right of Workers to Organize.'' This forum was the first of its 
kind under the terms of the NAFTA agreement. I submitted testimony to 
this forum and would like to share my testimony with my colleagues. 
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that my testimony be 
entered into the Record.

  Effects of Sudden Plant Closure and the Impact on the Principle of 
      Freedom of Association and the Right of Workers to Organize

                            (By Tom Lantos)

       I would first like to commend you for holding this hearing 
     which is the first of its kind under the terms of the NAFTA 
     agreement on a case involving violations of worker rights in 
     the United States. As you know, I was strongly opposed to 
     NAFTA, but it is now the law of the land and we must live by 
     its provisions. I will be the first to make sure that the 
     spirit and intent of the principles contained in NAFTA's side 
     agreement on labor cooperation are given maximum attention in 
     the enforcement of NAFTA's provisions.
       The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation states 
     plainly that every effort will be made to guarantee to all 
     workers the right of freedom of association and the right to 
     union representation.
       The Sprint workers who are the subject of today's hearing 
     were clearly denied these rights. Sprint's shutdown of La 
     Conexion Familiar demonstrated that reality falls well short 
     of the goals of the NAFTA agreement on labor cooperation. 
     This is a case of a company which willfully violated our 
     labor law and which was cited with more than 50 violations. 
     It is also a case of human pain and suffering.
       As you know, on July 14, 1994, 235 individuals were thrown 
     out of work by Sprint. Many of these workers live in my 
     Congressional district. Today we heard from several of these 
     workers who have told us in their own words the turmoil they 
     have had to endure.
       I have heard their pain from the beginning of this tragic 
     situation and I have observed first hand the wrenching 
     consequences of Sprint's behavior of these worker's lives. In 
     a split second these workers were unemployed. Their families 
     were in disarray. And the promise of the American dream was 
     destroyed. ``How could this happen'', they asked, ``After 
     all, this is America, where laws are supposed to mean what 
     they say and are supposed to be enforced to the letter.''
       When Sprint abruptly shut its ``La Conexion Familiar'' 
     facility one week before an organizing election, we had a 
     classic case of US labor law not adequately protecting 
     American workers. Two hundred and thirty-five workers lost 
     their jobs, victims of an illegal campaign against workers' 
     rights. More than a year and a half after losing their jobs, 
     the workers at La Conexion Familiar are still struggling and 
     awaiting justice. Out of the 177 workers who were scheduled 
     to vote in the union election, fewer than half are working--
     the rest are still out of work.
       The National Labor Relations Board moved as quickly as 
     current law permitted. But in spite of their efforts it took 
     over four months until the case was heard and well over a 
     year until a decision was issued. And the process is far from 
     over. As of today, this case is 593 days old and it will take 
     many more months before the Board issues a final decision, 
     even as they expedite the case. It will take years before all 
     parties exhaust available appeals. In the meantime, the 
     workers are the ones paying the price for the inability of 
     our system to provide prompt and effective remedies for this 
     obvious and egregious violation of the law.
       The Sprint case is not atypical. The latest data available 
     from the NLRB show that by the end of 1994, the medium number 
     of days it took for an unfair labor practice case to reach a 
     decision by an administrative law judge was 360 days and the 
     median number of days to a reach a Board decision was 601 
     days. What this means is that half of all these cases took 
     even longer. The average age of cases pending before the 
     Board (as of September 30, 1994) was 758 days. Add to that 
     years of appeals through the courts and we have to 
     recognize that our current system of labor law is in fact 
     an easy and inexpensive tool for companies to use to break 
     the law rather than abide by it.
       It is simply unjust for workers who have lost their jobs as 
     a result of unfair labor practices by their employers to have 
     to wait so long for a remedy. Our labor laws and their 
     enforcement mechanisms must be strengthened.
       Under these circumstances, I admire the courage of the 
     workers at La Conexion Familiar. They stepped up to the plate 
     and took a swing at their rights. What they did not know was 
     that the game was rigged against them and Sprint was throwing 
     a spit ball. What would you do if you were a worker in a 
     plant or a facility such as La Conexion Familiar and you were 
     told by your supervisor or your manager:
       ``Look, don't even try to organize, because we'll shut the 
     plant down and it will take you four to five years to prove 
     that the company did anything wrong. In the meantime, you 
     will be out of work.''
       Under these circumstances would anyone try to organize? 
     There is no question that the average worker would say, 
     ``No.''
       This is what is so admirable about the Sprint workers at La 
     Conexion Familiar. In spite of all the threats, the coercion 
     and the spying, they still tried. They demonstrated that the 
     importance of organizing a union is not from a bygone era, 
     but that organizing a union is more relevant than ever. It is 
     our system of labor law and its enforcement which must be 
     brought into the 21st century.
       This is why I am testifying today in support of Sprint 
     workers and all workers who want to organize. I will continue 
     to do everything I can to seek a remedy in this case and will 
     continue to push for labor law reform which provides prompt 
     and effective penalties against labor law violators. Workers 
     must feel secure in their belief that they can exercise their 
     right to organize without fear of retaliation by their 
     employer and without running the risk of losing their job.
       One reason I opposed the NAFTA agreement was that it 
     perpetuated the ineffectiveness of US law in protecting 
     workers rights. In the case of the right to organize, the 
     NAFTA agreement provides only a mechanism for exposing 
     violations of these rights and this Forum is part of that 
     mechanism. It is important for workers to demonstrate the 
     widespread abuse of workers rights. But it is clearly not 
     enough.
       The objectives of the NAFTA side agreement on labor 
     cooperation are admirable. But the law itself should contain 
     penalties against the companies who benefit from expanded 
     trade opportunities but at the same time violate their 
     workers' rights, whether in Mexico, Canada or the United 
     States. I will fight hard to ensure that the NAFTA agreement 
     is amended to include real penalties and appropriate 
     enforcement provisions.
       I support calls for an international code of conduct for 
     all companies operating on a global scale. This code will 
     ensure that workers' rights, which we in the United States 
     are at least committed to on paper and which are contained in 
     the NAFTA side agreement on labor cooperation, will become a 
     part and parcel of acceptable behavior in international 
     commerce.
       The promise of international investment and trade must go 
     hand in hand with the promise of improved working conditions 
     and living standards for workers both in the United States 
     and abroad. By recognizing and protecting the rights of 
     workers to form unions and engage in collective bargaining, 
     we are not giving workers entitlements or handouts. We are 
     giving them the tools to stand up for themselves and claim 
     their fair share of economic progress that they had a hand in 
     producing.
       Thank you.

                          ____________________