[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 15, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E661-E663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 THERE THEY GO AGAIN; THE BIG LABOR BOSSES VERSUS AMERICAN TAXPAYERS, 
                          EMPLOYERS, AND JOBS

                                 ______
                                 

                     HON. RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 15, 1997

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there they go again. In 1996, the big 
labor bosses in Washington attempted to buy a political party and the 
elections, using $35 million in union dues from honest working men and 
women--40 percent of whom opposed the union bosses' endorsed 
Presidential candidate. Now they are coordinating with the Clinton 
administration an expansive, expensive, and bureaucratic new Federal 
contracting regulation to shake down everybody else--American 
taxpayers, employers, and the 90 percent of workers who are not union 
members--for the self-serving interests of the labor bosses in 
Washington.
  It should go without saying that the President's proposed Executive 
order on project labor agreements is in addition to existing Federal 
contract and labor law, which includes but is not limited to the 
Service Contract Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act 
and the minimum wage, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave 
Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, 
the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Occupational Health and 
Safety Act, among others, plus the laws of the States.
  I enter into the Record a memorandum from AFL-CIO President John 
Sweeney that outlines the labor bosses' plan, so that Members may read 
it and draw their own conclusions.

 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations

     Memo to: National and International Union Presidents.
     From: John J. Sweeney.
     Subject: Support for Pro-Worker Federal Procurement Reforms.
     Date: March 25, 1997.
       The purpose of this memo is to alert you to an exciting 
     initiative that requires the immediate attention of 
     affiliated unions, and to request your assistance in building 
     the case for these much-needed reforms.
       As you may recall, the Clinton Administration recently 
     announced its intention to undertake several initiatives that 
     will protect worker rights and workplace standards while 
     improving federal government procurement and contracting 
     practices. If properly implemented, these initiatives will 
     affect the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars 
     every year. In any given year federal contracts total as much 
     as $200 billion, and federal contractors and subcontractors 
     employ approximately one-fifth of the labor force. At any 
     given time perhaps 3% of the labor force is directly employed 
     in the performance of a federal government contract.
       In order for these initiatives to take effect and withstand 
     Republican and business community opposition in Congress and 
     the courts, we need the assistance and active involvement of 
     AFL-CIO unions. We are asking affiliates to undertake the 
     efforts described in the attached memorandum, and to 
     designate one person from each organization who will work 
     with us in coordinating these efforts.
       Our short term goal is to develop material to buttress our 
     case for these reforms from a hostile attack from the 
     Republican Congress. The long term goal is to build and 
     sustain a body of information to help us make the most of 
     these initiatives and have a positive, pro-worker impact on 
     the world of federal contracting.
       The government will be issuing proposed procurement 
     regulations that will accomplish three reforms.
       First, the government will evaluate whether a bidder for a 
     government contract has a satisfactory record of labor 
     relations and other employment practices in determining 
     whether or not the bidder is a ``responsible contractor'' 
     eligible to receive a particular government contract.
       Second, the government will not reimburse federal 
     contractors for costs they incur in unsuccessfully defending 
     against or settling unfair labor practice complaints brought 
     against them by the National Labor Relations Board.
       Third, the government will not reimburse contractors for 
     the money they spend to fight unionization of their 
     employees.
       These proposed amendments to the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulations will be published in the Federal Register for a 
     60-day notice and comment period by the public, and then 
     issued in final and binding form following consideration of 
     those comments.
       President Clinton will also issue an executive order 
     directing all federal departments to consider using a project 
     labor agreement when they undertake government-funded 
     construction projects. This order is not subject to notice-
     and-comment or other administrative steps.
       Republicans in Congress and the business community attacked 
     these plans as soon as the Administration announced them. 
     Republican leaders have said they may try to override them 
     and are also threatening litigation. Both groups assert that 
     the initiatives

[[Page E662]]

     are bad policy and simply a payoff to the AFL-CIO for its 
     efforts during the 1996 election campaign.
       In order to secure final issuance of the procurement 
     regulations, and to defeat the campaign that is coalescing 
     against them and the proposed executive order, it is 
     imperative that AFL-CIO affiliates bolster the case in 
     support of these changes with specific information and 
     examples of corporate lawbreaking or bad practices that 
     justify the regulations, and successful experiences with 
     project labor agreements in both the private and public 
     sectors.
       We are reaching out in particular to organizers, lawyers, 
     researchers and lobbyists for AFL-CIO affiliates to ask their 
     assistance in securing this information, and to consult as 
     appropriate with other staff in their union and its 
     affiliated local, district and similar bodies.
       The attached memorandum describes these initiatives in more 
     detail and specifies the information and materials we need. 
     Responses should be sent directly to AFL-CIO Corporate 
     Affairs Department Director Ron Blackwell, who is 
     coordinating the AFL-CIO's research efforts for the 
     procurement reforms. Ron can be reached at AFL-CIO 
     headquarters at 202-637-5160.
       Thank you for your help in our campaign to win these 
     important reforms.

   Information Needed in Support of Proposed Government Contracting 
                                Reforms

       The Clinton Administration will soon be proposing 
     regulations to modify the Federal Acquisition Regulations in 
     three areas, and will be issuing an executive order on 
     project labor agreements. A description of the forthcoming 
     proposals, and the information needed to support these 
     proposals, follows:


  1. Requiring government contractors to have satisfactory labor and 
                          employment practices

       Under the regulations that govern federal procurement and 
     contracting--Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations--
     before the government can award a contract for goods, 
     services or construction, such as computers, building 
     maintenance or the erection of a government office building, 
     it must evaluate the contractor's past performance record; 
     its record of integrity and business ethics; and its 
     capability to perform the contract.
       In selecting contractors, the government has only 
     occasionally taken into account a contractor's labor 
     relations and employment practices. Often, then, a contractor 
     with a shabby record of treating its workers has won a 
     government contract, and on only rare occasions has the 
     government decided that a contractor's labor relations were 
     so poor that it could not satisfactorily perform the contract 
     up for bid.
       The government will now revise its procurement regulations 
     so they expressly provide that a satisfactory record of 
     employment practices is a component of both the ``business 
     ethics and integrity'' and ``capability'' qualifications for 
     being ``responsible.'' This means the government will review 
     a contractor's labor and employment policies and practices 
     and its compliance with laws and standards concerning safety 
     and health; wages, benefits and other labor standards; equal 
     employment opportunity; and the right to organize and bargain 
     collectively.
       The AFL-CIO has stressed two important public purposes that 
     are served by this initiative. First, it ensures that the 
     government won't award contracts to companies that don't 
     respect worker rights or adopt sound workplace standards, 
     because these companies aren't trustworthy or reliable enough 
     for the government to do business with. Second, it will 
     improve the performance of government contracts because 
     employers with good labor relations and employment practices 
     are more stable, productive and efficient.
       In order to support this initiative, we need information 
     and documentation about government contractors that either 
     are lawbreakers or have substandard labor and employment 
     practices or policies--for example, government contractors 
     that--
       Have been held liable for substantial breaches of the 
     National Labor Relations Act; the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act; the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 
     the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; or other federal 
     laws protecting workplace standards and barring employment 
     discrimination.
       Are being investigated, sued or prosecuted for such 
     violations (examples: Caterpillar and Mitsubishi) even though 
     no final determination has been made.
       Pay substandard wages; have no defined workplace rules and 
     arbitrarily administer employment policy; provide few or no 
     benefits; provoke ongoing worker dissatisfaction or unrest; 
     experience unusually high turnover and workforce instability; 
     enforce unfair or degrading rules and procedures; or provide 
     no means for workers to raise on-the-job problems.
       We need names, dates, related documents and, just as 
     important, union representatives or workers who can attest to 
     these situations or provide at least anecdotal information. 
     If your organization has compiled any relevant general data, 
     that would prove very useful as well.
       We particularly suggest that: Lawyers gather records of 
     cases involving government contractor violations of workplace 
     laws; lobbyists review their files where local unions or 
     other internal bodies have requested intervention with either 
     the Congress or the Executive Branch over a problem with a 
     government contractor like the ones described in this memo; 
     organizers review ongoing and recent organizing campaigns at 
     employers that are government contractors; and researchers 
     investigate the records of contractors in the principal 
     industries they represent.


  2. Ending government reimbursement of employers' antiworker expenses

             a. Defense of Unfair Labor Practice Complaints

       Under current government procurement and contracting 
     regulations--Part 31 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations--
     the government now precludes the reimbursement of government 
     contractors for their costs in unsuccessfully defending or 
     settling criminal indictments and certain civil proceedings 
     brought by the government involving fraud or similar 
     misconduct or the imposition of a monetary penalty. But the 
     regulations don't specify whether the defense of unfair labor 
     practice complaints issued by the NLRB General Counsel 
     charging violations of the NLRA is a reimbursable cost 
     incurred in the performance of a contract that contractors 
     can pass on to taxpayers. Now those regulations will 
     preclude the use of public funds for that private purpose 
     where the contractor is found liable or the contractor 
     resolves the case by settlement. This will end the self-
     defeating practice of the government funding both the 
     enforcement and the defense of government litigation to 
     enforce the labor laws.
       We need information about employers that have defended 
     unfair labor practice complaints brought by the NLRB General 
     Counsel during the performance of a government contract, 
     where either the NLRB held that the contractor violated the 
     NLRA or the contractor settled the case after a compliant was 
     issued. We are looking especially for situations in which the 
     contractor violated organizing rights during an organizing 
     campaign; refused to bargain in good faith for a first 
     contract; tried to destroy an established collective 
     bargaining relationship; or unlawfully discharged or 
     otherwise retaliated against employees because they supported 
     a union.
       If known, we especially need cases where the government 
     reimbursed the contractor for the cost of unsuccessfully 
     defending the ULP complaint. We recognize that it is unlikely 
     that the union would know these details. Identification of 
     the organizing campaign alone would be helpful; we will try 
     to obtain information about reimbursement from other sources.
       In particular: Lawyers should provide citations to NLRB 
     decisions, and copies of ALJ decisions, settlement agreements 
     and other documents arising from ULP prosecutions of 
     government contractors; organizers should provide information 
     about the organizing campaigns at worksites of government 
     contracts that gave rise to ULPs and identify the union staff 
     of workers who had direct experience with the matter; 
     lobbyists, again, should review their files where local 
     unions or other internal bodies have requested intervention 
     with either the Congress or the Executive Branch over a 
     problem with a government contractor like the ones described 
     in this memo; and researchers should undertake associated 
     research into these matters.

                       b. Anti-Union Campaigning

       Under several federal statutes and regulations, including 
     those governing Head Start, Medicare, the National and 
     Community Service Act and the Job Training Partnership Act, 
     federal contractors and fund recipients have long been barred 
     from using government money to fight their workers' efforts 
     to exercise their rights to organize and bargain 
     collectively.
       The government will now revise its regulations--
     specifically, in Part 31 of the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulations--to specify that as a general rule covering all 
     government procurement, contractors will not be able to 
     obtain government reimbursement for these sorts of 
     activities.
       This reform will create a more level playing field when 
     employees of government contractors try to exercise their 
     rights under the National Labor Relations Act by ending the 
     grossly unfair practice of taxpayers underwriting employer 
     efforts to fight or influence their employees' decision about 
     exercising their rights. This initiative will save taxpayers 
     these expenses, which have nothing to do with guaranteeing 
     satisfactory government contract performance.
       We need unions to identify instances where organizing 
     campaigns took place in bargaining units of employees that 
     were actually performing the government contract. Again, if 
     known, instances of government reimbursement should be 
     described. We are especially interested in situations in 
     which the employer aggressively opposed the campaign; the 
     employer committed ULP's during the campaign; the employer 
     broke or skirted the law but, for whatever reason (such as 
     where the union won the election), the union did not pursue 
     NLRB objections or charges; and other situations where the 
     employer engaged in an anti-union campaign, such as during 
     collective bargaining.
       In particular, Lawyers should review organizing and 
     contract campaigns they were involved with, particularly 
     those in which the employer incurred substantial legal 
     expenses; organizers should review organizing and contract 
     campaigns and, again, identify both the union staff and 
     workers who had direct contract with the situation; lobbyists 
     should, again, review their files as described

[[Page E663]]

     earlier; and researchers should undertake associated 
     inquiries.


  3. Authorizing project labor agreements for government construction.

       A project labor agreement is a comprehensive collective 
     bargaining agreement negotiated at the outset of a project 
     between the construction owner or manager and the unions 
     representing all the workers who will construct the project. 
     This agreement sets the wages, working conditions, work rules 
     and dispute resolution procedures for the duration of the 
     project. They usually guarantee that projects will be built 
     without strikes, lockouts and similar disruptions. In the 
     private sector, project labor agreements have long proven 
     their worth in the construction of large utility, 
     manufacturing and other complexes.
       Over the years of federal government has used project labor 
     agreements on large construction projects, including dams, 
     atomic energy facilities and other defense installations, but 
     it has never had a policy to consider using them or to 
     require its contractors to negotiate them where these 
     agreements may facilitate efficient and timely construction.
       Innumerable state and locally funded construction projects 
     such as the mammoth cleanup of Boston Harbor, and bridges, 
     office complexes, highways, and airports have been built 
     under project labor agreements. In the past three years, 
     Republican Governors Whitman of New Jersey and Pataki of New 
     York and Democratic Governor Miller of Nevada have issued 
     executive orders authorizing the use of project labor 
     agreements for state-funded construction when it will promote 
     the efficient, timely and safe construction of a project.
       Under this new presidential executive order, when an agency 
     decides that a project labor agreement will benefit a federal 
     construction project, it may either negotiate one directly or 
     require bidders to agree to negotiate one for the project.
       This order advances fair and efficient government 
     contracting by making it clear that federal agencies, just 
     like state and municipal governments and private builders, 
     have the option of using project labor agreements as one 
     means of assuring that the project will be performed in a 
     cost-effective, competent and timely manner.
       In order to defend this order from anticipated political 
     attack, we need information from Building and Construction 
     Trades Department affiliates about recent or ongoing project 
     labor agreements, whether public or private. Especially 
     useful would be examples of experiences in the three states 
     where executive orders encourage such agreements on public 
     construction projects.
       In particular, building trades: Lawyers should provide 
     examples of publicly-funded project labor agreements whose 
     lawfulness has been litigated; lobbyists should report 
     efforts to have states and localities adopt project 
     agreements on particular projects or general executive orders 
     to promote them as a matter of policy; and researchers should 
     compile lists and data regarding the use of project labor 
     agreements.
       We appreciate any assistance you can provide to our 
     campaign to support these initiatives and counter the 
     opposition coalescing against them.

                          ____________________