[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 22, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H4672]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AMERICANS' RIGHT TO ORGANIZE: GOOD FOR AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 3 minutes.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and others who have come before us 
to talk about the right of American men and women to organize; 
certainly, the right to decide whether or not they choose to organize 
to be represented in the workplace to determine what their wages might 
be, what benefits they might get, what the safety factors at work might 
be, what hours they might work, all of those things that many of us 
have become used to understanding as a valid exercise in the workplace.
  Madam Speaker, 74 percent of the American people believe that workers 
should be able to decide whether they want to join a union, and they 
should be able to make that decision without interference by 
management. People support a fair and open process that allows for 
equal access and equal time, for any discussion of what it means to 
join a union. And, they support a decision-making process that reaches 
a timely conclusion on that issue. That means that when workers vote 
freely to join a union, that decision is honored and accepted by 
management.
  The reality, unfortunately, is far different. Threats, intimidation 
and harassment are all too commonly used against those who seek to form 
a union. In nearly one-third of all organizing drives, one or more 
workers are fired illegally. If workers are able to overcome those 
obstacles and form a union, the system allows for endless legal 
challenges and stonewalling by employers. The laws designed to protect 
the freedom to form a union are failing, and the penalties for ignoring 
them are too small to be a deterrent.
  This is not a level playing field, and it is well past the time that 
we restore some measure of balance to the system.
  Madam Speaker, we talk a good deal in this Chamber about how we might 
improve the lives of American families. I suggest that one specific way 
in which we can do that is to allow for American workers who so choose 
to join a union. It can make a significant difference in the ability of 
those workers to provide for their families.
  Recently in my district, 24 employees of a small enterprise that made 
parts for engines being produced by the General Electric facility in 
Lynn signed cards to join a union. An overwhelming majority wanted that 
right. They had been earning $6.10 an hour, and unionized employees 
doing the same work were making $14 to $18 an hour.
  Segments of the community, including me, contacted the owner of that 
company, Metal Improvements, and urged that it respect the desires of 
the workers and sit down at the bargaining table in good faith. I am 
happy to report that that was done. Unfortunately, in too many other 
instances, management mounts an endless series of challenges to the 
workers' rights to organize. The results can be bitterness and 
divisiveness that undermine productivity.
  Madam Speaker, unions not only serve their members well, they serve 
the broader interests of our society. When social service workers who 
care for the elderly and the mentally ill and the mentally retarded 
earn only $7 or $8 or $9 with little or no pension or health care, as 
many do in my district, they are often forced to work two or three jobs 
a day just to make ends meet. Their ability to do just one job well 
suffers. Turnover is high, and the quality of care is diminished.
  Madam Speaker, by joining a union, these workers can raise their 
standard of living, and they ought to be able to have that right to 
make that decision.

                          ____________________