[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 100 (Thursday, July 27, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1333-E1334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 INTRODUCTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS FOR UNION MEMBERS (DRUM) ACT OF 
                                  2000

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN A. BOEHNER

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 26, 2000

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Democratic Rights for 
Union Members (DRUM) Act of 2000. The DRUM Act is a pro-union member 
bill that helps rank-and-file workers achieve greater democracy within 
their labor organizations. The bill amends the 1959 Labor-Management 
Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), also known as the ``Landrum-
Griffin'' Act. Landrum-Griffin is the only federal statute which deals 
directly with the relationship between union members and union leaders.
  Four decades have passed since the LMRDA became law. There is no 
doubt this important bill from the 1950s has improved the American 
workplace. Many of the workforce benefits that Americans take for 
granted have come from union input representing the views and wishes of 
hardworking American union members. However, similar to many of our 
other federal labor laws, there is an antiquated side to Landrum-
Griffin that reduces its effectiveness. In many cases, we have seen the 
law manipulated or ignored by union leaders who have used their power 
and the financial resources of their labor organizations for personal 
gain. In the 105th Congress, under the direction of then-Employer-
Employee Relations Subcommittee Chairman Harris Fawell, and continuing 
during the 106th Congress, the EER Subcommittee has held seven hearings 
examining in-depth the strengths and failings of Landrum-Griffin. I am 
happy to report that in the vast majority of American unions, ``union 
democracy'' as envisioned by the authors of Landrum-Griffin is 
thriving. Unfortunately, there are some cases in which union leaders 
have exploited the current system to the detriment of rank-and-file 
members.
  Following the subcommittee's first four hearings, Representative 
Fawell introduced the Democratic Rights for Union Members (DRUM) Act of 
1998 to begin the process of updating Landrum-Griffin to enhance the 
democratic rights of union members. The legislation I introduce today 
builds on Representative Fawell's bill by adding several new provisions 
addressing additional problems the subcommittee observed during this 
Congress.


                       Landrum-Griffin Background

  Few Members of Congress or rank-and-file union members are even aware 
of Landrum-Griffin's ``Bill of Rights.'' It is important to understand 
the foundations of union democracy before one can discuss necessary 
changes.
  Today, Landrum-Griffin covers some 13.5 million members, in more than 
30,000 unions having more than $15 billion in assets. Congress passed 
the LMRDA as a response to public outcry resulting from revelations of 
corruption and racketeering in the labor movement. This corruption came 
to light in the late 1950s, during three years of hearings in the 
Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor and 
Management Field, chaired by Senator John L. McClellan. The authors of 
the LMRDA believed that promoting democracy within unions would reduce 
corruption and strengthen the labor movement by providing union members 
more control over their own union affairs.
  Clyde Summers, Jefferson B. Fordham Professor of Law Emeritus at the 
University of Pennsylvania Law School, who sat on a panel of experts 
convened by then-Senator John F. Kennedy to draft a union members' Bill 
of Rights (the basis for Title I of Landrum-Griffin), eloquently 
summarized the intent of the law in testimony before the EER 
Subcommittee on March 17, 1999:

       The whole focus of the Landrum-Griffin Act was to protect 
     the democratic rights of members as an instrument of 
     collective bargaining. There was a guiding principle to limit 
     governmental intervention to the minimum, to limit 
     intervention in terms of union decision-making, to leave 
     unions free to make their own decisions. But this was to be 
     accomplished by guaranteeing the democratic process inside 
     the union on the logic, the philosophy, that if the union 
     members made these decisions on their own, that if these were 
     democratically made, this gave a legitimacy to these 
     decisions.

  Landrum-Griffin contains six titles. The first title, the foundation 
upon which the rest of the legislation is constructed, contains a union 
member Bill of Rights mandating various rights: to information, to free 
speech, to free association, and to protection from undue discipline. 
Title II governs reporting and recordkeeping by labor organizations. 
Title III provides a framework for trusteeships. Title IV lays out 
requirements for elections of union officers, including specific time 
frames within

[[Page E1334]]

which elections must be held. Title V outlines the fiduciary duties of 
union officers. Title VI provides a variety of additional requirements, 
and grants general investigatory powers to the Department of Labor.


                             The Amendments

  The bill I introduce today includes several amendments to Landrum-
Griffin. Each of these changes will have a positive impact on the 
everyday lives of union members. Those unions that treat their members 
fairly will not be affected at all. The legislation introduced today is 
not an exhaustive list of reforms. There are other changes that 
Congress may want to consider in the future, but the DRUM Act 
represents a very productive starting point.
  My bill provides: enhanced notification to union members of their 
rights under the LMRDA; increased authority for the Department of Labor 
to enforce the notification rights of union members;


                      Enhanced Notification Rights

  The DRUM Act addresses real problems that have come to the 
subcommittee's attention during our hearings or through recent court 
rulings. For example, the legislation requires unions to periodically 
notify all members of their Title I rights. Some unions, as incredible 
as it may sound, have argued that a one-time notification of rights 
under the LMRDA given decades ago satisfies the current law requirement 
to ``inform its members concerning the provisions of'' the Act (29 USC 
Sec. 415).
  This issue was the subject of a recent Fourth Circuit case. (Thomas 
v. Grand Lodge of Int'l Ass'n of Machinists, 201 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 
2000)). In Thomas, union members sued the International Association of 
Machinists to require the union to distribute to each member a summary 
of their rights under Landrum-Griffin. The union claimed that they had 
fulfilled the notification requirements in 1959 when they distributed 
the text of the recently-passed law. Incredibly, the district court had 
agreed with the union leadership despite the fact that most, if not 
all, of the members were not members in 1959. Fortunately, the Fourth 
Circuit overruled the district court, and determined that the one-time 
notification was not sufficient, but stopped short, however, of 
enumerating what ``sufficient notification'' entails. My bill clarifies 
the notification obligation, by requiring the Secretary of Labor to 
promulgate regulations that provide enhanced guidance to union 
organizations on how best to inform their members of their LMRDA 
rights. After all, if union members are not aware that they have 
rights, they will be unable to exercise them.


            ``Reasonable Qualifications'' in Union Elections

  An additional line of court cases prompts another provision in DRUM. 
There is conflicting appeals court precedent on the issue of what 
constitutes a ``reasonable qualification'' (29 USC Sec. 481 (e)) in 
order to be eligible to run for elected union office. Earlier this 
year, the First Circuit ruled against the Department of Labor, after 
the Department sued a local union over an election rule which barred 96 
percent of the local's members from running for office (Herman v. 
Springfield Mass. Area, Local 497, American Postal Workers Union, 201 
F.3d (1st Cir. 2000)). The court held as reasonable a requirement that 
union members attend three of the previous nine union meetings in order 
to run for office. This court decision contradicts a ruling from the 
D.C. Circuit in 1987, in which a union's election rule was considered 
unreasonable primarily because it disqualified a large percentage of 
union members (Doyle v. Brock, 821 F.2d 778 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).
  In Herman, the Majority all but requested that the Department of 
Labor adopt a regulation using a specific percentage standard. I 
believe it is the responsibility of the Congress to enact such a 
requirement, rather than to require the administration to take on the 
nearly impossible task of interpreting Congressional intent and 
balancing that intent with contradictory court opinions. As such, the 
legislation introduced today lays out a clear standard by which 
election rules will be judged as reasonable or unreasonable. The 
legislation simply says that any rule excluding more than half of a 
union's members from running for office is not reasonable. This bright 
line will benefit union members, candidates for union office, and 
incumbent union leaders equally, because by removing ambiguity, we will 
enhance union democracy and reduce potential internal strife.


                               Conclusion

  The workplace of the 21st Century is vastly different from that 
existing 40 years ago. Workers and employers are working together 
toward a common goal, rather than continuing the adversarial 
relationship which characterized the last century. This evolution in 
the workplace has reduced industrial strife, and has increased 
productivity, profits, and, most importantly, the satisfaction and pay 
of workers.
  This same collective strategy is key to the effective operation of 
internal union affairs. The days of well-heeled union bosses, using 
their members to enrich themselves at the expense of worker advancement 
are quickly ending. Unions, which provide workers with camaraderie, 
personal support--both inside and outside the workplace--and a means to 
improve their lives, are enriched as members achieve true democracy 
within their labor organizations. Enhancing the ability of rank-and-
file members to take a greater responsibility for how their union 
operates solidifies the positive impact unions have on the workplace 
and the lives of working men and women.

                          ____________________