[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 80 (Wednesday, June 9, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E1087]]
                H.R. 3619, THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 9, 2004

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I have agreed to become a co-
sponsor of H.R. 3619, the Employee Free Choice Act, but not before 
considerable thought and deliberation. Among other things, this 
legislation gives workers the right to unionize and be recognized by 
the National Relations Labor Board (NLRB) when a majority of the 
workers sign a card circulated by union organizers. I continue to 
remain skeptical of any election system in which voters are not free to 
make their decisions in private. A simple card check system could 
arguably provide opportunities for group pressure and even coercion and 
I am convinced that the secret ballot process works best in most cases. 
However, I am disturbed by reports citing example after example of 
employers using heavy handed techniques to discourage workers from 
organizing a union shop in the first place and intimidating and even 
illegally firing workers who decide to join a union.
  I am particularly troubled by a recent decision by the National Labor 
Relations Board (NLRB) that gives employers carte blanche to intimidate 
union organizers. In a 2-1 party line vote, the NLRB has decided that 
an employer may explicitly inform workers who are about to vote on 
whether to form a union that workers in two other facilities lost their 
jobs after they formed a union. It is my understanding that the 
regional NLRB director ruled against the employer, saying that the memo 
circulated by the employer ``clearly implied'' the union was 
responsible for the firings at the other two hotels and insinuated 
similar firings could happen if the workers voted for the union. 
However, the two NLRB Bush appointees overruled the regional director's 
decision and claimed the memo ``did not exceed the bounds of 
permissible campaign statements.'' The Democratic appointee was the 
lone dissenter.
  This decision sends a clear message to employers that just about 
anything goes when it comes to union busting. And the message is 
equally clear to unions: if you try to organize, you could be fired. 
This is an untenable situation and the Employee Free Choice Act is, 
therefore, an opportunity to try to equalize the playing field between 
union organizers, union busters, and now the NLRB. In short, Mr. 
Speaker, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that the NLRB under 
the Bush Administration is more interested in busting unions than in 
protecting workers' rights to form and join unions. In this atmosphere, 
a shot across the bow is needed and this legislation does that.
  On balance, I would prefer a policy that energizes and funds the 
NLRB. But it is becoming increasingly clear that we may have to wait 
for a new Administration to provide this balanced leadership. Co-
sponsorship of this legislation, even with its flaws, sends an 
important and necessary message to the Administration to clean up its 
act.

                          ____________________