[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 26, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8402-S8403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT OF 2007

  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, today I rise to speak in opposition to 
the so-called Employee Free Choice Act which we defeated by cloture 
vote. But cloture votes don't necessarily kill a bill; they have a way 
of resurrecting themselves, as we are about to do with the immigration 
bill.
  Oftentimes in Congress, the people who write bills try to come up 
with some interesting titles for their bills, something they hope will 
make people remember it or tell them something about what it does. Many 
times, these titles can be somewhat misleading. This bill's title, the 
Employee Free Choice Act, takes this concept to a whole new level.
  The Employee Free Choice Act actually removes choice from the 
employees. It removes the right of a secret ballot in elections--a 
cornerstone of American democracy under current law. If a group of 
employees wants to form a union, they must collect petition signatures 
or sign cards known as card checks. If 30 percent of the workers sign 
in favor of creating a union, then they or their employer has a right 
to request a secret ballot election to decide on forming a union. This 
election is overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, a neutral 
board of observers created by the Federal Government.
  The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act would change all of this. This 
legislation would overturn 70 years of labor law and allow unions to 
form in workplaces without a private ballot election by the workers. 
Instead, if unions could twist the arms of just over half of the 
employees to sign cards expressing consent, then the union is 
automatically certified as the union for all of the workers. Unions 
would be allowed to collect signatures just about anyplace: at the 
workplace, at home, at grocery stores, and at other places. It is easy 
to see how union persuasion tactics could become harassment of those 
who do not wish to publicly declare support for union representation.
  What would politics be like if Senators and Representatives simply 
had to convince people to sign cards instead of voting secretly at the 
polls? Imagine if there were no private voting booths where people 
could vote their conscience privately. Small armies of campaign 
volunteers would hang around your house, drop by your children's 
school, or find you at church in the hopes of securing your signature.
  Then if you signed the card, your vote is made public for your 
employer, your neighbors or anyone else to see. This is why we 
currently use this secret ballot protection for union organizations in 
the first place.
  In the past, there were concerns that elections held without privacy 
would be observed by employers, and then if an employee voted to 
unionize, they would suffer some sort of reprisals. Apparently, my 
colleagues supporting this bill and their allies in big labor no longer 
fear employer reprisals. I think it is great that they now trust 
employers to observe how their workers vote to join a union. We have 
made a lot of progress in labor-management relationships, apparently.
  However, I don't think these ballot choices should be unprotected and 
out in the open for both union organizers and employers to see. 
Whenever privacy in elections is compromised, the door is open to 
intimidation and coercion. Why take a chance on that? It would seem 
that big labor feels they can increase union membership if they know 
how many employees are voting on organizing. I wonder what they plan to 
do with this information to achieve their goals of creating more 
unions.
  Americans enjoy the right to join a union, but the decision to join a 
union should be freely made in private and without intimidation or 
coercion. That is the only way to ensure that the choice is truly free 
and not forced.
  According to the National Labor Relations Board, drives to form 
unions are successful around 60 percent of the time under the rules in 
place now--60 percent of the time. That is the highest it has been in 
20 years. Back then, the union success rate was under 50 percent. So 
there is no indication that it

[[Page S8403]]

is more difficult now to convince workers to organize a union than 
before. So why does big labor want to change this system? They don't 
want to ever lose these elections. Even though they win most of these 
elections, union membership has declined significantly in the past few 
years. The percentage of employees in labor unions is down from 20 
percent in 1983 to 12 percent today. Because labor unions simply are 
not as attractive to workers as they once were, labor bosses have come 
to Congress to demand a legislative mandate designed to circumvent 
private ballot elections. They want more dues-paying members.
  Throughout this debate, there is a clear example of hypocrisy in the 
argument in favor of the new card check system. Under current law, the 
process to certify a union is the same as the process to decertify a 
union. However, this bill and its supporters are silent on this matter. 
Apparently, they believe that when it comes to removing a union, 
workers will be best served by a secret ballot. But when it comes to 
forming one, they don't deserve that protection. This kind of logic and 
inconsistency is further proof that this proposal is half-baked and 
indefensible.
  Congress should not empower big labor bosses by depriving individual 
workers of their right to be free of intimidation. Taking away private 
ballot elections and subjecting workers to undue pressure and coercion 
goes against the basic principles on which this country was founded. 
The secret ballot election must be protected at the workplace.
  I understand the new majority in Congress feels they owe a great deal 
of debt to their allies in big labor for the success they enjoyed in 
November of 2006. That is why we are considering this flawed bill. As 
the majority, they can bring up any piece of legislation they choose. 
Fair enough. However, this bill is purely political payback in its 
worst kind of policy. I urge my colleagues--which they have done in the 
first instance--to vote against considering this piece of legislation, 
as they did when we had our cloture vote earlier today.
  This is a personal aside. In 1964, I was a professional athlete. We 
were forming a players' union at the time so we could compete with the 
owners on an equal basis when it came to negotiations. We acquired 30 
percent of the signatures from our players and we had an election. But 
it was a private-ballot election and 85 percent of the ballots 
collected were in favor of forming that union. I think the same should 
go with every union that is trying to be formed under the circumstances 
in today's market. Not only did we form a union, we formed one of the 
most successful unions in the history of the United States of America. 
Now all players at the major league level are covered by that union and 
represented by that union. The benefits derived by that player union in 
major league baseball have been significant--the same as most unions 
would have when they do it correctly with a private ballot.
  I thank my colleagues for voting against cloture today. I urge them, 
if it comes back to the floor again, to do likewise.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________