[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 120 (Tuesday, August 2, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5265-S5266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Graham):
  S. 1507. A bill to provide protections from workers with respect to 
their right to select or refrain from selecting representation by a 
labor organization; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I have introduced the Employee Rights 
Act, a comprehensive workers' rights bill that would address many 
issues plaguing America's workers.
  Our Nation's labor laws were designed to preserve the rights of 
employees to join labor unions and engage in collective bargaining. 
Contrary to what some may think, I am not anti-union and I do not want 
to stand in the way of unionization if the decision to unionize is 
truly the will of the employees. However, I believe that the right not 
to join a union is equally important. It is this right that far too 
often goes overlooked under our current laws, and particularly under 
policies implemented by unelected bureaucrats at various administrative 
agencies.
  I am under no illusions that this legislation will be 
noncontroversial. There will most certainly be opposition. Indeed, I 
fully expect the unions and their supporters to come out against the 
Employee Rights Act, and characterize it as a radical, anti-union bill.
  But, that just isn't the case. There is not a single provision in 
this bill that will empower employers at the expense of the union. The 
only parties whose position will be improved by the Employee Rights Act 
are employees. Anyone whose real concern is preserving the rights of 
individual workers should support this bill.
  Let me take a few minutes to go over the specific provisions.
  First, the bill would conform and equalize unfair labor practices by 
unions with those of employers under the National Labor Relations Act. 
Currently, under Section 8 of the NLRA, employers face penalties if 
they ``interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees'' in the exercise 
of their rights under the Act. The same section punishes labor 
organizations only if they ``restrain or coerce'' employees in the 
exercise of those same rights.
  There is no reasonable or logical justification for this difference, 
and workers should have the benefit of equal protection against abuse 
from both sides. That is why, under the Employee Rights Act, both sides 
will be held to the higher standard.
  Next, my bill would ensure that employees are guaranteed a right to a 
federally supervised, secret ballot vote before a union can be 
certified. According to the NLRB, 38 percent of all unions certified in 
2009 did not have to go through a secret ballot election. Instead, 
these unions were able to use card checks to unionize employees. True 
enough, in such cases, employers voluntarily opted to recognize the 
union without demanding a secret ballot election. But what about the 
workers who wanted a secret ballot vote?
  There is, of course, a long-standing debate over the integrity and 
appropriateness of card check elections. But even the most committed 
union supporter must admit that the card check process is unregulated 
and less reliable than a secret ballot vote. Indeed, that's exactly why 
the unions prefer it. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lacking in 
common sense, on a union's payroll, or both.
  We have all heard the accounts of unions obtaining signatures through 
deception and intimidation. And, we've all heard about union organizing 
campaigns and boycotts that have all but forced employers to give up 
their right to demand a secret ballot vote. Well, Mr. President, under 
the Employee Rights Act, that right will belong to the employees, and 
it will be guaranteed.
  For the record, the American people agree with me on this issue. 
Earlier this year, the Opinion Research Corporation conducted a poll of 
1,000 adults that addressed a number of these issues. All told, 75 
percent--three out of every four--were somewhere between strongly 
supportive and somewhat supportive of a rule requiring that all 
employees be given the right to a secret ballot election when deciding 
whether to join a union.
  There is no way around it. If you are pro-worker, and not just pro-
union, you have to support the right to a secret ballot.
  Next, my bill would require every unionized workplace to conduct a 
secret ballot election every three years to determine whether a 
majority of employees still want to be represented by the union.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than 10 percent of 
current union members voted for the union at their workplace. Most 
union members simply took jobs at sites that were already unionized, 
many of which require union membership as a condition of employment.
  Under current law, if any of these employees want to decertify a 
union, they must go through an arduous process. It is a nearly 
impossible task. In addition to overcoming the many procedural hurdles 
provided by laws and regulations, they are required to speak out 
publicly against the union and subject themselves to public criticism, 
if not outright intimidation. Not surprisingly, very few even make the 
effort.
  As a result, millions of American workers belong to unions they never 
voted for and will never get to vote for. No one who claims to support 
the rights of workers can argue that this is a good thing. Every 
citizen is guaranteed an opportunity to vote out their representatives 
in State, local, and Federal Government. Yet, a union, once certified, 
is in place for perpetuity. This just shouldn't be the case.
  Once again, I am not alone in my thinking. In the same survey I cited 
earlier, 75 percent, again, 3/4 of those polled, supported a change 
that would require unions to be periodically recertified.
  This proposal is not outlandish or punitive. It is simply common 
sense. It is fair to both employers and unions, and,

[[Page S5266]]

far more importantly, it is fair to workers.
  Another provision of the bill would put a stop to the NLRB's current 
proposal to shorten the required length of time between the filing of a 
union certification petition and an election, commonly referred to as 
the quickie or snap election proposal.
  With this proposed rule, which is set to be finalized later this 
year, the pro-union NLRB hopes to help unions catch unwitting employers 
unprepared. Although there is no specific timeline in the proposal, 
experts have concluded that, if the regulation is finalized, union 
elections could occur within 7 days of a union filing a petition. Even 
worse, the proposal would eliminate many of the pre-election 
opportunities to appeal the petition and to resolve fundamental issues, 
like the size and scope of the bargaining unit.
  There is no need for this new rule. According to the NLRB, the 
average time between the filing of a petition and an election is 39 
days. This gives both the union and the employer an opportunity to 
communicate their perspective on union membership to employees and 
ensures that workers are able to make informed decisions.
  Though the current rule is eminently reasonable and appears to be 
working well for everyone, including the unions who already win the 
majority of elections, the Obama Administration can't risk losing the 
support of Big Labor. Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, 
recently remarked that this and other similar so-called reforms are 
effectively consolation prizes for the Democrats' loss in the fight to 
pass the deceptively-named Employee Free Choice Act.
  Indeed, the Obama administration, for obvious reasons, has 
consistently been all too eager to stack the deck in favor of the 
unions. Since they haven't been able to do it through the legislative 
process, they're trying to do so via regulation.
  Sadly, employees are caught in the middle. The NLRB doesn't care if 
they have enough time to consider all their options. They simply want 
to make sure the unions win more elections. To combat this, the 
Employee Rights Act would preserve substantive and procedural 
protections in the election process and ensure that workers have an 
opportunity to make informed decisions.
  The bill would also prevent a union from ordering a strike or work 
stoppage unless it obtains the consent of a majority of the affected 
workforce through a secret ballot vote.
  This is important because the rules governing when and how a union 
can order a strike are not uniform. They are determined by each union's 
constitution. There is no federal rule whatsoever requiring that unions 
obtain majority support before they can force members into unemployment 
and possible replacement.
  Many would be surprised to learn that union strike funds, kept to 
provide financial assistance for striking union members, rarely pay 
more than 20 percent of an employee's salary during a work stoppage. 
And, more often than not, a member cannot receive any compensation for 
lost wages unless they participate on a picket line.
  Isn't it only fair to give workers an opportunity to weigh in before 
a union orders a strike? Most people seem to think so. According to the 
same poll I mentioned earlier, 74 percent of Americans support this 
proposal.
  Another provision of the Employee Rights Act would prevent an 
employee's union dues or fees from being used for purposes unrelated to 
the union's collective bargaining functions--including political 
contributions and expenditures--without that member's written consent.
  Exit polls have shown that America's union members are almost evenly 
split between Democrats and Republicans, yet more than 90 percent of 
union political contributions go to Democrats. This is, not to put too 
fine a point on it, the reason why I expect strong opposition to this 
bill.
  However I would like anyone who would oppose this provision to 
explain to me why it is fair to force workers to contribute to 
political campaigns at all, regardless of the party on the receiving 
end. Once again, the only people who would object to empowering 
individual workers in this way are those who have a vested interest in 
the status quo.
  When asked about this issue, 78 percent of those polled agreed with 
this idea.
  The Employee Rights Act would do several more things. It would make 
unions liable for lost wages, unlawfully collected union dues, and even 
liquidated damages if they coerce, intimidate, or discipline workers 
for exercising their rights under the NLRA, including the right to file 
a decertification petition. Any union found to have unlawfully 
interfered with the filing of a decertification petition would be 
barred from filing objections to the subsequent decertification vote.
  The bill would also strengthen prohibitions on the use or threat of 
violence to achieve union goals, overturning an egregious Supreme Court 
decision that all but exempted unions from Federal racketeering 
statutes.
  It would allow all affected workers, union and non-union alike, the 
same rights as union members to vote to ratify a collective bargaining 
agreement or to begin a strike.
  These are not outlandish proposals. They would simply introduce some 
long-overdue common sense into our labor laws. Not surprisingly, polls 
have demonstrated that each of these ideas has broad support among the 
public.
  We have had many fierce debates in this chamber about the role of 
labor unions in our nation's economy. In fact, I have been on the floor 
several times in the last week decrying the steps taken by the Obama 
Administration when it comes to helping out Big Labor.
  But truthfully, I'm not interested in stopping unions from organizing 
or preventing collective bargaining. I simply want to protect the 
rights of individual workers and ensure that, if they do opt for union 
representation, that choice is freely made and fairly determined.
  For too long, American workers have been treated by union leaders as 
little more than human ATMs. They claim to be progressives, supportive 
of equality and democracy and the working man. This bill is consistent 
with those principles, providing working men and women with a real and 
meaningful voice in decisions regarding unionization. It is supported 
by the National Right to Work Committee, and I am proud to have 
Congressman Tim Scott of South Carolina introducing companion 
legislation in the House.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Employee Rights Act.
                                 ______