[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 177 (Friday, November 18, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7835-H7840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3094, WORKFORCE DEMOCRACY AND
FAIRNESS ACT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 470 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 470
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3094) to amend the National Labor Relations
Act with respect to representation hearings and the timing of
elections of labor organizations under that Act. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 470 provides for a structured
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy
and Fairness Act.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, with this rule and underlying bill, Congress continues
months of inaction on job growth, months of ignoring real solutions,
choosing instead to use our economic struggles as an excuse to push
partisan and ideological legislation.
The American people deserve jobs now rather than bills aimed only at
stoking the rhetorical fires and antagonizing political opponents. It's
time to stop the games and seek compromise for the betterment of our
Nation.
A middle class tax increase is looming. With the extension of the
payroll tax, many middle class families earning $70,000 to $80,000 a
year will be forced to pay over a $1,000 a year more in taxes.
Apparently, the Republicans believe that the government knows how to
spend their money better than American families.
As a businessman and an entrepreneur, I'm proud to have created many
jobs and many businesses. I meet with the businesses in my district on
a regular basis. Not a single business has raised this issue as any
kind of impediment to job growth, any kind of impediment to getting the
economy growing again. This is simply a non-related subject that
pursues a longtime agenda to destroy the ability of workers to
organize.
This bill represents the Ohio-ization of America. Just as Republicans
attempted in the State of Ohio, House Republicans are simply union
busting. But we saw what happened in Ohio, where Ohioans across the
ideological spectrum overwhelmingly said ``no'' to this kind of anti-
worker agenda. And the American people reject it as well.
This bill's singular goal is to shut down workplace elections. It
would overturn the proposed National Labor Relations Board rule, it
would modernize the union election process and avoid delays. But
instead of creating efficiency in government, the workplace election
prevention actually mandates inefficiency; it makes inefficiency the
norm rather than the exception. The bill puts in place 35-day delays in
holding elections after filing petitions. The bill includes no limit on
how long the elections can be delayed.
{time} 0920
In the case of workplace elections, delay is a critical issue. The
intent of delaying an election is to give anti-union employers a chance
to prevent workers from organizing. Despite Republicans' professed
outrage over frivolous lawsuits and tort reform and many other areas,
H.R. 3094 incentivizes a mountain of litigation for the sole purpose of
stalling workplace elections. This creates a massive backlog of cases,
including frivolous ones, all on the taxpayers' dime. Republicans don't
seem to have a problem with trial lawyers as long as they're suing
unions.
This bill even allows managers to stuff the ballot boxes of employer
elections.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure many of us in this body here are following
our State redistricting processes to see how various districts across
the country are gerrymandered. What this bill would allow employers to
do is effectively gerrymander what the negotiating unit is at the
company. If there's a group of employees that's interested in forming a
union, it would give the employer the ability to say, no, that's
actually not a valid group; it needs to include this other group or
this other group, and decide on what the electoral body is, what is the
electorate, choosing their own electorate, as too many Members of
Congress attempt to do through the redistricting process, choosing
their electorate to try to rig the election against the workers.
This bill is just the latest assault on workers' rights and it's,
again, typical of this do-nothing Congress. The Republicans have been
fixated on attacking the National Labor Relations Board, the board that
is in place to strike a balance between labor and employers by cutting
the agency's funding, by holding up new appointments and, now, by
reversing a rule on notice-posting to inform employees of their rights.
Mr. Speaker, the people are wise to see what's going on here in
Congress. Every week we're in session, we see a parade of special
interest bills paraded on the House floor, while taxes for middle class
families risk going up because the Republicans believe that government
knows how to spend their money better than the American people. The big
energy companies have got numerous exemptions from the Clean Air and
Clean Water Acts. The rest of us got pollution, asthma, and other
illness.
Look, is it possible to create jobs by lowering standards? It is. If
you want to remove workplace safety standards you can create jobs,
unsafe jobs. If you want to reduce the minimum wage to $2 an hour, you
can create jobs, $2-an-hour jobs.
Is that the America we want? Is that the America we want for our
children and grandchildren? We can do better, and we must do better.
[[Page H7836]]
Why are we here? When will Americans get the jobs bill that we
desperately need to the floor of the House of Representatives?
If you've got some ideas to create jobs, let's get them out, put them
in front of us and discuss them. Let's start by preventing the payroll
taxes from going up for middle class Americans.
It's obvious why this body has an approval rating that's actually
lower than communism now, and even lower than President Nixon when he
resigned. It's time for this Congress to get to work to provide
solutions to help get this economy going, or it's going to be time to
get a new Congress.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle are constantly
reminding the American people of what a great economy we had when
President Clinton was President.
Why did we have such a great economy? Because 6 of the 8 years that
he was President, we had a Republican-controlled Congress. The first 2
years of his administration was a disaster in this country, and then we
had 6 years of the Republicans in control. They balanced the budget.
They reduced spending.
And did we have a horrible economy? Did we have horrible workplace
situations? No.
They want to lead you to believe that with Republicans in control and
passing Republican bills that we'll somehow or another destroy this
country. That is not going to happen. Under Republican control we have,
generally, a booming economy, but not under Democrats.
I now would like to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Dr. Foxx.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record the following
email from Mr. Lafe Solomon, acting chief counsel of the NLRB.
The article gave me a new idea. You go to geneva and I get
a job with airbus. We screwed up the us economy and now we
can tackle europe.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that there's no question that the NLRB is
not under attack. Employees' freedom is under attack. The workplace
fairness concept is under attack, but certainly not the NLRB.
There's no question that the NLRB was thought to be an impartial
referee for our employers and our employees, but that has not been the
case. They have been anything other than impartial. And their email
trail will show that in just a few seconds.
But despite the fact that today we have 2 million more unemployed
Americans, the NLRB continues to choose sides in the disputes, as
opposed to being a referee. Their lack of judgment and common sense has
been magnified, and it can be seen clearly in the email conversations
within the Department of the NLRB.
Mr. Solomon apparently thought the following was funny, despite his
current efforts which threatens more than 1,000 jobs in the great State
of South Carolina and in my district in North Charleston. Emailing a
colleague regarding criticism from a magazine article, this is what he
said. I want you to hear this clearly. I'm going to say it slowly
because we need to understand and appreciate that the NLRB has lost
their marbles, without any question.
His quote: ``The article gave me a new idea. You go to Geneva and I
get a job with Airbus,'' Mr. Solomon said. ``We screwed up the U.S.
economy, and now we can tackle Europe.''
Let me repeat that because this is the chief counsel at the NLRB
stating very clearly his intentions and his lack of humor. ``The
article gave me a new idea,'' saying to one of his colleagues. ``You go
to Geneva. I'll get a job with Airbus. We screwed up the U.S. economy
and now we can tackle Europe.''
Only in an alternate universe is this funny or does it make any sense
whatsoever. It is no secret that the NLRB's reckless actions have a
direct impact on my district, without any question. But it is also no
secret many on both sides of the aisle have recognized the danger of
those actions.
Earlier this year the House passed my bill, H.R. 2587, which removes
the ability from the NLRB to destroy jobs because, simply put, they
cannot be trusted to do anything other than undermine the fragile
recovery here in America. Unfortunately, Senator Reid has done with my
bill what he has done with the other 22 job-creating measures: nothing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman another minute.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Dr. Foxx.
In an effort to appease the President and his union supporters, the
NLRB has gone off the tracks and begun proposing harmful rules, left,
right, up, down. It is ridiculous.
One of these rules is why we're here today, an effort to allow for
quickie union elections. This rule, quite simply, puts the rights of
all employees at risk. By allowing as little as 7 to 10 days for
employees to decide whether they want to join a union or not, the NLRB
is preventing many from having the time to do the necessary research
and make a good decision on whether or not they join a union.
Currently, the average time is 35 to 40 days, a reasonable amount of
time. This is a significant difference. Going from 35 to 40 days down
to 7 to 10 days is ridiculous.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman another minute.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Dr. Foxx.
The new rule also makes it impossible for anyone to challenge the
bargaining unit chosen by the union, dividing employees and raising
employers' labor costs.
We stand here today with an opportunity. We can either allow the NLRB
to continue to create bad policy and bad rules, or we can put America
and the job creators back on the right track. The question could not be
simpler, and the choice has been made easy because of the inability of
the NLRB to do what they were chosen to do, which was to be the
impartial referee on issues between employers and employees, and I find
that challenging.
{time} 0930
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Education and
Workforce Committee, Mr. Miller.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Seventy-five years ago this Nation decided as a matter of right and a
matter of law that the decision of whether or not workers wanted a
union belonged to those workers, and this Congress passed the National
Labor Relations Act to give workers this right and an election to
decide.
Ever since that time, companies have fought to take away the right of
the workers because they believe that the companies control all of the
rights in the workplace. They believe that the workers should simply
take and do as they say, and that's the end of the discussion. And this
has been a battle throughout the economic history of this country since
the passage of the National Labor Relations Act.
But the fact of the matter is that when workers decide they want an
organization, they go out and they talk to their fellow workers, they
form a union, and they have an election.
But what we now see is the companies constantly trying to insert
themselves into that worker-controlled process by trying to disrupt the
elections of those workers and trying to keep them from exercising
their rights under the law. And this is the goal of this very
antiworker, antifamily legislation. It would end the collective
bargaining rights for working people in this country because it would
so skew the process that you would never get to that election that
workers are guaranteed under the law.
This is Wisconsin and Ohio all wrapped up into one. This goes across
the Nation. What they can't do in the States where they don't control
the governorship or the legislature, where they made the attempt right
after the election to take away workers' rights at work, where they
can't do that, they now seek to do in the Halls of Congress, to so
change the process and to discriminate against the rights of workers so
that, in fact, the process ceases to exist.
[[Page H7837]]
How do they do that? They do that by having endless delays. Why are
endless delays important to employers? So that they can hire union-
busting law firms to come in and intimidate and teach employers how to
intimidate workers because, don't forget, the employer has the right
from the moment they're served notice to have captive meetings in the
workplace where they threaten the workers with the loss of jobs, where
they threaten the workers with being fired, where they threaten the
workers of sending work to China or elsewhere, where they threaten the
workers that they won't get the promotion, where they change the
workers' shift time from maybe day shift to graveyard shift and keep
rotating them around to show them that they're in control and the
workers have no rights. And if you can do it for 7 days, you have a
chance. If you can do it for 10 days, you have a better chance. If you
can do it for as many as 2,000 days that these law firms have kept the
process open, you can kill the drive for a union. You can intimidate
the workers.
How else do they do it? When workers decide among themselves that we
want a unit within this company, within this factory to represent us,
this bill now says that the employer can come in and rearrange the
members of the unit that would have that election. They can stuff the
ballot box. They can pick your candidates to stand for election.
Doesn't sound very Democratic to me. But that's what they get to do
under this bill that's proposed.
The workers no longer get to decide, as the law says they get to
decide. The workers no longer get to decide, as the Supreme Court says
they get to decide. The employer gets to decide. The arrogance of these
people to suggest that they should pick the leaders of the workers,
that they should pick the organization of the workers who have a right
to organize.
So they get to delay the elections. They encourage and provide for
and define the right to continue to file frivolous lawsuits so that
this process never ends. You can bankrupt these workers if they try to
run head-on-head with these big law firms that are specialized in this,
that travel around the country to take away the rights at work.
What does this mean? This means underpinning the basic organization
in the American workplace today that speaks on behalf of the middle
class. This is from the organization that brought you the great
American weekend. This is the organization that brought you the 8-hour
day. This is the organization that brought you overtime pay if you work
longer than 8 hours. This is the organization that brought you sick
leave. This is the organization that brought women their rights at
work. This is the organization that makes safe work places. This is the
organization that provided, for the first time, pensions and retirement
benefits for workers.
Any wonder why these corporations, why the Chamber of Commerce is so
set against this? Because they don't want to do this anymore. They want
to ship the jobs to China. They want no minimum wage. They want a sub-
minimum wage. They want no rights for workers. How will the American
families survive that? They've already off-loaded all of the health
care costs they possibly could.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. They've off-loaded all of the
pension costs they possibly could on the backs of these workers.
We should not allow that to happen, not in this country, not in this
Congress. We should not allow it to happen to American workers and to
their families. We should defeat this very anti-family piece of
legislation.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I did yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. As for regular order, I would like
to remind the gentlewoman from North Carolina that when the vote came,
there wasn't a single Republican vote back in the Clinton era. Not a
single Republican vote. Once again, you balked when it came time to
vote.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe, a southern gentleman who understands
the rules.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Dr. Foxx, I thank you for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill. Our country is in the middle of a jobs crisis, no
question. Both sides understand that. The national unemployment rate
has hovered around 9 percent for the longest time in my lifetime, and
in Tennessee it's even higher, 9.8 percent. Millions of American
families are struggling as we speak.
Amidst all of this uncertainty, the House, with bipartisan support,
has passed 22 jobs bills. Right down this hallway here this week the
U.S. Senate worked so hard they voted two times on two Federal judges.
That's all the work that took place with 22, many of them bipartisan
bills, passed, Mr. Speaker.
I think right now we've seen in this country, to hold up jobs, the
delay of the Keystone pipeline, which would essentially, over time,
provide us as much oil from Canada as we're getting from OPEC right
now. 1.3 million barrels a day would essentially relieve us and help
our national security and create thousands of jobs.
So why are we here today? What happens currently?
Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a union household. My father was a union
worker at that time for the United Rubber Workers Union. He worked in a
factory and he made shoe heels. And the union, we have a right in this
country, employees have a right to organize and to vote in a union or
not.
So what's happening right now? Well, currently in 2010, 92 percent of
the initial union elections were held under a voluntary election
agreement of when they had an election, 92 percent. Only 8 percent went
to the NLRB election official, at which time then they had to sit down
together--that's what happens--to agree on the rules of the election.
And as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Scott) pointed out, the
NLRB is supposed to be a fair arbiter--like you're playing a basketball
game and you go to someone's home gym; you expect the referees there to
carry out a fair game for both sides--so that both sides have a chance
to give their side of the story.
So in June of this year, what's happened? The NLRB issued a rule that
would say that an employer has 7 days to find an attorney to present
their side of the case. And remember, in this, just the description of
this, there are over 400 pages of rules that you have to go through or
information that the lawyer has to go through and has 7 days to get
that done, and an employee would have just 10 days to decide whether
they want a union or not. And they have that right.
Today, almost 70 percent of the elections held, the union wins. And
what's the average time of the election? Thirty-one days. So that means
if you want to vote on the 1st of October of 2011, the average time, by
the end of that month, 70 percent, almost three out of four, would be
picked, yes, we want a union.
{time} 0940
So what happens after this, after these 10 days?
The second thing that the union wants is the amount of information
that's required that an employee give up. What would that be? Well,
that would be personal information, including your work schedule, your
home address, phone numbers, etc. Right now, what we want and what this
bill says is that the employees get to decide with regard to just their
names and what other ways they want to get contacted. I think that's
fair. I think that's right. Let the employees decide.
Mr. Speaker, also what my colleague from California spoke of is the
bargaining unit. For over two decades, the NLRB has used a standard to
define what a ``bargaining unit'' is. This is a new definition. We have
done this for almost 30 years in this country, and we want this to
change. As I understand the law, it's against the law for an employer
right now--and it has been for over three decades--to threaten a
worker.
[[Page H7838]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
This bill would give the employer 14 days on a preelection hearing to
find representation. It would allow the workers 35 days to get the
information that they need to make an informed decision to vote in a
secret ballot so that they can decide and so that the employer or the
union cannot intimidate these workers. It would allow the employees,
the workers--not the union--to decide what information they want to
give up.
This is a commonsense bill. This just basically redefines what has
been going on for over three decades. I respect the right of anyone to
belong to a union if he wants to--as I said, I lived in a union
household. Yet I believe this will allow both sides a free and fair way
to decide whether they want to.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I played a little basketball in my day. I grew up on a
schoolyard, and we chose teams. We didn't need referees, quite frankly,
because we chose teams fairly. You don't need referees here either if
you have the opportunity to pick the other team. You're the A team, but
you get to say who you're going to play. You don't need referees in
that kind of a game because you know the outcome. You know what the
outcome is going to be.
That's what this legislation is about--trying to undo the fair
playing field.
Now, I have heard that the job losses in this country are because of
President Obama and the health care bill. I've heard that the job
losses in this country are because of Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid and
all the bad legislation. I've heard they're because we have a
Department of Education, and I've heard they're because we have a
Department of Commerce, and I've heard they're because we have a
Department of--oops, I'm sorry. I forgot. You got me--the NLRB.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this legislation.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a common refrain that
they want to make the Federal Government more efficient, work better
for the American people, and move obstacles to create a mantra that I
am very much in favor of.
But this bill will do exactly the opposite.
In fact, repealing the NLRB's proposed rule will actually make
government less efficient, more burdensome, and will introduce costly
delays to a process that is already rife with abuse. I think the
American people deserve to know why the GOP prioritizes this bill and
brings it to the floor for debate. The answer is pretty clear:
It's a thinly veiled--and a very thinly veiled--effort to make it all
but impossible for American workers to organize in labor unions. That's
it. It's an effort to place ideology over practicality. It has nothing
to do with job creation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. CROWLEY. In over 300 days here on the floor, there has not been a
single jobs bill offered by my Republican colleagues to put Americans
back to work. Instead, once again, they've put on the floor a bill to
hurt the American worker, the American family.
Have you no shame? Is there no end to this? Are there any other
departments we can get rid of in these few remaining days of this
session?
Put Americans back to work. Stop beating up on the fair players on
this playing field. Put Americans back to work.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague from New
York, as well as remind all of my colleagues across the aisle, that
Republicans have passed over 20 bills this session that would create
jobs and have passed bills that would bring down the cost of gasoline.
Those are the two things that my constituents are most concerned about.
If my colleagues across the aisle are talking to their constituents or,
more importantly, are listening to their constituents, they would know
that's what their constituents are concerned about also. However, those
bills are tied up in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
I now would like to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague
from South Carolina, who did such a wonderful job on C-SPAN this
morning, Mr. Gowdy.
Mr. GOWDY. I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for her
leadership on this issue and on so many other issues on the Education
and Workforce Committee.
Mr. Speaker, when so many of our fellow citizens are hurting, when so
many of our fellow citizens are looking for work, when so many of our
fellow citizens are striving to meet their familial and societal
obligations and when all they want is the most basic of all family
values, which is a job--and as my friend Tim Scott, my friend and
colleague from Charleston, so eloquently put it this morning--the NLRB
thinks it's a joke, Mr. Speaker, a joke. They're making jokes about it.
Airbus is not just another plane manufacturer; they're a direct
competitor to Boeing. Virtually everyone is familiar with the most
glaring example of NLRB overreach, which is the complaint they filed
against Boeing. Not a single example of job loss has been cited. Not a
single worker has lost a single benefit in the State of Washington.
Nevertheless, the NLRB sued Boeing. They seek to have Boeing mothball
the facility in north Charleston, displace 1,000 workers, and return
the work to a union State.
That is exhibit A in NLRB's activist agenda, and I regret to say
this: As a former prosecutor who actually values impartiality and
fairness, Mr. Speaker, they have become a sycophant of Big Labor.
And while Boeing is exhibit A, it is by no means the only evidence of
an activist, politically motivated agenda. Currently, union elections
take place, on average, within 31 days of the filing of an election
petition. Additionally, unions are victorious more often than not. But
unions want more, so they persuaded the NLRB to propose sweeping
changes to the rules and regulations governing the election process,
shifting the balance of power even further towards those employees
seeking unionization.
By promoting rushed elections and ruling that elections can take
place in as little as 10 days, Mr. Speaker, the NLRB severely limits
the opportunity for workers to hear all sides of the issue and make an
informed decision. Additionally, employers would only have 7 days to
retain legal counsel and decipher the complex labyrinth of Federal
labor law before presenting their case before an NLRB hearing officer.
Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline smartly
introduced H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, to
level the playing field. This legislation requires no union election
occur in less than 35 days, thus granting all parties the ability to
present their arguments and ensuring workers have the ability to reach
an informed decision. H.R. 3094 acknowledges that full and complete
information is treasured when employees are contemplating how they will
vote.
Ironically, some unions have already endorsed President Obama's
reelection bid, which is a year off. Clearly, they believe they need
the time, the 12 months, to inform their members, but somehow a week is
enough for employers to inform their employees of all salient facts
before an election.
The hypocrisy and blind advocacy towards Big Labor has to stop, Mr.
Speaker. The purpose of the National Labor Relations Board is to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act, and the purpose of the
National Labor Relations Act is to balance the rights of employers,
employees, and the general public. The act is not calculated to drive
up union membership because they happen to be a loyal constituency of
the Democrat Party.
{time} 0950
Because the NLRB, through its filing of proposed rules and
regulations, has lost all pretense of objectivity in labor issues,
fair, evenhanded pieces of legislation, like Chairman Kline's Workforce
Democracy and Fairness Act, are necessary.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to help us
protect
[[Page H7839]]
American jobs, to stand up for equal access to justice, and promote a
level playing field. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and
support the underlying bill.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, when the sun rose over the country this
morning, a lot of Americans got out of bed to go to a job that doesn't
pay them enough to support their family. They're working part time to
pay full-time bills. A lot of other Americans who have good jobs, good
full-time jobs woke up this morning and worried if this was going to be
the day they got their pink slip and got their layoff notice. And far
too many Americans, at least 15 million of them, got up this morning
and didn't have a job to go to.
Ninety percent of the people surveyed in a recent survey of this
country said the American Dream is either dead or on life support.
Because, see, the deal in the country has always been, if you work as
hard as you can and do your fair share, then the country will give you
the opportunity to move your family forward. People don't buy that
anymore. They don't believe in it anymore.
And so what are we doing about it here this morning? We're having a
debate about a bill that changes the rules for the way people decide
whether or not to have a union in their workplace. This is an important
consideration; it's a worthy consideration. I think the bill is a very
bad one, but it's a credible debate to have. But it's the wrong debate
to have.
Members of our caucus have gone out over the last month and have
spoken to thousands of small business people, the real job creators in
this country who create two out of every three jobs created in America;
and here's what they've said: We're not hiring people largely because
we don't have enough customers; and if we think we do have enough
customers, we can't get loans from banks that we bailed out with our
tax money.
That's what we ought to be discussing here today.
Now, the other side will say, no, no, these small business people
aren't hiring because of their deathly fear of regulations. Well,
here's what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says: When they interviewed
employers who had laid people off in 2010 and said, Why did you lay
people off, about 40 percent of those employers said, We laid people
off because we don't have enough customers. Two-tenths of 1 percent
said they laid people off because of regulation. That's what the facts
are.
How do you get more customers for businesses? One idea would be to
put construction workers back to work building schools and libraries
and roads and bridges so they'd eat in the restaurants and buy in the
stores. There's a bill pending before the House to do that, the
President's jobs bill; but we're not voting on that today. We have
something better to do. Another way would be to avoid a massive tax
increase on the middle class of this country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.
If we don't act by January 1, there will be a $1,500 tax increase on
every middle class family in this country. The President says we should
postpone that tax increase so people have more money to spend, but
we're not voting on that bill today. We have something more important
to do.
How about the idea of a tax cut for small businesses that hire
people? That's in the President's jobs bill. But we're not voting on
that today because we have something more important to do. How about
saying to teachers who have been laid off from the classroom,
firefighters and police officers not on the job because of tax cuts in
local government, how about saving their jobs so they can serve their
communities and spend more in the stores and restaurants and on
products in this country? That's in the President's jobs bill, but
we're not voting on that because we have something more important to
do.
There's a reason why 90 percent of the people of this country think
the Congress is not doing a good job. It's because the Republican
leadership of this Congress is voting on the wrong bill at the wrong
time, and today's another sad chapter in that reality.
Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the
underlying bill, H.R. 3094, the so-called Workforce Democracy and
Fairness Act.
Since the start of the 112th Congress, a certain faction guiding the
Republican majority has undertaken what amounts to a full-scale attack
on America's working families and America's working class and against
the bedrock principles that have helped create America's middle class.
This latest effort is more of the same. The so-called Workforce
Democracy and Fairness Act is another piece of legislation that weakens
the rights and protections that workers have fought long and hard to
obtain.
Section 9(b) of the National Labor Relations Act gives employees the
right to organize in ``an appropriate unit,'' giving them choice on how
best to bargain with their employer. And that's all this is about. When
an employee group organizes, all it requires is that they sit down
across from their employees and bargain, talk to them about terms and
conditions of employment and benefits.
What this bill would do is establish a one-size-fits-all approach to
organizing, forcing together employees who have very little in common
and making it much more difficult to organize. That's gerrymandering,
basically, to protect employer interests, plain and simple.
But this bill doesn't stop at changing existing rules, however. This
bill would overturn proposed rules that have not even been finalized by
the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB has proposed practical
rules modernizing and streamlining the union election process. The
proposed rules are a genuine improvement over the existing procedures
and are designed to encourage the use of technology, discourage
unnecessary litigation, and save taxpayer dollars.
Look, I was an ironworker for 18 years, a union ironworker. I am very
proud of that fact. I was the union president. I also was involved in
very many union organizing drives, not only for my own union but for
the carpenters, stage hands, and wardrobe workers. And the National
Labor Relations Act is actually set up to reduce the likelihood of
unrest, of workforce disputes. It's really to help business and workers
reduce that economic conflict. This bill will have the opposite effect.
This bill will actually increase the likelihood of labor disputes.
And we have seen in this country a great disparity between the haves
and the have-nots. This is going to make matters worse. Instead of
putting people to work, this is going to cause strife and reduce the
efficiency and productivity of America's workers. This is shameful.
All these union workers, this is the middle class in America. You are
destroying the middle class in America. You are increasing that
disparity between the haves and the have-nots. We've got to do better
than this. The American people deserve it.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I will inquire of the gentlelady if she has any additional
speakers.
Ms. FOXX. We do not, and I am prepared to close, if the gentleman
from Colorado is prepared.
Mr. POLIS. Very well.
I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the middle class of this country doesn't need a higher
payroll tax, more dirty air, dirty water, fewer workers' rights; and
they certainly don't need more partisan gridlock in this do-nothing
Congress. Yet that is what is being offered here today.
The American people and the American economy need jobs, need
optimism. Our Nation needs to know that we're working to ensure
American competitiveness and access to hope and
[[Page H7840]]
opportunity, to work to ensure that kids get the best education in the
world so we can drive the economic engine of today and tomorrow, invent
new technologies, propel future generations of American ingenuity and
leadership.
{time} 1000
This kind of political gridlock in this do-nothing Congress does not
help America move forward. This bill's singular goal is to delay and
ultimately prevent workers from voting in workplace elections. These
rights have helped to create the American middle class in the last
century. In recent decades, the erosion of these rights has lowered
paychecks for families, led to jobs outsourcing overseas, and widened
the income disparities in our society.
Are environmental and workplace laws, which have been around for
decades, the reason the economy is lagging? Of course not. Yet these
are the types of so-called solutions that are being put forward in bill
after bill after bill.
Let's talk about preventing a looming increase on taxes in the middle
class. I encourage the supercommittee and, if it need be, standalone
legislation to ensure that we can keep payroll taxes at their current
level. It's time for Congress to take up the President's Jobs Act,
which includes extending the middle class tax cut. The American Jobs
Act, which Republicans still refuse to consider, includes job-creating
proposals, including rebuilding our schools, tax breaks for small
businesses to create jobs, and modernizing our air traffic control
system.
It's time for this Congress to stand up for the American people, to
offer solutions, to get serious about getting our economy back on track
instead of just scoring political points that appeal to the base.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that I neglected to say
earlier in response to my colleague who said we hadn't passed any House
bills, that those were bipartisan bills that passed. Every one of the
jobs bills that we passed has received bipartisan support, and the
American people want us to be bipartisan, and I hope that they have
noticed in the debate today that the vitriol about this bill has not
come from our side of the aisle.
House Republicans are committed to reducing government red tape as a
way to encourage job creation. The rule before us today provides for
consideration of yet another bill to reduce government interference in
job creation by reinstating the traditional standards for unions
organizing elections and ensuring that employees' and employers' voices
are heard.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the
underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed by the House passage
of H. Res. 470, which ensures that the so-called ``Workforce Democracy
and Fairness Act'' will receive a vote in the House of Representatives.
This legislation is anti-democratic, anti-union, and anti-middle class.
If enacted, H.R. 3094 would allow companies to indefinitely delay
workers elections, allowing companies to choose when and how workers
will vote to form a union. The legislation encourages wasteful
litigation and overrides the current National Labor Relations Board
decision-making process, replacing it with one that will be more
expensive and difficult to navigate, that will take longer to finalize,
and that fails to protect the rights of workers.
Passage of H. Res. 470 once again demonstrates that the Republican
majority is failing to support American workers and American families.
While I am proud to have voted against H. Res. 470, I am disappointed
by its passage.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res.
470, the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3094, the Workforce
Democracy and Fairness Act.
The misleadingly named Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act has one
overriding goal--to frustrate workers' right to vote in a union
election.
Seventy-six years ago, this body passed the National Labor Relations
Act, which stated: ``It is declared to be the policy of the United
States to . . . encourag[e] the practice and procedure of collective
bargaining . . . for the purpose of negotiating the terms and
conditions of [workers'] employment.''
The legislation being considered today would undermine the very
intent of the NLRA by setting aside decades of labor jurisprudence set
by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and our nation's courts,
and replace it with new and untested processes that would cause
uncertainty, delay elections, and prevent rather than encourage
collective bargaining.
The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act would do this by mandating a
set of waiting periods and a full, pre-election hearing over any issue
that is raised by a party.
For instance, no election would be allowed to occur no sooner than 35
days after the filing of a petition. However, there is no limit on how
long an election may be delayed.
Delay gives unscrupulous employers more time to use any means, legal
or illegal, to pressure employees into abandoning their organizing
efforts.
Also found in this legislation are provisions that would encourage
frivolous litigation for the purpose of slowing the election process
and stalling any vote. This will create a massive backlog of cases on
the taxpayer's dime.
This bill would also give employers the ability to gerrymander
elections through the proposed legislation's one-size-fits-all test in
defining who would be allowed to vote in an organizing election,
thereby making a majority vote all the more difficult to achieve.
It is time for this Chamber to put aside its war on the American
worker and his or her right to organize and collectively bargain.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for
working Americans and vote against this rule and the underlining
legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have pointed out, rather
than minimizing undue delay in union voting procedure, today's bill
mandates delay.
The bill would also empower employers to interfere in union elections
by adding anti-union employees to voting blocks--gerrymandering union
elections.
Letting an employer delay and manipulate union elections is a blatant
attempt to put the fox in charge of the hen house. It is a direct
attack on the ability of workers to unionize.
The truth is that unions continue to play an invaluable role in
maintaining America's middle class--no small feat in the age of
shrinking middle class incomes and rising inequality.
The proposed bill is yet another corporate favor that we are
considering in this Congress. Its singular goal is to delay and
ultimately prevent workers from exercising their hard won right to
organize in the workplace.
In the last year, we've watched politicians in power try to strip
thousands of Americans of their right to collectively bargain, and
we've watched as those very same Americans have taken to the streets
and gone to the polls to protect their rights.
The message from the American people is clear--they will not accept
attempts to destroy the middle class and American unions. Neither will
I.
I urge my colleagues to oppose today's rule and the underlying bill.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________