[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1257-S1260]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the National Labor
Relations Board and the reforms that have been proposed in the new
rule. I rise first of all to provide by way of a predicate or
background what happened in 1935 when the National Labor Relations Act
was passed. There is a lot to talk about in that act, but just like
when a major piece of legislation passes, we have findings that
undergird the statute itself.
I will not go through all of those today, but I think some of the
language in there is especially appropriate for what we are talking
about. The findings and summary spoke to the benefits of collective
bargaining--the benefits of organizing and collectively bargaining, and
asserted at one point very early in the statute, in the findings, the
first couple of paragraphs of the findings that experience--I am
paraphrasing this but I will get to specific words in a moment.
But experience has shown that collective bargaining and organizing--
and these are the exact words--``safeguards commerce from injury,
impairment or interruption.'' It goes on to talk about why it was
better--why they believed it was better to pass a statute to resolve
labor-management disputes instead of the old way, which was constant
conflict, conflict fighting, in some cases even violence.
So we did the right thing in 1935 as a country. We have had some
history since then to draw from. The National Labor Relations Board, of
course, is the entity that gives meaning to what we intend when we pass
laws such as the National Labor Relations Act.
Now we are having a dispute here in this body and in the other body
as well about what these rules ought to be. What are the rules that
govern the National Labor Relations Board, but in particular, what are
the rules that govern elections?
With all of the challenges we are facing in the country right now--
the middle class has nowhere near recovered from the last--the great
recession. Wages have been declining over a generation, or at least not
increasing at the level that costs have been increasing.
So with all of that pressure on families, you could think this could
be an area of common ground, but it is not. With all of those
challenges facing middle-class families, it is disappointing that
Republicans in the Senate have chosen to focus on rolling back the
National Labor Relation's Board modest and commonsense reforms, to help
workers get a seat at the table, so they can increase their wages and
their economic security.
Democrats are fighting to increase wages and we are also fighting for
economic security, at the same time Republicans seem to be constantly
fighting to increase corporate profits while making workers pay the
price. All of us, whether we are Democrats or Republicans, should be
coming together to expand workers' voices at the table and not
attacking workers' right to collectively bargain.
We are talking about something fundamental here, the opportunity to
have
[[Page S1258]]
an election in a workplace, and the benefits that flow from that. That
is really about empowering workers. I believe that is one of the
reasons why we passed the National Labor Relations Act, not just to
have a board that can settle disputes, but to actually empower workers
in ways they have not been empowered up to that point in our history.
Empowering workers is an important part of building a stronger
economy that works not just for those individual workers in that
worksite, but in an economy that works for all families, not just the
wealthiest few. When the workers have a seat at the bargaining table,
our economy prospers and the middle class thrives. I have always
believed that if we did not have unions and collective bargaining and
organizing since World War II and even since the 1930s, we would have a
much less robust middle class. Some people believe there would not be a
middle case. But I am at least willing to assert that the right to
organize and collectively bargain is not just good for that worker and
his or her family, but it is also good for the economy as well.
Those workers are the ones who drive the economy, not just the work
they do, but the expenditures they make on behalf of their family. So
even though workers are more productive in the United States than ever
before, workers are still struggling with those stagnant wages. Today
the middle class accounts for the smallest share of the Nation's income
since World War II. Hard to believe that the middle class has been so
devastated.
We know from our history that when workers have a voice in the
workplace through collective bargaining, wages increase, workplace
safety improves, and workers have increased retirement and health
security. All of those benefits have helped grow America's middle
class. Labor unions helped workers share in that economic prosperity
that they have helped to create through their own hard work.
One of the great moments I have had as a Senator from Pennsylvania is
when you go to a manufacturing plant and they take you on a tour. I am
sure the Presiding Officer has done this a number of times. They take
you on the tour not just to show how they are producing something, how
they manufacture something, they are making something, but they are
also very proud of the way they interact with and relate to and work
with their employees. They go out of their way to point to a bulletin
board or point to a data point in their record to say we have very few
injuries, or zero injuries in a certain point of time. They take great
pride in that because they know that if they have fewer injuries, they
are going to be more productive. If they have fewer injuries, they are
going to have employees who can produce on their behalf.
One of the reasons they have fewer injuries over time in our economy
and in those businesses is because workers have rights. Workers have
rights they did not have in the early part of the 1900s. So we know
from our history that this works, this process of making sure workers
have a seat at the table.
Now let's go to the National Labor Relations Board, their election
reforms. These particular reforms make modest but, I would argue, very
important updates to both modernize and streamline the election
process, to prevent delays and reduce litigation. The current system is
vulnerable to litigation that will drag out for a long period of time,
drag out the election process and put workers' rights on hold.
Those reforms will reduce unnecessary litigation that is not relevant
to the outcome of the election. In the past, employers and unions had
to send information about the election process to the Post Office,
which would cost time and money. The new rule brings this election
process into the 21st century--which is 15 years old now--by letting
employers and unions file forms electronically.
I think that is the least that can happen. You would think in this
era we are living in, when everything that is done--most everything is
done electronically, in banking and in other industries, that at a
minimum we should have information transmitted about an election--
something valuable in a workplace. We hold elections with great regard
and we believe in the sanctity of elections. So the least we could do
is make sure those workers have the benefits of something that would
transmit the information electronically. Sending that information in
that fashion makes all of the sense in the world.
The rule also allows the use of modern forms of communications
through cell phones and emails. That is not asking too much, to be able
to transmit information to prepare workers for an election by the use
of email or cell phones.
The reforms are commonsense steps to make sure the NLRB, the Board,
is using its taxpayer dollars efficiently and effectively.
These changes, as I referred to earlier, are not just good for
workers, they also help businesses by streamlining the whole process,
the elections process in this case. Right now the election process
varies from region to region. Streamlining the process will provide
certainty for both employers and workers themselves. The new rule
allows businesses and unions to file forms electronically, as I
mentioned, instead of using postage. This will save everyone time and
money. So modernizing--this is what we are talking about here--
modernizing election rules allows businesses and unions to use these
basic forms of communications in a way that promotes common sense.
The rule will at long last level the playing field for small
businesses. Right now the biggest corporations can exploit the system
with long and costly litigation to deny workers, if they choose to do
that, a fair up-or-down vote on joining a union. By making the election
process more consistent and transparent, the Board's reforms level the
playing field for the smaller businesses that already play fair.
The NLRB, the Board itself, the representation rule, are in need of
kind of basic updates. There have not been substantial updates to this
NLRB election process since the 1970s. Today that leads to
inefficiencies and delays. Right now big corporations take advantage of
those inefficiencies to postpone and even deny workers the right to
vote on union representation.
Often, in the face of employer tactics, workers give up hope. In
fact, one in three will never even get to have an election. That is not
something the National Labor Relations Act intended. I do not think
that is what anyone intended when it comes to these elections or the
possibility of an election. So these amendments, these updates, these
modernization reforms help restore balance and fairness to the election
process. I am perplexed why this is the subject of so much controversy,
because these are basic reforms to help people exercise their right to
vote in the workplace, which is consistent with our values, consistent
with our history, and also consistent with our efforts not just to move
that worker and his or her family forward, and their business forward,
but also to move the American economy and the middle class forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with strong
support of the National Labor Relations Board's new effort to make
workplace union elections more efficient and more effective. I come to
the floor today in opposition to Republican efforts to preserve a
broken system. Today, instead of raising minimum wages for millions of
struggling families, or letting people refinance their student loans,
or making sure women get equal pay for equal work, instead of
implementing policies that strengthen the middle class, Republicans are
pressing a bill to stop a government agency from modernizing its
procedures because it might help--yes, help--American workers.
Coming out of the Great Depression, America's labor unions helped
build America's strong middle class. For half a century, as union
membership went up, America's median family income went up. You know,
that was true for families whether they were part of a union or not. As
our country got richer, our families got richer. As our families got
richer, our country got richer.
Since 1935, Congress has required the National Labor Relations Board
to oversee the workplace elections in which workers decide whether to
be represented by a union. According to NLRB data, more than 90 percent
of
[[Page S1259]]
time this works out just fine. For most of the cases that make it to an
election, employees and employers agree about the process and an
election is held without a dispute. Done.
But in the remaining handful of cases, the rules on how to resolve
these concerns have turned into a mess. Over time, a hodgepodge of
different rules for resolving these dispute has emerged in each of the
country's 26 NLRB regions. To fix this, the NLRB recently finalized one
national set of rules that sets out clear procedures for resolving
these issues. In other words, the NLRB is trying to make dispute
resolution clearer, more efficient, and more consistent from region to
region.
Trying to make government work better should not be controversial.
But it is controversial. Why? Because some employers simply oppose
union votes altogether. They do not want the NLRB to work. They do not
want union elections to happen at all. So they are lobbying against
those new rules, and congressional Republicans are standing up for
them, advancing a proposal to stop the NLRB from implementing its final
rules and doing the job Congress gave it 80 years ago.
Republicans claim they were concerned about workers being able to
ambush their employers with workplace elections. That is just plain
nonsense. Employers are always notified at the beginning of the
election process, and according to Caren Sencer, a top labor attorney
who testified a few weeks ago in the HELP Committee hearing, there is
nothing--nothing--in the new rule that would stop an employer from
having its relevant concerns heard and addressed prior to an election.
Let's be honest. The only ambush here is the Republican ambush on
workers' basic rights. According to a 2001 study from the Berkeley
Center for Labor Research and Education, long election delays
correspond with higher rates of labor law violations. A delay gives any
union employer more time to retaliate against a union organizer, and to
intimidate workers and delay work.
According to NLRB data, nearly one-third of the time when employees
file a petition to request an election, they never actually get one.
Employers who want to keep their workers out of a union prefer a
broken, inefficient system that gives them room to manipulate the
process and to block workers from organizing. But that is not the law.
The NLRB doesn't answer to them. Federal law directs the NLRB to make
sure election disputes can be resolved fairly between employers and
employees, and that is exactly what the NLRB is doing.
Throughout our history, powerful interests have tried to capture
Washington and rig the system in their favor, but we didn't roll over.
At every turn, in every time of challenge, organized labor has been
there fighting on behalf of the American people. Labor was on the
frontlines to take children out of factories and to put them in
schools. Labor was there to give meaning to the words ``consumer
protection'' by making our food and our medicine safe. Labor was there
to fight for minimum wages in States across this country. In every
fight to build opportunity in this country, in every fight to level the
playing field, in every fight for working families, labor has been on
the frontlines.
Powerful interests have attacked many of the basic foundations of
this country--the foundations that once built a strong middle class--
and too many times those powerful interests have prevailed. So it comes
down to a question I have asked before: Whom does this Congress work
for? Republicans say government should keep on working for powerful
CEOs who don't like unions and who have figured out how to exploit a
tangled system. Republicans complain about government inefficiencies,
but then they introduce a bill that is specifically designed so a
broken, inefficient system will stay broken and inefficient, even when
we know how to fix it.
Well, we weren't sent here just to represent CEOs who don't like
unions. We were sent here to support working people who just want a
fighting chance to level the playing field. I urge my colleagues to
vote against this Republican resolution and let the NLRB do its job.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my
disappointment that the majority leader is asking to rule XIV the
bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.
I must ask the majority leader, what happened? Where is the
bipartisanship part? Where is the bipartisanship that we have expressed
and that I expressed this morning on the floor and last night at AIPAC?
I ask again, what happened to putting aside political posturing and
partisanship? What happened to the majority leader's pledge in January
to ``decentralize power in the Senate'' and ``open up the legislative
process''?
"We need to return to regular order,'' he said. I agree with him.
Let's do it. Let's return to regular order.
Frankly, this is not what was intended, and it is certainly against
my better judgment, against procedure, against any understanding we
might have had to take the politics out of our effort to establish
congressional oversight of any nuclear agreement with Iran. I am more
than disappointed; I am pretty outraged.
I said last night and again this morning that I join Chairman Corker
and Senators Graham, Kaine, Donnelly, Heitkamp, King, Nelson, Ayotte,
Rubio, McCain, and Risch in introducing bipartisan oversight
legislation to ensure that Congress has a chance to review the deal
before it goes into effect and to oversee its compliance after it goes
into effect. And now, putting any bipartisanship aside, we are back to
politics as usual. The only way to make this work is to work together.
The provisions of the bill itself are good ones. It would require the
President to submit an agreement to Congress within 5 days of reaching
it. It would give Congress 60 days to consider the agreement before
sanctions relief could be provided. It would outline consequences
should Congress decide to disapprove the agreement. And in terms of
oversight, it would require information on potential breaches to be
promptly reported to Congress, along with a comprehensive report every
180 days of any Iranian action inconsistent with the agreement. It
would require a report every 90 days from the President on Iran's
compliance, informing us of any actions that might advance Iran's
nuclear weapons program, that it has not supported or financed or
carried out any acts of terrorism, and that any sanctions relief is
both appropriate and proportionate to Iran's efforts under the
agreement. Of course, it would have here in the Senate a 60-vote
threshold, so that means it would have to be a bipartisan
determination.
We in good faith agreed to introduce this legislation and take it
through the committee process and to the floor so that Congress--which
was responsible for bringing Iran to the table in the first place to
negotiate--would have a role in reviewing the agreement before it goes
into effect, whether to provide sanctions relief, and overseeing
implementation and Iranian compliance after it goes into effect
because, as I said last night, a deal cannot be built on trust alone.
Now, I was talking about Iran; I did not know that I was talking about
our deal to pass a bipartisan review act.
So let me conclude. I can't imagine why the majority leader would
seek to short-circuit the process, unless the goals are political
rather than substantive. And I regret to say these actions make clear
an intention that isn't substantive, that it is political. On a day
that has been defined by serious discourse about Iran's illicit nuclear
weapons program, at a moment when legislators contemplate the most
serious national security issue of our time, I am disappointed that the
leader has chosen to proceed outside of regular order. By bringing the
Corker-Menendez legislation directly to the floor for debate, the
majority leader is singlehandedly undermining our bipartisan efforts.
Nobody in Congress has worked harder on this issue, and I certainly
don't take a backseat to anyone in pursuing
[[Page S1260]]
Iran's nuclear weapons program and standing up for Israel, but I
sincerely hope that we can restore regular order and that this bill can
be fully considered by all the members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in due time.
Finally, there is no emergency. This deal--if there is one--won't be
concluded until the summer, so there is plenty of time to wait until
March 24, find out whether we have a deal, and then act to be able to
be in a posture to opine on that deal and to deal with it accordingly.
There is no reason to accelerate this process in this way, to go
outside of regular order, bypass the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, and come directly to the floor.
I know I cannot object to the rule XIV process under the rules, but I
say to my colleagues, if this is the process, then I will have no
choice but to use my voice and my vote against any motion to proceed. I
hope that is not the case. I have worked too hard to get to this
moment. But if that is the way we are going to proceed, then I will
certainly have to vote against proceeding at that time.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise to oppose S.J. Res. 8, a misguided
resolution that targets workers' right to organize and hurts working
families in Hawaii and around the country.
Union election rules haven't been updated since the 1970s. The
National Labor Relations Board--or NLRB--is trying to bring union
election rules into the 21st century, but today's Senate resolution
will block the NLRB's commonsense updates.
The right to organize is a crucial part of our democracy. Unions have
helped build the middle class in Hawaii and nationwide. It is
disappointing that instead of working to create jobs or help the middle
class get ahead, today we are debating whether to make it harder to
join a union.
Workers wishing to join a union already face many barriers. For
example, companies have significant opportunities to make their case to
employees about why they should oppose a union. Meanwhile, unions are
not allowed to visit the worksite to make their case for joining a
union, and they do not have access to modern contact information such
as emails and cell phone numbers--unbelievable as that may sound--to
contact workers.
In addition, companies can delay union elections with what amounts to
frivolous litigation and appeal after appeal. Nationwide, in contested
cases workers already have to wait an average of 4 months to vote
whether to join a union.
While most employers in Hawaii want to support their workers, there
have been those rare cases of companies exploiting the current system
to prevent workers from having a voice in the workplace.
Let me share a situation that happened in Hawaii where workers had
not been given a raise in 6 years. They asked a local union for help in
organizing their union. In the runup to the union elections, the
workers were forced to attend one-on-one or group meetings on work time
where their management could convince workers to vote against the
union. This company hired a private security firm and posted security
guards outside the voting area during the vote. Workers felt
intimidated.
The company appealed election results and NLRB rulings over and over
again, adding delay after delay and revote after revote. In July 2005,
40 months after a petition was first filed to hold an election, the
NLRB finally certified a union for the workers. Still, the company
continued to offer appeal after appeal of the election results and even
fired 31 union supporters in 2007. Finally, at the end of 2012, 10
years later, the certified union reached its first union contract.
Remember, I noted that where most workplaces are organized, things
are done in 4 months. That is not always the case. The NLRB's updated
union election rules would help reduce this kind of intimidation and
delay, which happens all too often, and would allow organizers to
contact workers by email and cell phone. It is pretty astounding that
we had to have a rule change in order to make this kind of commonsense
change available to organizers--which, by the way, this resolution
which I ask my colleagues to vote against disallows.
The rule will make it easier for small businesses to follow labor
election laws. Currently, big corporations can use expensive lawyers to
litigate and prevent union elections, while small businesses don't have
those kinds of resources.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these modest,
commonsense updates to NLRB rules and voting no on the resolution.
Let's stand with working men and women in this country and support the
middle class.
I want to end with a quote from one of our labor organizers and
leaders in Hawaii, Hawaii Laborers' business manager Peter Ganaban. In
a recent piece in Pacific Business News, Mr. Ganaban explained that
``Hawaii's union climate is an extension of our local culture of
helping each other and caring for our communities.''
Allowing workers a fair choice and a fair chance to join a union is
the least we can do for our workers in the middle class.
I yield my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________