[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1260-S1261]
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

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here for the main purpose of 
vigorously opposing S.J. Res. 8, and to support the National Labor 
Relations Board's recent rule to modernize the process that workers use 
if they decide they want to form a union and bargain collectively.
  The new NLRB rule makes modest but highly important changes to 
improve the overall consistency and efficiency of the election process, 
allowing workers to vote for or against the creation of a union in a 
fair and timely way. This rule is long overdue, and in Connecticut I 
have seen--and in my personal experience with the NLRB--how important 
it is.
  As I go around Connecticut, I consistently hear of problems when 
workers seek to gain representation to form a union. It is cumbersome, 
costly, time consuming, and is prone to needless delays. It involves 
needless litigation, and it creates uncertainty for all involved. This 
rule change--this new rule--is not only good for working men and women, 
it is also good for businesses by reducing--and in some cases 
eliminating--the cost, time, and uncertainty that are aggravating and 
expensive. It is a small step toward a level playing field and a 
guarantee that companies respect workers' rights to organize and gain 
the benefits of union membership.
  Very simply, here is what the rule does: It removes obstacles to 
forming unions and requires businesses to postpone litigation over 
member eligibility issues until after workers join a union.

[[Page S1261]]

It cuts down on lengthy litigation that could cause union formation to 
drag on for a year or more. It modernizes the election process. And, 
very importantly, it allows for the electronic filing and transmission 
of petitions for union elections. Believe it or not, previously all of 
it had been done by fax or mail--not exactly the latest or least 
expensive technology--and it ensures that unions and employees have 
enough information about each other so they can communicate in advance 
of the election.
  It streamlines the NLRB's procedures, and with all due respect to the 
NLRB, what is needed there is practices that are uniform throughout the 
regional offices so that organizers can better interact with the 
agency. Its effect is not only on unions and businesses but also on the 
NLRB in speeding and streamlining and improving the way it works.
  Its effects are seen in other areas too. The opponents of this 
measure forget to mention that these new rules apply equally to both 
elections seeking to certify a union and elections to decertify a 
union. These more efficient procedures will help not only workers who 
want to choose a union, it will help workers who want to get rid of an 
existing union. It is a level playing field, fairness, efficiency, less 
cost, and less time.
  The rule still gives employers the opportunity to inform workers 
about the drawbacks of having a union so that workers have a fair 
opportunity to decide if they want union representation. This is the 
epitome of fair and balanced and more efficient kinds of rules.
  The people in this body know that the simple fact is--and folks 
across America know it--the majority of American workers want 
representation. Fifty-three percent of workers want a union in their 
workplace, but because of the broken election process, fewer than 7 
percent of workers are represented. That is a stark fact. As Ronald 
Reagan said, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' Thirty-five percent of the 
time that workers file a petition for a union election, they never even 
get to an election.
  The current election process is full of delays and costs, and 
unfortunately in many cases litigation gives way to outright 
discrimination.
  According to a 2011 University of California-Berkeley study, the 
longer the delay between the filing of a petition and the election 
date, the more likely it is that the NLRB will issue complaints 
charging employers with illegal activity. In other words, basically the 
election process is drawn out and leads to growing dissatisfaction and 
contempt and thereby damages everyone.
  This rule is a necessity and will have a real impact on real people. 
In Connecticut, I have spoken to people and heard the stories of 
individuals who have been deprived or inhibited in exercising their 
right to vote in the election process. This process is broken.
  The new NLRB will prevent frivolous litigation from delaying an 
election. I have spoken to workers who wanted the election to be held 
on a date that was beyond the allowed waiting period. They told me that 
they were told if they didn't back down, the employer would ``make sure 
the process would be lengthy and difficult.''
  The new rule will itself push back on intimidation. In the face of 
these kinds of tactics, some have persevered, but only through 
tremendous resolve. They triumphed in a seriously flawed and failed 
NLRB election process.
  In short, these rules are an important step in the right direction. 
They provide for free choice that is fair and will protect both sides. 
They will reduce costs and time and litigation.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure as ill-conceived and ill-
considered, and I hope we will preserve the NLRB's new rule.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________