[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 47 (Thursday, March 19, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1782-H1788]
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
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 152, I call up
the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 8) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to
representation case procedures, and ask for its immediate consideration
in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Pursuant to House
Resolution 152, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
S.J. Res. 8
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the National Labor
Relations Board relating to representation case procedures
(published at 79 Fed. Reg. 74308 (December 15, 2014)), and
such rule shall have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
{time} 1045
General Leave
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 8.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 8.
In just a few short weeks, a regulatory scheme that many Americans
never heard of will become a reality in almost every private workplace
across the country.
Today, workers and employers rely on a fair process for union
elections. Under the current process, employers have time to raise
concerns and, more importantly, time to speak with their employees
about union representation.
Under the current system, workers have an opportunity to gather the
information they need to make the best decision for their families. But
unless Congress acts, Mr. Speaker, that will all change.
Under the guise of streamlining union elections, the National Labor
Relations Board is imposing draconian changes that will undermine the
rights workers, employers, and unions have long enjoyed.
The Board's rule arbitrarily limits the amount of time employers have
to legally prepare for the election, and it denies workers a reasonable
opportunity to make informed decisions about joining a union.
The rule also delays answers to important questions--including voter
eligibility--until after the election, which means the integrity of the
election results will be compromised before a single ballot is cast.
To add insult to injury, the Board's rule will also force employers
to provide union organizers with their employees' personal information,
including email addresses, phone numbers, work schedules, and home
addresses. Instead of advancing a plan to help stop union intimidation
and coercion, the Board is actually making it easier for labor bosses
to harass employees and their families.
Are there times when delays occur under the current system? Of
course. But delay is the exception, not the rule. In fact, right now,
the median time between the filing of an election petition and the
election is 38 days. Yet under the Board's new rule, a union election
could take place in as little as 11 days. Eleven days.
This is a radical rewrite of labor policies that have served our
Nation's best interests for decades. Unfortunately, this is what we
have come to expect from the National Labor Relations Board.
Let's not forget, this is the same Federal agency that tried
dictating where a private employer had to run its business. This is the
same agency restricting workers' rights to secret ballot elections.
This is the same agency ignoring the law by asserting its jurisdiction
over religious institutions. This is the same agency tying employers in
union red tape and empowering labor leaders to gerrymander our Nation's
workplaces. This is a Federal agency that is simply out of control, and
it is our responsibility to do something about it.
This resolution, which I am proud to sponsor along with Senator Lamar
[[Page H1783]]
Alexander of Tennessee, invokes Congress' authority under the
Congressional Review Act to block the NLRB's ambush election rule and
anything substantially like it.
If the Board or my Democrat colleagues want to pursue responsible
reforms to improve the union election process, then I stand ready to
work together on that effort.
But if you believe employers should be free to speak to their
employees during a union organizing campaign, then support this
resolution. If you believe workers should be free to make an informed
decision about whether to join a union, then support this resolution.
If you believe we should protect--rather than threaten--employee
privacy, then support this resolution. Finally, if you believe workers,
employers, and union leaders deserve a fair election process, then
reject the Board's ambush election rule by supporting this resolution.
I encourage my colleagues to stand with America's workers and job
creators by voting ``yes'' on S.J. Res. 8.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 8.
The Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval that we are
considering today would undo the NLRB's election rule. The National
Labor Relations Board election rule was promulgated to make the
election process more efficient and fair.
The current process to hold an election on whether to form a union is
badly broken. After workers have filed a petition to hold an election,
bad actors can use frivolous litigation to stall an election for
months, even years. Election delays can provide opportunities for
unscrupulous employers to engage in threats, coercion, and intimidation
of workers. These delays can be exploited to violate workers' rights,
including firing pro-union workers or threatening to close the plant if
the workers choose to vote a certain way.
We all know that the sanctions against violations are insufficient to
deter the unscrupulous activities, including firing pro-union
employees.
Researchers from the Center for Labor Research and Education at
Berkeley found that the longer the delay before the union election, the
more likely the employer was to engage in illegal conduct that violates
its employees' rights. The NLRB election rule would help prevent the
illegal intimidation and coercion of workers.
Mr. Speaker, this regulation provides targeted solutions to discrete,
specifically identifiable problems. The rule brings into the 21st
century the updating of rules involving the transmission of documents
and communications, allowing you to use email and electronic
communication rather than paper. It will enable the Board to better
fulfill its responsibility to protect employees' rights by fairly,
accurately, and quickly resolving issues of representation.
In many cases, the rule just simplifies and standardizes practices
that have been common in regions all over the country already, or
reflects existing practices used in civil actions. The rule does not
change substantive law involving elections. It just makes sure that you
can have a timely election.
These modest updates provide workers and employees with reasonable
time to consider unionization while preventing unreasonable delay by
bad actors.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this resolution isn't going to go very far. The
administration has already issued a Statement of Administration Policy
that I would like to quote from. It says that:
``The Board's modest reforms will help simplify and streamline
private sector union elections, thereby reducing delays before workers
can have a free and fair vote on whether or not to form or join a
union.''
It goes on to say that:
``Giving workers greater voice can help ensure that the link is
restored between hard work and opportunity and that the benefits of the
current economic recovery are more broadly shared.
``The National Labor Relations Board's representation case procedures
rule helps to level the playing field for workers so they can more
freely choose to make their voice heard. In doing so, it will help us
build an economy that gives greater economic opportunities and security
for middle-class families and those working to join the middle class.''
It concludes, Mr. Speaker, that:
``If the President were presented with S.J. Res. 8, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the Resolution.''
Mr. Speaker, instead of wasting time on this resolution, we should be
addressing job creation, stagnating wages, economic inequality, and
working to improve opportunities for Americans, rather than considering
this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, somehow I am not surprised that the Obama
administration supports the administration's National Labor Relations
Board's actions.
At this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections.
Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I hate to say it this way, but the fact of the matter is
that the NLRB is creating a solution to a problem that does not exist
by wholly changing the union election process through their new ambush
election rule. This rule, if left unchecked, restricts the right of
employers to speak to their employees during their organizing campaign.
It cripples--it cripples--the rights of workers to make an informed
decision. It denies all stakeholders access to a fair process. And
isn't that what we are about?
This change is meant to weaken employers and employees who simply
want a fair and just process that gives ample time for a deliberative
review, discussion, and decisionmaking. Furthermore, the ambush
election rule completely disregards the promise of neutrality that NLRB
is mandated to uphold.
The NLRB should serve as an impartial arbiter of labor disputes, and
I urge my colleagues to join the Senate in passing S.J. Res. 8, which
will stop these harmful and unjust actions committed by the NLRB and
preserve fair election policies which have been in place for decades.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise in very strong
opposition to this resolution, and I urge every one of my Members to
oppose this resolution.
We considered a Paycheck Fairness Act, a card check bill which said
that if the unions got the signatures of a certain percentage, that
they could move ahead and be organized, subject to an election.
There was a hue and cry about, that was undemocratic, that there
ought to be a requirement for an election. A number of people came into
my office, and I said, Well, I think we can accommodate that. We will
make sure there is a requirement that--as every one of us can do--you
can get the names of the voters, you can get their addresses, you can
even get their history of voting, and you can perhaps call them on the
phone. We can all do that in elections.
But the fact of the matter is--and everybody on this House floor
knows it--procedurally, so many employers who do not believe that they
are going to prevail take the steps of delaying and delaying and
delaying. They want elections tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, what the NLRB is trying to do with this rule is to make
sure that there is an election, that it is fair, and that it will be
held in a timely fashion.
I hope this House defeats this resolution.
This resolution would prevent the National Labor Relations Board from
implementing the rule it promulgated in December to modernize worker
representation elections.
But there is a fear of elections, and the fear of elections is that
the majority of employees will say, yes, I want to have a better voice.
This is a case, once again, of the Republican majority seeking to
roll back
[[Page H1784]]
the hard-earned rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively
for better wages and benefits. And that is not an assertion. That is
demonstrably proved in State after State after State over the last few
years in which Republicans have taken control, and their first item of
the agenda has been to undermine workers' rights.
When workers organize for higher wages and benefits--like health
insurance, retirement savings, and affordable child care--it opens the
doors of opportunity for workers and their families to secure a place
in our middle class. We know our middle class is shrinking. We know the
middle class is having a very tough time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
According to a 2013 report by the Center for American Progress, the
decline of union membership between the 1960s and today correlates to a
decline of the middle class.
When we have strong unions and workers' rights protections, the
middle class does better. And workers who are not unionized benefit
from the ripple effect of rising wages.
Let's defeat this bill.
I think the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of
this committee, has said that he would sit down with the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) to come up with a bipartisan bill--which this is
not--which will do what all of us say we think is fair, to have
elections, to have elections where both sides--and of course the
employer always has access to the voter in this case--and do something
for the American worker and for business which will put us on a steady
path to growing the middle class and making sure that workers are
treated as they ought to be, with the dignity and respect and the
ability to support their families that they need.
{time} 1100
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority
leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I always find it to be of interest listening to this
debate. Do you know what is most ironic about this bill? It is about
elections. Everybody in this body has an election. But do you know what
is different? Everyone in this body knows when their next election is
going to be held and knows how much time they have to campaign, so much
so that we have rules on this floor when we cut off communication
months in advance so you can campaign.
I listened with interest to the minority whip speak on this floor his
support for something different from what this bill does. I wonder, if
he cared so much about what the NLRB is doing, would he apply those
exact same rules to his own election? Would he care to not know when it
is going to be and then when it gets called he has 11 days to campaign?
I think his speech would be different. So why are we asking the rules
for us to be different from every other worker across this country?
The root of representation is to work for the interests of those you
represent. Everyone in the House knows that. And unions, as
representative bodies, should exist for the benefit of the workers. But
I don't think anyone disagrees that it is the workers, not the unions,
who know what is best for themselves. Workers are the best judges of
whether they want to support union political activity or even if they
want to join a union at all. Joining a union is a big choice. To make
an informed decision, workers need time to decide what is best for them
and their families, and they shouldn't be pressured or rushed.
So if unions really care about workers, and if they are confident
that the benefits of their union outweigh the costs, they will give the
workers as much time as they need. That is the irony of the recent
decision by the National Labor Relations Board, to allow unions to call
rush elections, to ambush employees and employers. Ambush elections
don't help workers; instead, they bully workers to accept unionization
as fast as possible. That is not pro-worker; that is pro-union--and
there is a big difference.
What makes the situation worse is that ambush elections will soon be
forced on workers not by an act of Congress, but by unelected
bureaucrats in the NLRB. That is an affront to the separation of powers
that this country was based upon.
So here in Congress, Mr. Speaker, we are taking action. As our Senate
colleagues have already voted to do, we are going to use the
Congressional Review Act to send a resolution straight to the
President's desk that blocks this antiworker and antibusiness rule.
Now, I know the President has already threatened to veto this
resolution, but I actually hope he will change his mind, because what
does the President want to fight for? Does he want to fight for the
workers? Does he want to fight for small businesses and jobs?
Ambush elections don't help workers. They don't help employers. They
only help unions. And no public official, not any Member of this House,
and especially not the President, should ever support rules that allow
special interests to strong-arm the hardworking American people.
Mr. Speaker, nobody in this House should support a rule about an
election they wouldn't put upon themselves, and I don't know one Member
of this House that would sit back and say somebody can call an election
and you only have 11 days to campaign. I would like to hear somebody
vote for that on this floor and ask to be held to the same standards
they are trying to hold every other worker to in this Nation.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, where to begin? In hearing the majority
leader's remarks and in talking about fair elections, how is it fair if
only one side has access to the phone numbers and email addresses and
not the other side? Can any of us imagine running in our campaigns
where only we or only our opponent can call or write emails to the
voters? That doesn't make any sense.
Talking about 11 days, again, that is fictitious. This rule is about
the 1 in 10 cases that take over 100 days. Mr. Speaker, we heard
testimony in committee about organizing that lingered on hundreds and
hundreds of days. And as our ranking member pointed out, the longer it
takes, there is a direct and causal relationship to illegal behavior.
The election rules that the NLRB has implemented will help expedite
this process to be sure it is done in accordance with the law. It
modernizes our antiquated system to level the playing field for
workers. These rules set up a fair system so that bad actors that
needlessly delay and abuse the electoral system for the sole purpose of
having time to coerce employees through mandatory meetings, threats,
and even firings won't be rewarded for their bad behavior. This
coercion is not just some far-fetched idea. One in 10 cases take over
100 days.
Now, why would delaying a union election be a bad thing for union
workers? Because during that delay, these workers are forced into
rooms, receive threats, are bombarded with texts and emails from the
employer--again, from one side in the election--but the other side in
the election, absent these rules, doesn't even have access to text or
phone.
Mr. Speaker, we should be focused on creating new jobs, not
destroying them, and growing the middle class, not shrinking it. I urge
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the committee.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Chairman Kline, for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's leadership on this important
issue, and I am grateful to be a cosponsor of this legislation.
As a member of the House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on
Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, I am concerned with the
National Labor Relations Board's latest rule, which is referred to as
the ambush election rule, and I stand in strong support of S.J. Res. 8.
The ambush election rule is a tool to force union elections, not to
protect
[[Page H1785]]
workers. Revisions of the list requirements under the rule will compel
employers to provide very personal information about their employees,
such as names, address, telephone numbers, and email addresses. This
will violate the privacy of workers while reducing the informed
decision period. To add insult to injury, the rule does not limit or
dictate what unions can do with this sensitive information.
I am pleased that South Carolina is a right-to-work State. Union
membership is not a requirement of employment in our State. It is based
on freedom of choice. I am grateful we have fought as a State to give
our employees and job creators the flexibility to choose what is best
for them.
South Carolina has successfully opposed the rogue NLRB when the NLRB
tried to block 1,000 jobs at the Boeing facility in Charleston. With
the leadership of Governor Nikki Haley, Attorney General Alan Wilson,
and Senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott, we stopped the NLRB, and now
over 7,000 jobs have been created.
S.J. Res. 8 will express our strong disapproval of the National Labor
Relations Board rule and ensure a fair elections process.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
Ms. WILSON of Florida. Thank you, Ranking Member Scott.
Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Review Act is yet another attack on
employees' rights to organize and to limit the National Labor Relations
Board. The NLRB should have the ability to safeguard those rights and
protect our Nation's workers from unfair labor practices.
It is outrageous that the rights of employees are attacked,
particularly at a time when we have a jobs deficit, a shrinking middle
class, and are still struggling to recover from the Great Recession.
The NLRB has made modest attempts to modernize its election
procedures and reduce unnecessary litigation and delay in the election
process. These are commonsense fixes that should not be controversial.
The CRA would freeze in place the Board's current flawed election
procedure. The Board would be prohibited from adopting rules to utilize
new technology or modernize its procedures. The NLRB is an expert
agency and should be trusted to determine the appropriate use of
electronic voting or rules to safeguard ballot secrecy.
Furthermore, I am not aware of any other government agency that has
to seek Congress' permission before modernizing its rules for voting
that takes place under its jurisdiction.
Dismantling the NLRB would only serve to weaken, undermine, and
jeopardize the economic security of the middle class. It is bad for
business, bad for families, and bad for our economy. In fact, the
National Labor Relations Board is the last line of defense for workers.
We shouldn't be attacking our Nation's employees; we should be
supporting them, investing in them, and protecting them. Let's come
together to create jobs, protect the middle class, and make the
investments we need to grow our economy.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Russell), a new member of the committee and someone who
has been actively engaged in the major debates since he has walked into
this body.
Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, labor relations are vital to the smooth operation of
business and commerce. In the culture of our Republic, Americans are
raised to expect to have their say in everything from schoolroom
elections to choosing the President of the United States. It is in our
DNA to have a choice. To inform that choice, we expect free speech so
we can ask questions, gain information, and make wise decisions. This
is why the recently finalized rule by the National Labor Relations
Board is so egregious. It is against that American spirit.
Under this rule, longstanding policies that allow employers and
employees to guide how they relate through unions has been deeply
damaged. Companies could have as little as 11 days, or employees in
relating to the companies, as little as 11 days to make a choice that
could drastically affect their career and the health of the business
that they rely on to put bread on the table.
Employers would only have a 7-day period to obtain counsel, set
parameters, and are even restricted in contacting and discussing issues
with their employees. They are prohibited from making any changes after
that 7-day period based on new information that they may acquire.
Further, the privacy and safety of workers is placed in jeopardy by a
swift ambush election process imposed by these rules that could put
their employment in jeopardy.
This resolution stops this. It restores policies that have guided
labor relations for decades. It upholds the right for American workers
to gain information to make choices without draconian, strong-arm
pressure tactics that harm the worker and stifle American free
enterprise.
This body was founded, Mr. Speaker, on the spirit of promoting the
general welfare and ensuring domestic tranquility for our Nation.
Passage of S.J. Res. 8 aids this by stopping and blocking the strong-
arm tactics of the National Labor Relations Board, and the American
people are counting on us to do that job.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Senate Joint
Resolution 8, an unnecessary partisan attack on hardworking Americans
that will interfere with the rights of workers to an expeditious
election on union representation.
America's middle class workers should be free to decide if they want
an election. Unfortunately, the current process can be mired in
litigation, and in some cases, workers waiting for an election have
faced interference or intimidation from outside groups. The NLRB's rule
safeguards the ability of workers to choose whether to be represented
by a union without confronting unnecessary delays.
It makes little sense why Congress would want to get in the way of
middle class Americans--factory line workers, health care workers, and
utility workers--who ask for an election on union representation. It is
also unreasonable to assume that employers, many of which have
sophisticated legal teams, are going to be caught flat-footed. There is
no ambush here.
Mr. Speaker, the NLRB had a lengthy rulemaking proceeding with
thousands of comments. It is unfair and, in fact, draconian to now use
the Congressional Review Act to try to undermine the rights of workers
by getting rid of this rule. The resolution is an ill-advised attempt
to silence the voice of American workers, and I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no.''
{time} 1115
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Allen), another new member of the committee and someone
who has also been engaged since the day he walked in.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am always interested when we are talking
about workers and I hear that people want to talk about what is best
for workers.
I will tell you that I am a new Member of Congress, and I have had
the privilege the past 30 years of my life to give people the privilege
to have a good job. That is one of the greatest privileges of my life.
We all want to do what is best for those folks who are sacrificing
for us. We appreciate them; we appreciate their efforts. That is why I
rise to support Senate Joint Resolution 8, to demonstrate the
disapproval of Congress of the National Labor Relations Board's
``ambush election'' rule to protect our workers.
A few weeks ago, the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and
Pensions, of which I am a member, held a hearing on this very issue. We
learned that this NLRB is not only unprecedented, it undermines the
rights of both workers and employees and creates for challenges for
businesses when our economy can least afford it.
The expert testimony was from those who have been engaged in labor
relations for quite a long time with tremendous experience. Their
testimony
[[Page H1786]]
provided comments about just how troubling such a threat to the privacy
of workers and their families as employers would be required to
disclose the names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails of employees
to the NLRB, then to the union.
This rule is misguided, and NLRB has no business in rushing to
advance its own agenda. We need to protect fairness in the work place.
That is why I call on my colleagues to support Senate Joint Resolution
8.
I am proud to say that I am from the State of Georgia, a right-to-
work State.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. ALLEN. In the State of Georgia, we have created almost 300,000
jobs since 2006. I am proud to say we have got the finest workers in
America, and I want those workers to have the freedom to make their
decisions and not the NLRB.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), a member of the Committee
on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Bobby Scott, for
yielding me time.
I am a small business owner, and I am a union member, and I have a
union business. The disapproval of the NLRB rule under the
Congressional Review Act is an extreme move that would roll back
hardworking Americans' rights to a fair and timely election on union
representation.
Let us look at what this rule does, two things: One, it modernizes
communications; and, two, it protects workers from dishonest employers.
When this law was written, emails and iPhones didn't exist, so it
simply adds them to the list of what is available to contact people
about joining a union.
Second, it creates a fair, modern workplace election process that
elections can be done in a timely manner. The current process has long
been vulnerable to manipulation, delay, and drawn out legal maneuvering
by some unscrupulous employers.
The reality of today's workplace is employers still hold all the
cards. The few bad actor employers can delay a union vote by
intimidating or threatening employees. They already have the phone
numbers, the emails, and the home addresses. Let's face it: What is
more intimidating, getting an email or saying you know where someone
lives?
The bottom line is this isn't about the NLRB rule; this is about a
process that we see across the country attacking hardworking Americans.
Whether it is through so-called right-to-work laws or preventing the
NLRB from updating the union election process, this is more evidence
that the majority party is out to hurt the very hardworking Americans
who want the ability to form a union.
This has a substantial impact on their lives. Workers covered by a
collective bargaining agreement are paid more on average than those not
covered and are more likely to have health care, retirement, and paid
leave benefits than nonunion workers.
I would strongly urge us to vote against this political maneuvering
message.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from my
neighboring State of Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), another new member of
the committee. We have got an almost embarrassment of riches of
hardworking new Members.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here to speak one more
time on Senate Joint Resolution 8.
I will make two points again. One of the things we see here is we
have new rules which continue a trend, and that is you are
fundamentally changing the way things have been for 70 years. In the
past, unions have done a good job of organizing.
We have added union representation to things, but one of the things
that businesses want and that America wants is consistency. One more
time, after having no big problems for 70 years, we are turning things
fundamentally around. Now, why is that bad?
The gentlewoman from Oregon just said this is no big deal because
businesses all have lawyers on staff or whatever.
Two comments on that: First of all, businesses don't all have lawyers
on staff; and, secondly, I think it shows a fundamental
misunderstanding of how business works and why it is so difficult to go
into business today and why it particularly targets small businesses
when you come up with new regulations.
This would be a problem even for a big company that did have a lawyer
on staff and say it is no big deal; but, of course, who is less likely
to have a lawyer on staff? A small business who doesn't have full-time
HR representatives and that sort of thing. This is targeting those
small businesses.
Again and again and again in this country, one thing that bothers me
is the degree to which people don't have sympathy for small businesses.
When you change things, they are the ones who have to go out, hire an
outside lawyer, get up to speed on things, pay the big legal bills, and
pay the price.
That is one reason why, in certain industries, you do see, over time,
big businesses continuing to grow because little businesses can't keep
up with all the little rules.
I will remind people one more time that this invades employee
privacy. It is something they are not asking for. There is no reason
for outside groups to be able to get somebody's home address or that
sort of thing.
In any event, I will ask the other people present in the room to go
back home and ask, particularly their small employers, when they have
to run to a lawyer--first of all, to ask their small employers whether
or not they have a lawyer on staff because I think the vast majority of
businesses in this country don't have a lawyer on staff; and, secondly,
whether they do or don't have a lawyer on staff, if they have to go run
to a lawyer, whether they think its no big deal, because I think it is
an awfully big deal.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
I would like to point out that I think the people who promote this
piece of legislation and the people who oppose it basically take their
positions for the same reason, and that is that labor unions improve
wages, make better working conditions, promote job security, and give
strength in numbers.
We oppose and support this bill for the same reason. Some people want
to see workers get more pay--we have seen stagnant wages--and some
people think that when workers make more money, it just hurts corporate
profitability--which, by the way, is up and has been increasing.
The point is simply this: The NLRB does its job and modernizes union
elections and proposes a rule. The Republican majority comes in and
says, We don't like that because that might lead to more union
elections, and it may lead to more unionized workers, and we like it
how it is, we like flat and declining wages, we want the employers to
have all of the power, we want the workers to be alone and on their own
and without the strength that the numbers that a union provides. It is
just as simple as that.
Americans watching this debate today have yet another opportunity to
see who is on their side and who is not. American workers get more
money and get paid better when they are in unions.
Collective bargaining strengthens family budgets because it means
that workers can say, Do you know what, that is unsafe; do you know
what, you are making plenty of money, so should we; do you know what,
we need to get some job security in a union contract around here--and
that is exactly why we see the opposition to this NLRB rule.
So it is disappointing. I think President Obama was right when he
said the number one problem facing the United States today is income
inequality. That is the concentration of riches at the top and the
stagnation for wages for everybody else.
If that is the problem, then we need to do something about it. That
means modernizing the right to collectively bargain.
I will say modernizing union elections is the thing that will help us
achieve that equality.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H1787]]
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
It is incredible. We are in this great Hall of democracy. The world
looks to this very building, for what it seeks is to give people a
voice, what our country was founded on. What we are having a vote on
today is to clamp down and shut the mouths of those who are seeking to
have a voice.
Very recently, there was a poll conducted that said, if given the
opportunity, 73 percent of American workers want to have a voice and
would vote for a union, but what we are hearing today is shutting down
the voice and creating predictability. This is about democracy; this is
about what we in America believe in: giving everybody an equal
opportunity for a voice.
What the NLRB--and I have dealt with them for over 30 years. We have
won some; we have lost some. They have been independent. Sometimes, I
haven't been happy with their decisions, but I have always felt they
have been fair.
What we are talking about is bringing them into the 21st century,
making a voting date that is agreeable to what real people think. You
shouldn't have to wait 6 months, 9 months, go through the appeal
process.
Let's have a vote because, remember, the employer has had access--
unfettered access--to all these employees, and all we are saying is
let's make sure that workers have a voice. If they say ``no,'' no harm,
no foul, and go home. This is about creating an equal playing field,
which certainly isn't there.
That is why I am urging my colleagues to vote against this anti-
American, antidemocracy, antiworker resolution.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Scott.
One of the things that made the 20th century known as the American
century was that the United States had the largest middle class in the
history of the world--the idea that if you worked hard and played by
the rules, you would get a fair wage and good benefits and that your
children would be even able to do a little bit better than you have
been able to do.
It wasn't always that way, though, in the United States. We can thank
to a great extent some of the great advances that we had in the 20th
century, as far as workers' rights, to that of organized labor. Without
labor unions, we would not have the strength of the middle class today.
It is no accident that in the post-World War II period, when you saw
average incomes rise in the fifties, in the sixties, in the seventies,
you saw average incomes rise for workers, sure enough, you saw the
percentage of the American workforce unionized also increase.
{time} 1130
It is also no accident that, as the percentage of the American
unionized workforce declined, so, too, did the average wages to the
point at which we are today, where we have had a 20-year period in
which middle class wages are stagnant, in which the working class has
actually fallen behind, and in which--no surprise--we actually have the
lowest percentage of the workforce unionized today in over 70 years.
Mr. Speaker, let's stand up for the middle class. Let's stand up for
our workers. Let us reject this antilabor, anti-union, antiworker
measure, and let's start fighting and working for those who are working
for America.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Is the chairman prepared to close?
Mr. KLINE. I am.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The rule that is subject to this resolution creates no substantive
change in the law. It just requires that an election be timely. We have
heard this 11-day myth. Let me just go through a little about that myth
and how you get to the 11 days.
First of all, the regional office would have to issue a notice of a
hearing on the same day that the union would have filed the election
petition. The hearing would have to be held as soon as possible and
last only one day, and the regional director would have to issue an
opinion on the same day.
Right now, it currently takes a median of 20 days for the regional
director to issue a decision on the hearing, and there is no reason to
believe that it would be any shorter under this rule.
The union would have to waive all of its rights to get information in
terms of contact lists and things like that, and the region would have
to schedule the election on the very first day possible. The chance
that all of that is going to happen to get you down to 11 days is just
very improbable.
The administration has already indicated that its senior advisers
would recommend a veto of this legislation, so it is not going
anywhere.
I look forward to working with the chair of the committee to do what
we can to create jobs and to increase wages and to create safe
workplaces. I would hope that the chair and I will get together on that
rather than waste time on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration
Policy.
Statement of Administration Policy
S.J. Res. 8--Congressional Disapproval of National Labor Relations
Board Representation Case Procedures Rule
(Sen. Alexander, R-TN and 51 cosponsors, Mar. 3, 2015)
The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J.
Res. 8, which would overturn the National Labor Relations
Board's recently issued ``representation case procedures''
rule. The Board's modest reforms will help simplify and
streamline private sector union elections, thereby reducing
delays before workers can have a free and fair vote on
whether or not to form or join a union. The rule allows for
electronic filing and transmission of documents, ensures that
all parties receive timely information necessary to
participate in the election process, reduces delays caused by
frivolous litigation, unifies procedures across the country,
requires additional contact information be included in voter
lists, and consolidates appeals to the Board into a single
process.
Instead of seeking to undermine a streamlined democratic
process for American workers to vote on whether or not they
want to be represented, the Congress should join the
President in strengthening protections for American workers
and giving them more of a voice in the workplace and the
economy. Growing and sustaining the middle class requires
strong and vital labor unions, which helped to build this
Nation's middle class and have been critical to raising
workers' wages and putting in place worker protections that
we enjoy today. Giving workers greater voice can help ensure
that the link is restored between hard work and opportunity
and that the benefits of the current economic recovery are
more broadly shared.
The National Labor Relations Board's representation case
procedures rule helps to level the playing field for workers
so they can more freely choose to make their voice heard. In
doing so, it will help us build an economy that gives greater
economic opportunities and security for middle-class families
and those working to join the middle class.
If the President were presented with S.J. Res. 8, his
senior advisors would recommend that he veto the Resolution.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is always interesting--isn't it, Mr. Speaker?--to listen to the
debate and to the claims that are made and to the claims that are
refuted. I found it a little bit interesting in listening to some of
the comments on the other side of the aisle that, apparently, this
Congressional Review Act S.J. Res. 8 action and all of those who
support it are anti-union, antilabor, antiworker, and--I was a little
shocked to hear--even anti-American.
I am not called ``anti-American'' very often, Mr. Speaker, and I do
resent it a little bit, but that is the way this debate kind of goes.
Let's get a couple of things, I think, straight. I know that everybody
can have his opinion and not the facts, but there are some things that,
I think, are pretty clear.
According to the National Labor Relations Board, itself, more than 94
percent of elections occur in less than 56 days, which is less than 2
months, Mr. Speaker, and the median time is only 38 days. Unions, Mr.
Speaker, win over 60 percent of those elections, so there is a voice
for union organizers, for workers, and for employers, because there is
time. There is not a rush.
Now, we just heard some discussion about whether 11 days is
probable--we all agree, I think, it is possible--or
[[Page H1788]]
maybe it would be 12 or 13 or something like that, but it is not in
question that you only have 7 days under this rule. This is the rule,
by the way. This is the rule that we are talking about. The law that is
affected is many times thicker than this.
My colleague from Wisconsin talked about whether or not you have a
labor lawyer on staff. Certainly, if you are a small- or middle-sized
company, you don't. You can't afford that. So you have 7 days to go out
and find a lawyer who can help you comply with this rule and with the
law, the much thicker law. You have 7 days to get your position down in
writing, and then you are stuck with it. Then you could have the
election 4 days later. That is not an opportunity for informed
discussion, debate for either the workers or for the employers.
This is called an ``ambush'' election because it is, indeed, an
ambush. We heard one of the speakers talk about: Would you rather have
somebody have your email address or your home address? Under this rule,
you get it all. Mr. Speaker, clearly, there are many instances of
intimidation during these exercises, and often that intimidation comes
from union organizers, not from your fellow workers usually but from
outside union organizers, who are trying to push this onto the
workforce.
So I am very pleased to be supporting S.J. Res. 8, which is to
provide congressional disapproval. I am not surprised, as I mentioned
earlier, that the Obama administration supports the Obama National
Labor Relations Board's position here, but it doesn't mean it is right,
and it doesn't mean we shouldn't be standing up for the voices that we
have heard about--for employers and employees--so that they can make
informed decisions.
The NLRB's rule, Mr. Speaker, stifles the right of employers to speak
to their employees during an organizing campaign. It also cripples the
right of workers to have the information they need to make a very
important decision about whether or not to join a union or even that
union. That is a big decision, and it shouldn't be jammed into 11 days
or 2 weeks. You need the time to be informed in order to make such a
decision.
A ``yes'' vote on the resolution will help rein in this activist
National Labor Relations Board, and it will ensure workers, employers,
and unions can participate in a fair union election process. I urge my
colleagues to support S.J. Res. 8.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 152, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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, this 15-
minute vote on passage of the joint resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 186, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 128]
YEAS--232
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--186
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Graham
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
Garamendi
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Hinojosa
Jordan
Labrador
Payne
Roskam
Schock
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Young (IN)
{time} 1208
Mr. CLYBURN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. STUTZMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________