[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15397-15398]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            INTRODUCTION OF THE WORKER PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, July 1, 1999

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Worker 
Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill provides a workable, reasonable 
mechanism for dealing with the issue of organized labor taking dues 
money from rank-and-file union members--from members who have to pay 
dues or they cannot keep their jobs. The legislation in no way changes 
the manner in which unions can spend money, it simply provides union 
workers the dignity of being able to give their up-front consent to 
their union before funds having nothing to do with collective 
bargaining are taken out of their paychecks.
  In the six hearings my Committee held the past few Congresses on the 
issue of compulsory union dues, we heard from worker after worker 
telling us about the one thing they each want from their union: the 
basic respect of being asked for permission before the union spends 
their money for purposes unrelated to labor-management obligations. 
Most of these employees were upset over finding out their hard-earned 
dollars were being funneled into political causes or candidates they 
did not support. However, most of these workers supported their union 
and still overwhelmingly believe in the value of organized labor. A 
number of witnesses were stewards in their union. All they wanted was 
to be able to give their consent before their union spent their money 
for activities falling outside collective bargaining and which subvert 
their deeply held ideas and convictions.
  The Worker Paycheck Fairness Act, similar to legislation reported to 
the House last Congress after passing my Committee on Education and the 
Workforce by voice vote, simply gives workers this right to give their 
permission and the right to know how their money is spent. This 
legislation creates a new, federal right implementing the spirit of the 
Supreme Court's 1988 Beck decision.
  In Beck, the Court held that workers cannot be required to pay for 
activities beyond legitimate union functions. After hearing testimony 
from dozens of witnesses, including 14 rank-and-file workers, it is 
clear to the Committee that Beck rights have remained illusory. The 
witnesses described problems with lack of notice, the necessity under 
current law of resigning from the union, procedural hurdles, and 
notably, the incredible indignities they often endure, including 
harassment, stonewalling, coercion, and intimidation, when they attempt 
to exercise their rights granted under Beck.
  This legislation applies only where unions require workers to pay 
dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. This mandate is called a 
``union security agreement,'' and such agreements are currently legal 
in 29 states. Simply put, a union security agreement forces a worker to 
pay an agency fee to the union, or the worker has no right to work. 
This bill is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because unions are taking money 
from the pockets of employees working under such security agreements 
and spending it on activities having nothing to do with a union's 
legitimate activities.
  In addition to requiring consent, the Worker Paycheck Fairness Act 
requires employers whose employees are represented by a union to post a 
notice telling workers of their right under this legislation to give 
their consent. It also amends the Labor-Management Reporting and 
Disclosure Act of 1959 to ensure that workers will know what their 
money is being spent on. Under this change, unions would have to report 
expenses by ``functional classification'' on the LM-forms they are 
currently required to file annually with the Department of Labor. This 
change was proposed by the Bush administration in 1992 but eliminated 
by the Clinton administration.
  This legislation also puts real enforcement into place, as those 
whose rights are violated

[[Page 15398]]

would be entitled to double damages and attorney's fees and costs--
similar to relief available under the Family and Medical Leave Act. 
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill includes a common employment law 
provision making it illegal for a union to retaliate against or coerce 
anyone exercising his or her consent rights. This applies to all 
employees--union members and non-members alike--and under the 
provision, a union may not discriminate against any worker for giving, 
or not giving, their consent.
  This bill is all the more necessary, Mr. Speaker, because there are 
those in Congress who are pushing campaign finance reform legislation 
which purports to codify Beck, but which actually represents a step 
backwards for working men and women.
  Section 501 of the Shays/Meehan reform bill, H.R. 417, entitled 
``Codification of Beck Decision,'' does nothing of the sort. Section 
501 is a sugar-coated placebo that diminishes the Beck decision and 
does nothing to correct the current injustices in our federal labor law 
relating to unions' use of their members' hard-earned paychecks. My 
Committee's many hearings have shown that the current law in this area 
does not work because it does not adequately protect workers. A close 
reading of Section 501 shows not only that the provision does not 
codify Beck, but that it is in fact a step backwards from codifying 
current law. Section 501 is so favorable to unions that organized labor 
could not have done a better job drafting it themselves.
  First, Section 501 provides absolutely no notice of rights to members 
of the union--it applies only to non-members. Second, Section 501 
redefines the dues payments that may be objected to, by limiting such 
to ``expenditures in connection with a Federal, State, or local 
election or in connection with efforts to influence legislation 
unrelated to collective bargaining.'' This definition not only infers 
that there may be other types of political expenditures to which 
workers cannot object--a perversion of Beck--but it also ignores Beck's 
holding that workers may object to any dues payments for any union 
activities not directly related to collective bargaining activities. 
Section 501 would cut back even further on the already illusory rights 
workers supposedly have today under Beck.
  If Congress is truly going to try to deal with the issue of organized 
labor taking dues money from rank-and-file members laboring under a 
union security agreement--taking funds without permission and spending 
it on causes and activities with which the workers disagree--then let 
us not fool around with Section 501 of the Shays/Meehan bill. Section 
501 is a fig leaf that falls woefully short of addressing the problem.
  What we have today is a broken system that allows unions to raid 
workers' wallets, forces workers to resign from the union, requires 
workers to object--after the fact--to their money being removed from 
their paycheck, and then requires workers to wait for the union to 
rebate those funds, if they get around to doing so.
  The Worker Paycheck Fairness Act is a proper and reasonable fix that 
truly implements the spirit of the Supreme Court's Beck decision. I 
urge my colleagues to support the bill.

                          ____________________