[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 22]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 31009]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, November 21, 2003

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am joining with 
81 of my colleagues to introduce the Employee Free Choice Act--
legislation that will strengthen workers' rights in America.
  Workers in America are demanding the same basic legal, labor and 
human rights by which we judge other nations around the world: the 
freedom of association and the right to collectively bargain.
  These are the internationally-recognized standards our government 
says all workers deserve, whether in China or in Chattanooga, in Mexico 
or in Milwaukee, in South Africa or in South Carolina. We tell other 
nations that collective bargaining gives workers a voice in the 
workplace. It's time--in fact, it's way past time--for workers here in 
the United States to have the same rights and protections we demand of 
poorer, less developed and less democratic nations around the world.
  Unfortunately, the basic labor law that Congress enacted in 1935 no 
longer works to protect the right of workers to form and join unions. 
Recent history is littered with the stories of companies that defeated 
their workers when they sought to exercise their legal right to 
organize for their mutual benefit.
  Something is obviously very wrong with our nation's labor laws when 
one side in a dispute has so many weapons at its disposal to thwart the 
will of the majority.
  We are all aware of the egregious record of Wal-Mart, whose vigorous 
anti-union activities include threats and firings to unlawful 
surveillance. In the last few years, Wal-Mart has been charged with 
well over 100 unfair labor practices and has faced at least 50 formal 
complaints from the NLRB. None of this has apparently deterred Wal-
Mart. Current law simply does not discourage lawbreakers.
  In August 2000, Human Rights Watch, which usually reviews conditions 
in developing nations, documented ``a systemic failure to ensure the 
most basic right of workers [in the United States]: their freedom to 
choose to come together to negotiate the terms of their employment with 
their employers.'' No impartial observer of our law could reach any 
other conclusion.
  Is this the image of democracy that we choose to show to the rest of 
the world?
  It is no mystery why workers want unions. The wages of union workers 
are 26% higher than for nonunion workers. Union workers have better 
pensions, better health benefits, and better shortterm disability 
coverage. Union workers have contracts that prevent arbitrary firings.
  So why do unions win only 50% of the elections? Because the deck is 
stacked against employees who want to form a union.
  We propose a new deck. Not just a new deal.
  The Employee Free Choice Act restores integrity to our labor law by 
ensuring that our own citizens have the same basic freedom we demand 
for others. The right to organize must mean more than the right to be 
fired for daring to propose a union, and the right to bargain 
collectively must mean more than the right to endlessly negotiate once 
a union has been selected.
  Throughout my congressional career, I have fought to improve the 
rights of workers. With many of my colleagues I've fought for a larger 
minimum wage, protection for migrant workers, better education, and 
greater retirement security and health coverage. This fight is to 
enable workers to fight for themselves. It is an historic fight that I 
resolve to continue until the rights of working Americans are fully 
protected.
  For the benefit of my colleagues, a short summary of the Employee 
Free Choice Act follows:

                  Summary of Employee Free Choice Act


         1. Certification on the Basis of Signed Authorizations

       Provides for certification of a union as the bargaining 
     representative if the National Labor Relations Board finds 
     that a majority of employees in an appropriate unit has 
     signed authorizations designating the union as its bargaining 
     representative. Requires the Board to develop model 
     authorization language and procedures for establishing the 
     authenticity of signed authorizations.


              2. First Contract Mediation and Arbitration

       Provides that if an employer and a union are engaged in 
     bargaining for their first contract and are unable to reach 
     agreement within 90 days, either party may refer the dispute 
     to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for 
     mediation. If the FMCS has been unable to bring the parties 
     to agreement after 30 days of mediation the dispute will be 
     referred to arbitration and the results of the arbitration 
     shall be binding on the parties for two years. Time limits 
     may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties.


3. Stronger Penalties for Violations While Employees are Attempting to 
                  Organize or Obtain a First Contract

       Makes the following new provisions applicable to violations 
     of the National Labor Relations Act committed by employers 
     against employees during any period while employees are 
     attempting to organize a union or negotiate a first contract 
     with the employer:
       a. Mandatory Applications for Injunctions: Provides that 
     just as the NLRB is required to seek a federal court 
     injunction against a union whenever there is reasonable cause 
     to believe that the union has violated the secondary boycott 
     prohibitions in the Act, the NLRB must seek a federal court 
     injunction against an employer whenever there is reasonable 
     cause to believe that the employer has discharged or 
     discriminated against employees, threatened to discharge or 
     discriminate against employees, or engaged in conduct that 
     significantly interferes with employee rights during an 
     organizing or first contract drive. Authorizes the courts to 
     grant temporary restraining orders or other appropriate 
     injunctive relief.
       b. Treble Backpay: Increases the amount an employer is 
     required to pay when an employee is discharged or 
     discriminated against during an organizing campaign or first 
     contract drive to three times back pay.
       c. Civil Penalties: Provides for civil fines of up to 
     $20,000 per violation against employers found to have 
     willfully or repeatedly violated employees' rights during an 
     organizing campaign or first contract drive.