[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16301-16304]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate on a matter 
we will have an opportunity to vote on as this week goes on; and that 
is the Employee Free Choice Act. I think to understand this issue, we 
have to understand what has been happening to the middle class, the 
working families in this country over the period of these last 30 years 
and what happened to the middle class in the 20 or 30 years before that 
and what happened at the turn of the century as we came into the 20th 
century.
  In my own State of Massachusetts, at the turn of the century, coming 
into the 1900s, we had the most extraordinary and excessive 
exploitation of American workers. They were not just American workers, 
they were children.
  All one has to do is travel up to Lowell, MA, where we have a 
national park, and travel through the areas that are preserved--some of 
the old textile mills--and you will read, encased in many of those 
wonderful viewing stands, these letters of children who were 8 or 9 or 
10 years old who worked 15 hours a day. They were paid very minimum 
salaries, and they were required to work. We had the exploitation of 
women in those conditions. The conditions were extraordinarily 
dangerous. We had the wages that were completely inadequate to provide 
a decent wage for people who were working long and hard.
  Then we saw the changes that took place in the 1940s as workers came 
together and demanded economic and social justice. We saw the changes 
that took place in the workplace in terms of fairness and equity. 
Interestingly, we saw the vast increase in productivity. The American 
economy grew stronger. The middle class were the ones who brought us 
out of the Great Depression, the ones who fought in World War II, the 
ones who put us back on track after we had 16 million Americans who 
served in World War II and brought us back to a strong and expanding 
economy, where everyone moved along together. Everyone moved along 
together.
  We made enormous progress during the 1950s and the 1960s and in the 
early 1970s. We made economic progress for workers and working 
families, and we made social progress too. We passed Medicare and 
Medicaid. We passed the higher education bill. We passed legislation to 
stop child labor. We passed a whole range of different kinds of 
programs to make this a more fair and a more just country with strong 
opposition, but I don't hear any effort to try and repeal those marks 
of progress we made in terms of economic and social justice. And, the 
courts obviously filled an enormous responsibility.
  So what happened during this period of time? I am putting up a chart 
that shows the number of abuses of workers. This part of the chart 
shows from 1941 to 1966. During this period of time, we had what we are 
talking about--majority sign-up. We had it in effect during this period 
of time, interestingly enough. Card checkoffs were in effect during 
this period of time, from 1941 all the way up to 1966 and then the 
National Labor Relations Board and the Supreme Court gradually 
eliminated of that protection. Then we found an increase in the various 
abuses we had during this period of time; that is, firing workers who 
were interested in trying to form a union. The refusal to accept the 
outcome of an election. We find a series of different kinds of abuses 
to make it more and more difficult for people to be able to join the 
unions.
  But what we had here is the fact that we had labor and management 
agreements and we had progress and economic prosperity during this 
period of time.
  This chart shows during that same period of time, where we talked 
about actually peak union membership, wages and productivity rise 
together. Look at from 1947 to 1964. We see an increase in productivity 
and an increase in wages and America moved along together. There was 
economic progress that moved along.
  Then, as we find the unions beginning to decline, we find that 
workers are falling further and further and further behind. Wages now 
have flattened, basically, and often, in terms of their purchasing 
power, have actually gone down. We see that since the loss of card 
check, productivity grew 206 percent more than wages.
  So we had the idea that workers were able to get together and 
represent their views, and we had the increase in productivity. Then we 
saw the country making very important progress.
  Well, how is that reflected in the Nation? This chart shows what was 
happening in that same period of time, from 1947 to 1973. Growing 
together. Here it is in 1947, 1957, 1967, up to 1973: The lowest, 20 
percent; the second, 20 percent; the 20 percent in the middle; and 
then, fourth and fifth, virtually all the same in terms of real 
economic growth during the same period I just pointed out where we had 
maximum union activity, increasing productivity, and the Nation, the 
United States of America, all growing, growing, and growing together. 
That was going on from 1947 through 1973.
  I see my friend from the State of Washington. How much time--I can 
make this long or short. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes.

[[Page 16302]]


  Mr. KENNEDY. If we divide a half hour between us, I would then have 
how many minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let me back up. There is 20 minutes remaining 
in morning business for the majority.
  Mr. KENNEDY. All right. Well, then I yield myself 5 minutes, which 
would be a total of 15 minutes, if that is agreeable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Chair would let me know when I have 1 minute.
  We have just seen what has happened from 1947 to 1973 through the 
course of the middle class. Now let's take a look at the years 1973 to 
2000. We have the beginning of America growing apart. Look what is 
happening. The lowest, the second lowest, the middle, the fourth. Look 
at what is happening at the top: 20 percent, growing higher during this 
period of time. This was the beginning of the Reagan revolution that 
was taking place, extraordinary tax programs that were taking place, 
reflecting itself in how America is growing. Are we growing more 
together, or are we growing more apart?
  Look what has happened now in the most recent times. The lowest 20 
percent, because of the rates of inflation, are actually going down. 
Then the second 20 percent, the middle 20 percent--and the top 1 
percent is the one that was growing during this period of time.
  What has happened at the same time is that we see the corporate 
profits have now gone up 63 percent more compared to workers' wages and 
benefits, which have now basically stabilized. This country, the United 
States, grows together, works together. We are a united people. We see 
what has been happening as a result of the fact that unions have been 
effectively attacked and diminished in this country.
  Before I conclude, this past Sunday was Father's Day. Look at the 
difference between fathers and sons in 1964 and 1994. From 1964 to 
1994, what we have seen is the sons did better. The middle class was 
expanding. The sons did better than their fathers over this period of 
time. There was growth. Look what is happening from 1974 to 2004: a 
decline of 12 percent. The son is doing poorer than the father for the 
first time in the history of this country--the first time in the 
history of this country.
  We know the corresponding difference. We had workers who were able to 
get together, and we find out there is a corresponding increase. When 
you diminish the unions, you diminish the power of working men and 
women. That happens to be the fact.
  What is the trade union movement asking for? All they want is what we 
had years ago. All they are asking for is what we had during the period 
from 1947 to 1966, and it worked then. Look at the wages and 
productivity and what happened in the United States of America. We all 
grew together. We all grew together. So why this emotional reaction and 
response from the other side: My God, the Employee Free Choice Act. 
This is some crazy idea that we can't possibly even think about or even 
tolerate.
  This is an idea that has been tried and tested. How few the times are 
in the Senate when we are trying to do something that has been tried 
and tested and successful. We had the measure which was effectively the 
card checkoff during the period when wages and productivity grew 
together and we had the fact that America, the United States of America 
grew together.
  That is the choice we have in the Employee Free Choice Act. Are we 
going to go back to this period of time when we as a country and a 
society grow together, or are we going to continue to grow apart? That 
is the heart of the question, and the Employee Free Choice Act is 
really the resolution and the solution.
  So I look forward to more time. I see my friend. I have taken time 
now. I am thankful that my good colleague and friend from the State of 
Washington wishes to address this issue. This is very basic and 
fundamental about our country and about the kind of America we want.
  I come from a State that takes pride in the fact that the Mayflower 
arrived on the coast off of Massachusetts, and the captain and the crew 
came together after 6 weeks and they signed the Mayflower Compact. And 
that is the compact that made Massachusetts a commonwealth. What is a 
commonwealth? It is a common interest in all of the families saying we 
are going to work together to make a better State, a better country, a 
better nation, a better world. That is what is at the base of this 
legislation and what it is all about, and I hope the Senate will give 
us a chance to vote in favor of it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to join 
my colleague from Massachusetts and thank him for his work. I rise 
today to voice my support for workers, for their families, and for 
their right to share in the prosperity the Senator from Massachusetts 
talked about that they helped create for this country.
  As chairwoman of the Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee, 
protecting workers' rights is a critical priority for me.
  In last year's election, we all heard the voice of America's voters 
calling for change. I am very proud to say that Democrats have been 
working very hard to help working Americans and their families secure a 
better future, and we are making progress. We recently, in fact, passed 
legislation to increase the minimum wage--the first increase in a 
decade. For the first time in 10 years, many Americans now have the 
opportunity to begin to lift themselves out of poverty. So we are 
moving in the right direction.
  But our work doesn't end there. Now it is time to help workers by 
ensuring that their voices are heard in the workplace--voices for 
better benefits, voices for better wages, voices for better health 
care, and voices for better pensions. As we all know, unfortunately, 
today in too many of our workplaces workers who do try to exercise 
their legal rights are blocked by an unbalanced system that can trap 
them in unacceptable working conditions. I think it is time for 
Congress to stand with our Nation's workers and give them their voice 
back by strengthening protections for our workers so they can freely 
choose to join a union.
  The Employee Free Choice Act will make the promise of employee choice 
a reality, and it will restore the balance of the relationship between 
our employers and our employees. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of 
this important and balanced legislation.
  So why is this bill necessary? Well, because workers should be able 
to share in the prosperity they helped to create. This bill is an 
important step in helping millions of working families get their fair 
share of the economic pie.
  Our Nation's greatest asset is our people. American workers drive our 
economy. Their determination for a better future bolsters our Nation's 
prosperity. That is why I was so concerned to learn that workers 
believe the American dream is slipping away from them today. In fact, 
according to a poll conducted earlier this year by the Change to Win 
Federation, 82 percent of those surveyed said they believe working 
families are falling behind. I find that troubling, given that worker 
productivity has increased 3.1 percent each year between 2000 and 2004, 
and that corporate profits have more than doubled since 2001.
  To me, it doesn't add up that American workers and American families 
are the ones who are losing. They are working very hard to help our 
country prosper, but they are not reaping their fair share of the 
benefits.
  Unions can make a very positive difference. They allow our workers to 
collectively express their voices to employers on working conditions, 
health care, pensions, and other benefits, and the benefits we are 
talking about lead to better lives for Americans. Women who belong to a 
union earn 31 percent more than women workers who are not union 
members. That is an extra $179 a week and $9,300 more a year in income. 
Think about it. An extra $179 could help working moms put more food on 
the table for their family or help to pay for the education of a son or 
daughter. It could help her put a little

[[Page 16303]]

more away for retirement, making she and her family less dependent on 
Social Security.
  Workers who are union members are twice as likely to have employer 
health care coverage. Union families who pay insurance premiums for 
their coverage pay 36 percent less than their counterparts, saving them 
almost $1,300 a year.
  With the enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act, it is estimated 
that up to a quarter of a million workers and their families in my home 
State of Washington alone would participate in their employer's health 
insurance plan. That is a step in the right direction for the 866,000 
Washington State residents who were uninsured in 2005. They are also 
more likely to have guaranteed pensions. Sixty-eight percent of 
unionized workers are covered compared to only 14 percent of nonunion 
workers--68 percent compared to 14 percent.
  The AFL-CIO estimates that up to 250,000 Washington State workers 
would participate in their employer's defined benefit pension plan with 
the passage of the bill we are talking about today.
  Workers recognize the benefits that unions offer them. In fact, 53 
percent of U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could.
  Clearly unions empower their members to access better benefits and 
provide a better life for their families.
  But what about other workers, those who don't belong to a union? Are 
unions beneficial for the rest of us? The answer is an emphatic yes.
  Unions have forged the way for millions of working families--union 
and nonunion--to share in the prosperity they helped create.
  Progressive employment policies such as the minimum wage, the 8-hour 
work day, the 40-hour work week, employer-provided health care and 
pension plans emerged from the labor movement and have become the 
standard in today's workplace.
  I think we can all agree that unions benefit our society as a whole. 
I am sure the 60 million U.S. workers who say they would join a union 
if they could think so, too.
  Why is union membership declining when so many workers want to join 
and unions clearly benefit all of us. As it turns out, exercising your 
right to organize with other workers isn't an easy task under our 
current system.
  The system is broken. We all know that a fair labor market can only 
exist when employers and employees have a respected voice in the 
system. I am sorry to say that is not the case today.
  Some unscrupulous employers are silencing employees who try to join a 
union to better their economic situation for their families, and that 
is not fair.
  Under current law, workers who want to join a union use the majority 
sign up method to let the union know they are interested.
  Then, employers have the power to make a choice.
  They can choose to recognize their employees' wishes, and many 
progressive employers do, or they can demand a NLRB election, stalling 
the process and silencing the voices of their employees.
  During the election process, employers have unlimited access to 
workers in the workplace. They can require workers to attend mass 
meetings to hear antiunion messages and even require one-on-one 
meetings between supervisors and employees. And, under our country's 
labor laws, these practices are perfectly legal.
  I think we can all understand how intimidating these tactics can be. 
More often than not, employers create an unfriendly work environment 
where employees don't feel comfortable discussing unions or their 
benefits. In many cases they fear for their livelihood, and rightfully 
so.
  Unlike the peer relationship between coworkers, employers hold a 
special position of power over their employees. Employers have power 
over a worker's wages and benefits and, ultimately, they can fire an 
employee.
  A recent analysis from the National Labor Relations Board shows that 
one in five union supporters are illegally fired for union activity 
during the organizing campaign.
  Too often, workers who clearly voice their desire for representation 
have been silenced by their employers.
  On the other hand unions do not have access to workers while on the 
job. They are not allowed to enter the workplace at any time to meet 
with employees. Employees interested in learning about union membership 
must meet with representatives and employees on their own time.
  The Employee Free Choice Act does nothing to change this 
relationship. It does not limit the access employers have to workers. 
And, it doesn't expand the union's access to employees on the job.
  If employees make it through this obstacle and elect to form a union, 
the ordeal is not over yet. Bad faith employers can drag out the 
initial negotiations process, often for years, using the time and their 
unlimited access to employees on the job to convince them that unions 
are a bad idea.
  It is easy to see who holds most of the cards in this relationship. 
Workers shouldn't have to risk their livelihoods to exercise their 
right to form a union. But it happens all the time.
  Hardworking Americans shouldn't have to go through such an ordeal to 
form a union. The Employee Free Choice Act can help eliminate some of 
the unfair barriers that workers face and make it easier for them to 
organize.
  How does this bill address the problem?
  The Employee Free Choice Act can make a difference. It can help 
workers gain a respected voice in the conversation with employers, and 
it can penalize bad faith actors who break the law.
  First, the bill ensures that employees who want to organize can do so 
without interference. By allowing employees to choose majority sign up, 
the Employee Free Choice Act gives workers their voice back.
  Second, this bill ensures there's time for reasonable negotiations, 
but it does not allow one side to act in bad faith and string employees 
along in a never-ending process that is designed to block their ability 
to self-organize.
  Third, this bill will hold bad actors accountable if they break the 
law. According to ``American Rights at Work,'' every 23 minutes in 
America, an employer fires or retaliates against a worker for their 
union activity.
  We shouldn't tolerate illegal discrimination and retaliation against 
workers who are just trying to exercise their rights. If an employer 
violates the rights of its employees and is charged by the National 
Labor Relations Board, this bill will impose stricter penalties.
  It balances the playing field by requiring that the NLRB stop bad 
faith employers from interfering in a union campaign or contract 
negotiations.
  It puts teeth in the current law by making employers who break the 
law pay three times back pay and imposes civil penalties for unfairly 
discriminating against pro-union workers.
  This will ensure that breaking the law doesn't just become part of 
``the cost of doing business.''
  Some would have us believe that the Employee Free Choice Act 
radically changes the rules of the game or takes away employers' 
rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  First, it does not eliminate the secret ballot. I am pleased that 
this bill gives employees the opportunity to vote by secret ballot if 
they so choose. For too long, some employers have had control over the 
balloting process, and this bill gets the balance right by making sure 
employees have the free choice to use a secret ballot or majority sign 
up.
  Second, it does not create a new process. Some would have us believe 
this bill upsets the current system by creating a new process for 
forming a union. But majority sign up has always been allowable under 
the law. Today, some progressive employers voluntarily recognize their 
employees' choice to organize.
  Third, it does not trap employees into union membership. Opponents of 
this bill would also have us believe that allowing employees to choose 
majority sign up as their preferred method for choosing a union would 
lead to union coercion or would trap other

[[Page 16304]]

workers into union contracts against their will. That is not true.
  Let's look at the facts about coercion and intimidation.
  American Rights at Work found that antiunion behavior is widespread 
among some employers. Among those employers faced with a union 
campaign, 30 percent of employers fire prounion workers; 49 percent of 
employers threaten to close a worksite when workers attempt to form a 
union, although only 2 percent actually do; 51 percent of employers 
coerce workers into opposing unions with bribery or favoritism--both 
are illegal; 82 percent of employers faced with an organizing campaign 
hire union-busting consultants to stop union campaigns; 91 percent of 
employers force employees to attend one-on-one antiunion meetings with 
their supervisors.
  Some would have us believe that unions can be just as bad, but the 
data doesn't back that up.
  In her testimony before a House committee earlier this year, Nancy 
Schiffer, an attorney with AFL-CIO, told that they had reviewed 113 
cases cited by the HR Policy Association as ``involving'' fraud 
coercion.
  It found that only 42 decisions actually identified coercion, fraud 
or misrepresentation in the signing of union authorization forms--and 
that's since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. 
That is less than one case per year.
  Compare that 1 case a year with the more than 31,000 cases filed in 
2005 alone of employers engaging in illegal firings and other 
discrimination against workers for exercising their right to form a 
union. Clearly, unions have proven to be good faith actors in this 
process.
  Fourth, it does not change an employer's free speech or property 
rights. One thing this bill does not change is the access to employees 
that exists today. Currently, employers have full access to employees 
during the workday. Unions do not. This bill leaves that relationship 
unchanged.
  Finally, it does not bankrupt or harm businesses. Opponents to this 
bill would also have us believe allowing workers the free choice of 
forming a union would be bad for business or would bankrupt employers. 
Again nothing could be further from the truth.
  We know that majority sign up can work for employers and employees 
because it is already happening for some progressive employers. Take 
Cingular Wireless, now known as AT&T, for example.
  In my home State of Washington, we have seen proof that companies can 
remain competitive and profitable and still follow the law and respect 
worker rights.
  Cingular Wireless gave its workers in Bothell, WA, the free choice 
they are entitled to. As a result, nearly 1,000 workers in my hometown 
decided to organize, and Cingular won praise for its responsible, 
respectful approach to employee choice.
  Today, the company continues to be one of the top wireless providers 
in the country. Choosing to respect their employees' choice to unionize 
did not bankrupt them or make them any less competitive.
  This bill helps us find the right balance in relationship between 
workers and management. I hope that my colleagues will join with me in 
raising our voices in support of workers and their families by voting 
yes on this bill.
  Thank you Mr. President,
  I wish to speak to amendment No. 1614 sponsored by Senators Byrd, 
Landrieu, Webb, Rockefeller, Salazar, and Tester.
  The energy bill we have been debating this week is going to bring us 
greater energy independence and clean up our energy supply to help 
combat climate change.
  The bill is clean and green and will make great strides in developing 
clean energy sources, and increasing efficiency.
  But we must admit that we have done little in this bill to address 
America's largest energy resource and also one of our largest 
polluters--coal.
  Coal supplies over half of our electricity generation, it drives our 
industry and manufacturing and can be turned into a liquid 
transportation fuel to replace foreign oil.
  Coal is relatively cheap and easily accessible.
  We have enough coal for 250 years if we keep using it at the same 
rate that we are now.
  Not only are we going to keep using coal, but most energy experts 
predict we are going to use more of it in the future.
  But we have to start doing better when it comes to greenhouse gas 
emissions from coal.
  I do not believe that government has been providing the right 
incentives to move the coal industry in the right direction.

                          ____________________