[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 3131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 800, THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, February 5, 2007

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, today, I am pleased 
to be joining 230 of my colleagues in introducing H.R. 800, the 
Employee Free Choice Act. The Employee Free Choice Act is a bipartisan 
bill designed to provide workers with a fair opportunity to bargain 
with employers for better wages, benefits and working conditions.
  In recent years, despite a growing economy, the middle class has been 
squeezed. Corporate profits and executive compensation have 
skyrocketed, but the middle class has seen their wages stagnate, while 
the costs for basic needs like healthcare, education, food, energy and 
housing continue to increase. Globalization and misguided government 
policies have contributed to a growing income disparity and less 
economic security for middle class families.
  One way to help the middle class is to provide them with a fair 
opportunity to organize and join unions, so they can have a say in what 
goes on in the workplace. Workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent 
more than nonunion workers. In addition, they are 62 percent more 
likely to have employer-provided health coverage and four times more 
likely to have pensions.
  The current process for forming unions is badly broken and so skewed 
in favor of those who oppose unions, that workers must literally risk 
their jobs in order form a union. Although it is illegal, one quarter 
of employers facing an organizing drive have been found to fire at 
least one worker who supports a union. In fact, employees who are 
active union supporters have a one-in-five chance of being fired for 
legal union activities. Sadly, many employers resort to spying, 
threats, intimidation, harassment and other illegal activity in their 
campaigns to oppose unions. The penalty for illegal activity, including 
firing workers for engaging in protected activity, is so weak that it 
does little to deter law breakers.
  Even when employers don't break the law, the process itself stacks 
the deck against union supporters. The employer has all the power; they 
control the information workers can receive, can force workers to 
attend anti-union meetings during work hours, can force workers to meet 
with supervisors who deliver anti-union messages, and can even imply 
that the business will close if the union wins. Union supporters' 
access to employees, on the other hand, is heavily restricted.
  The Employee Free Choice Act would add some fairness to the system 
by: (1) allowing a majority of employees the opportunity to select to 
be represented by a union by expressing their decision through the 
signing of authorization cards; (2) provide for mediation and 
arbitration when workers and employers cannot agree on a first 
contract; and (3) increase penalties against employers who threaten, 
intimidate or fire workers for engaging in protected activity.
  I urge all my colleagues to join in this effort to provide working 
people with a real opportunity to bargain for better wages and 
benefits.

                          ____________________