[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8830-8835]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Polis). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise 
today to speak on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus about 
the importance of the Employee Free Choice Act.
  First, I want to thank Representatives Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva 
for their leadership as cochairs of the Congressional Progressive 
Caucus. Each week we come to the floor to speak to the American people 
about important progressive values that we share.
  I want to thank also Chairman George Miller for his strong leadership 
on the Employee Free Choice Act and for being a stalwart champion for 
working people throughout his impressive career. I feel fortunate to 
consider Chairman Miller both a friend and a mentor, and especially 
when it comes to workers rights.
  It's time for us to set the record straight about the Employee Free 
Choice Act. Due to the well-funded opposition campaign by corporate 
interests, a lot of misinformation about the Employee Free Choice Act 
has filled our airways, our newspapers, and public discourse. Well, 
it's time for that to stop. Let's set aside the myths and talk about 
reality.
  First, to fully understand the importance of the Employee Free Choice 
Act, an appreciation of the history and context of organized labor in 
America is a prerequisite. In 1935, the Congress passed the National 
Labor Relations Act. The purpose of the legislation, as stated in the 
text, was to protect ``the exercise by workers of full freedom of 
association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of 
their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating the terms and 
conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.''
  Now I know a little bit, but not a lot, about organized labor. What I 
do know is that for my grandfather, for his father, for my mother, the 
importance of organized labor and the labor movement was actually to 
move people into the workforce, into good-paying jobs with great 
benefits and to be able to work into the middle class. This was 
important for my family and it's important to families all across this 
country.
  As a direct result of the act, many decades went by where workers 
successfully formed unions without interference by employers.
  Now, to be sure, let's celebrate the tremendous courage of workers 
across this country and throughout history who stood up for their 
rights--stood up for their rights to good benefits, stood up for their 
rights for good wage, stood up for their rights for working conditions 
that were safe in the work place.
  Over the last decade, the National Labor Relations Board elections 
have fallen by 50 percent. For instance, in 2007, only 30,000 workers 
actually gained collective bargaining through the National Labor 
Relations Board certification. This precipitous decline is due to many 
companies fighting the National Labor Relations Act at every turn and 
the unfair labor practices of many businesses.
  The instances of businesses taking or threatening to take punitive 
actions against employees who attempt to organize have, once again, Mr. 
Speaker, become all too common. In fact, in a recent survey report, 79 
percent of workers were likely or very likely or at least somewhat 
likely to be fired for trying to organize a union. Fired for trying to 
organize a union. Fired for trying to organize collectively to fight 
for themselves and working families in this country.
  In 25 percent of organizing drives, at least one worker is lawfully 
fired for a union activity. Can you believe it--in America you can be 
fired for trying to organize collectively for good benefits and strong 
wages and safe working conditions in your workplace? Yet, this is 
exactly what is happening to workers across this country right here in 
the United States.
  As you can tell in the current business climate that is rife with 
fear and intimidation, workers are rightfully afraid to engage in union 
organizing--afraid to engage in working with their fellow employees to 
fight for their rights as workers.
  Recently, over 150 historians wrote a letter to all of us in Congress 
expressing their support for the Employee Free Choice Act. As they 
note--and I want to emphasize--the Employee Free Choice Act is 
necessary as a direct result of the erosion of good faith actions of 
employers against their employees organizing and forming a union. It is 
a public policy response to those who have been fought against in the 
workplace. It's a public policy response on behalf of workers in 
support of their right to organize and form a union. This climate of 
fear hasn't existed in our Nation for many years. Unfair labor 
practices were originally mitigated by the National Labor Relations 
Act.

                              {time}  1415

  But, once again, our Nation's workers need our help. We must pass the 
Employee Free Choice Act in order to break down the barriers to 
organizing created by far too many employers.
  Now, not all employers are working against workers. In fact, there 
are many employers who are working with workers who are organizing 
collectively to bargain for their rights. But there are some really bad 
actors in the system, and the Employee Free Choice Act aims to clear up 
the bad actors.
  Mr. Speaker, next I believe it is important to address the myths that 
have been perpetrated by businesses determined to deprive workers of 
fundamental rights, and there is a lot of mythology out there. The most 
widely repeated and factually inaccurate statement about the Employee 
Free Choice Act is that it would abolish the secret ballot election. 
You have heard it on the news, you have seen it in the television 
advertising, but it is nothing more than a public relations stunt to 
turn the American workforce against organized labor. So let's clear it 
up.
  The fallacy was actually originated by public relations campaigns 
financed

[[Page 8831]]

by corporations determined to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act. And 
even more frustrating, it has been widely reported as the impetus 
behind former supporters flip-flopping on their Employee Free Choice 
Act position; that is, against workers. This myth is repeated daily by 
the media outlets, opponents, and former supporters, and it is just 
plain wrong.
  The process these critics are referring to is the National Labor 
Relations Board Election. But the reality is, is that it is about the 
employees' choice about what kind of election, what kind of choice they 
want to make. Under the Employee Free Choice Act, the election process 
is preserved. The mythology is wrong.
  Under the Employee Free Choice Act, it would enable the workers 
simply to access a different method, an alternative method to form a 
union, through majorities signing up saying that they want a union and 
that they would prefer that kind of process. Under current law, workers 
can only use the majority signing up on a card process if the employer 
agrees.
  Now, this is a fundamental worker's right to choose what kind of 
election they want. That is what the Employee Free Choice Act is; it is 
about freedom of choice on behalf of the workers to choose the kind of 
process they want to form a union or not. So it doesn't destroy the 
ballot process. In fact, workers could elect still, under the Employee 
Free Choice Act, for a secret ballot, or they could elect to sign up 
with a majority signing up for a union. The difference is that they 
can't be coerced by employers. So there are many myths that have 
permeated the recent dialogue. I want to take a moment to address each 
of these individually.
  First, the first myth is that the secret ballot election protects 
workers' democratic rights. The fact is that the National Labor 
Relations Board election process currently fails to satisfy the most 
basic standards for a free and fair election. In these processes, the 
employer has total access to the employee. The employer can coerce, can 
show videotape, can do all kinds of things to keep employees from 
signing up to form a union. The workers, on the other hand, have very 
little access to their fellow employees to help to organize them.
  Secret ballots in themselves don't guarantee fair elections. We have 
all seen that. There is nothing that is so sacred about that secret 
ballot process when it comes to a union election. So we want to create 
a process by which employees can choose how they want to form a union, 
employees can choose how they want to organize collectively for their 
own benefit.
  So the standard procedure in the National Labor Relations Board--and 
I will just yield for a minute to my colleague who organizes our 
Progressive Hour. I will yield to my colleague from the great State of 
Minnesota to have some dialogue about the Employee Free Choice Act and 
about the benefits to organizing for workers.
  Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Yes.
  Mr. ELLISON. I have a question for you about the Employee Free Choice 
Act. Is this a proven idea? You know, this idea of a card check, of 
getting a majority of the workers to sign up and then have the union 
recognized, has this been tried anywhere before? I yield back.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Employees, actually, in a number of 
countries around the world that have unions that organize, workers who 
organize to form unions in fact use this process, and it would not be 
an anomaly to the United States to use a majority signup process. 
Indeed, here in this country workers have done that as well.
  So what we are doing with the Employee Free Choice Act is we are 
actually codifying the ability of workers to decide how they want to 
organize.
  Mr. ELLISON. In my own city of Minneapolis, the management of the 
city reached out to the workers and said, if you all want to have a 
card check in order to get your union recognized, that is the process 
we will go by. I can list a number of employers who have voluntarily 
done card check, and it has not harmed these companies. In fact, as you 
pointed out, Congresswoman, there are a lot of American companies that 
have very good relationships with their workers that are humming along 
and making profit right now. So there is no reason to believe that if 
we make the Employee Free Choice Act law, that it would in any way 
undermine any productivity.
  May I ask you another question, if I may?
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Reclaiming my time, I would like to say to 
the gentleman from Minnesota that in fact if we study what has just 
happened recently with the auto industry--and many Americans have been 
looking at the business pages and the front pages about the trouble 
that American auto workers and the industry face right now. Those 
employees and employers sat down and bargained in an agreement about 
benefits, about wages, about working conditions. They came to an 
agreement. And it wasn't as though it wasn't a hard-fought agreement. 
Some of these are difficult-to-win agreements. But they did.
  Then, when it came time that the auto industry was facing troubles, 
the auto industry and the union appeared together before the United 
States Congress, and workers sat down at a bargaining table again and 
were willing to make the kinds of concessions that you actually might 
not have gotten if you had to coerce them; but, in fact, they had to 
come together to work on an agreement that would help preserve the 
industry.
  This is the benefit of collective bargaining. This is the benefit of 
having an equal voice for workers as we have for employers.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady would yield, I want to ask you a more 
fundamental question. Are unions good for America? I yield back.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. You know, I come from a family of union 
workers. My grandfather and my great grandfather worked in the coal 
mines of West Virginia, where they didn't enjoy the greatest 
protections in that coal mine. My grandfather in fact ended up dying of 
a respiratory disease. And I think that today, the reason that our mine 
workers enjoy protection, the reason that our auto workers enjoy 
protection on those assembly lines, the reason that workers like my 
mother many years ago in a cannery in California enjoyed protection for 
safety considerations and for wages and benefits was precisely because 
they were enabled to organize as a union.
  So companies that have unions that are organized in their workplace 
actually do enjoy profits, unlike others. There are incentives for 
employees to stay at a workplace and to develop loyalty to that 
employer precisely because they struck a deal.
  So workers are not just a good benefit for organizing and unions 
aren't just a good benefit for workers. As my colleague knows, 
organizing and unions are actually good for employers, they are good 
for economic growth, they are good for productivity. And that is why 
here in the United States over this last decade, as we have seen this 
really precipitous decline in union membership, we have also seen a 
real flat-lining of wages, a flat-lining of benefits. In fact, the 
American workers has lost so much in wages and benefits over this last 
decade that one might argue in fact that it is precisely because they 
are not organized together to form a union to lobby and negotiate on 
their own behalf for benefits that we have seen this decline. And I 
would yield to my colleague.
  Mr. ELLISON. As I might point out, Congresswoman and Mr. Speaker, the 
fact is that having a union creates labor peace. We don't have costly 
strikes, lockouts. We have labor peace. We make an agreement, and 
everybody sort of--we have a refined orderly way to resolve conflict. 
And as you pointed out, sometimes these conflicts over a bargaining 
table are tough struggles. Nobody is expecting to just give anything 
away, but there is an orderly way to resolve issues. Turnover, which is 
a definite killer for productivity, is reduced when you have a union in 
place.
  Unions tend to promote reliability. You have a place to go, you can 
to go your shop steward if there is something

[[Page 8832]]

you think isn't right. And it provides a way for real stability on the 
job. Also, I think it is important to say that a lot of unions have 
training programs of their own, which it shares the burden with the 
employer.
  So unions have been good for many employers and have been good for 
America. Union workers earn 30 percent more than nonunion workers. And 
when it comes to African American unionized people, they earn 56 
percent more than nonunion African Americans. Women benefit from being 
in the union. Upwards of 40, 50 percent of women who are unionized make 
that much more than women who are not. Pensions, medical benefits. It 
is good to have a union job. Everybody knows that. And unions have not 
contributed to economic demise of any community or our country. In 
fact, unions have brought labor peace, unions have benefited our 
country in a great way.
  And I just might add, before I turn it back to the gentlelady from 
Maryland, Congresswoman, I will never forget the image of Walter 
Reuther, the great UAW leader and Martin Luther King walking down 
Woodward Avenue in Detroit. I will never forget that when Martin Luther 
King went to his reward on April 4, 1968, he was at a union. He was 
standing up for garbage strikers, sanitation workers who were on strike 
because they were paid poorly and in unsafe working conditions and were 
dealing with these issues. And it is important to remember that the 
union won that strike.
  So unions have contributed to the life of America. Unions have done a 
service for our great country. And so I think it is important that we 
point that out as we talk about the Employee Free Choice Act. And I 
yield back.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. And to my colleague from Minnesota, first, 
thank you for your leadership and organizing this time when we can 
speak to the American people about important progressive values.
  You know, in the days that exist currently, in the old days, these 
standard Union Labor Relations Board elections have included a lot of 
practices that really that are hard-felt and hit workers in a very 
unfair way.
  For example, employees have no right to free speech in the process. 
Employees can't access media in the process. Employees don't have 
protection against intimidation and one-on-one interviews with their 
supervisors where they could believe that in choosing a union it would 
jeopardize their jobs. Workers are regularly forced to attend anti-
union meetings. Well, the union doesn't and the workers trying to form 
a union don't get that same kind of access to employees. So it is 
really an unfair process that exists currently.
  So what Chairman Miller and all of us in Congress who really want to 
see employees with the free choice, the right to choose a union do so 
because we are interested in workers freely making their own choice 
about their workplace.
  Mr. ELLISON. Would the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. I will in just one minute. But we want to 
know that we want workers able to attend meetings where they can 
discuss the values and the value of organizing in a union, where they 
could discuss the prospects for them ahead in wages and benefits and 
working conditions. And this can only take place in a context where 
those trying to organize a union have as much access to workers as the 
employer does.
  And I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ELLISON. I have heard this term, ``captive audience,'' as I have 
discussed the Employee Free Choice Act, and heard stories about how, 
when the union drive was going on, that the employer can make it a 
condition of a worker's employment that they show up at a meeting where 
they give anti-union messages. Is this really true?

                              {time}  1430

  Is this really true? I yield back. Does this happen in America?
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentleman that what happens in a workplace can sometimes be a little 
innocuous. And so it may not be a direct threat. But if your employer 
is sitting with you, next to you while you're reading a union flier 
about organizing a union in your workplace, that is a little 
intimidating. If a decision by the employer about handing out raises is 
coming along and you're one of the workers trying to organize a union, 
you might believe that in doing that you may not get a raise, very 
intimidating, or that you may be under threat of losing your job 
entirely.
  These are not stories that are made up. These are cases that came 
before the National Labor Relations Board every single day. They are 
stories that come from our organizers out in the field across the 
country who are trying to organize in work places. Indeed this last 
summer I had the real privilege of standing with the workers of the 
United Food and Commercial Workers Union trying to get a union at the 
Smithfield Tar Heel produce processing plant in North Carolina. And the 
intimidation that those workers described in their quest over many 
years to gain recognition in that work place was really tremendous.
  It is unfair. That is the key. It is unfair. Workers ought to be able 
to freely decide with their colleagues and with their co-workers, do I 
want a union representing me or not? Which union do I want to represent 
me? And who is the leadership of that union representing me? These are 
choices that workers ought to be able to freely and independently make. 
And under the current process, that is not happening.
  I would yield to my colleague.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, I'm going to commend you, Congresswoman, for going 
down to North Carolina and standing with those workers. It is not easy. 
I have been on many a picket line myself. I have been on many a union 
drive because I believe in it. I think it strengthens the working 
class.
  You're right. There are subtle points of intimidation to prevent the 
union. But there are lots of places in this country where there is not-
so-subtle intimidation to prevent the union. There are people fired for 
trying to organize a union. And even if you prove that it is an unfair 
labor practice that you were fired for organizing a union, generally 
even if you win, at the NLRB what happens? Well, a minor fine maybe, a 
posting up on the wall that says we were wrong for doing this. In fact, 
it is really not a real deterrent to some of the unfair labor practices 
that we have seen.
  I think that having a union in place would definitely strengthen a 
worker's right to raise issues that are of concern to them at the 
workplace as you point out.
  I hope the gentlelady doesn't mind me taking a little turn to make a 
few comments that I would like to make. And I also want to thank you 
for holding it down. It was your idea that we do the Employee Free 
Choice Act today, it was your organization that brought this session 
about, and this is critically important that we do this subject because 
we do need to help the public understand that a strong workforce that 
is organized and unionized gives voice not just only to unionized 
people but to the entire middle class.
  And so I do want to thank you for organizing this today. All I want 
to do is just take a little short detour for a moment and say that the 
Employee Free Choice Act, we also talk about card check, majority card 
check. As you pointed out, if you get 30 percent of the employees to 
sign a card, you can get an election for a union now. That is the 
present law. And nothing about that will be stripped away by the 
Employee Free Choice Act. But it is also important to say that even if 
you get, even if you get majority sign up and you get the union 
recognized or you get 30 percent which then provokes a union election 
and you get the union recognized that way, that is not the end of the 
Employee Free Choice Act.
  The Employee Free Choice Act recognizes the fact that even after 
union recognition comes, a lot of employers fight and fight the 
contract, and you can have a union but no contract. And I would love to 
hear if you have any stories about that because it is important to talk 
about how workers have dealt with these things.

[[Page 8833]]

  But the Employee Free Choice Act requires a period in which there is 
mediation on the contract, and then if that doesn't work, there is 
binding arbitration on the first contract so that there will be a first 
contract. And after there is one contract, then history tells us there 
will be another one. But there will be a first contract under the 
Employee Free Choice Act. So it is not just card check, but it is 
getting that first contract at the bargaining table.
  So I will yield back to the gentlelady at this time because I just 
want to make sure that we frame what the bill says and what it doesn't 
say. And again I invite the gentlelady if she cares to talk about this 
effort to get the first contract which is so often a difficulty. Of 
course, I don't want to narrow what the gentlelady might comment on.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman from 
Minnesota.
  What I would like to say is that we have all heard, many of us across 
the country have heard the story and the plight of our air traffic 
controllers who after the de-establishment of their union have then re-
established and have been trying to get a contract and are put off time 
and time and time again. And so that the process from the time one 
decides one wants a union, that workers decide they want a union, to 
the time they actually get a contract that they can work under can be 
sorely delayed under the current process. And so what we would like to 
say in the Employee Free Choice Act is, do you know what? Once workers 
have decided that they want to form a union, sit down at the bargaining 
table, come up with a negotiation, negotiate a contract that is fairly 
bargained with the employer on one side of the table and the workers on 
the other side of the table, come up with an agreement, and then get to 
work. And that is all the Employee Free Choice Act does. It is actually 
pretty simple, bargain one, come up with a contract, and get to work.
  So I'm actually excited about the prospect both for workers and for 
their employers to have certainty in the workplace about what the rules 
are, about what the game plan is. And the Employee Free Choice Act 
gives the employees the freedom to choose to have a union, then to 
negotiate an agreement and then to get to work being productive both 
for the employer, but also for themselves and their families. To me 
that seems like a really fair deal.
  There are a lot of myths surrounding the Employee Free Choice Act. 
And some of those have been played out, of course, on television, in 
the newspapers and in the back-and-forth dialogue. But I just want to 
talk about what is important for workers. It is important for workers 
to be protected against pressure. Now some people say, why can't 
workers form a union just like you get into the United States Congress? 
You go and cast your secret ballot, and then you're a Member of 
Congress. Well, the fact of the matter is that when I go and cast my 
ballot for President or for Congress, there is no employer standing 
next to me, there is no employer looking over my shoulder to see what I 
will do or potentially threatening my job. I can cast my ballot and do 
it in relative quiet and safety and under my own guidance.
  This is not true for elections that take place in the workplace. This 
is why it is really important for workers to be able to organize, to go 
around and talk with their colleagues about the importance of forming a 
union and then to get their accord to do so.
  Now it doesn't say that if employees decide that they want to have a 
secret ballot election that that can still take place. The point is, 
there is a choice. And it is not the employer's choice. It is not 
Congress' choice. It is the employees' choice about what they want to 
do. And so we have to really destroy this mythology.
  Before we go on, I would like to talk about another myth because 
there are a lot of myths surrounding the Employee Free Choice Act.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady will yield just on that point.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Certainly.
  Mr. ELLISON. I'm curious to get the gentlelady's views on this point.
  Now, on that myth you just talked about right there, is it common, in 
your view, allowing for the fact that there are a lot of good employers 
who cooperate with their unions, but is it common in your view for some 
of these folks who are opposing the Employee Free Choice Act, some of 
these big CEOs who are opposing the Employee Free Choice Act, to spend 
a lot of time worrying about whether a worker has a private ballot or 
not? Is there any irony here that you have been able to detect?
  I yield back.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman.
  This notion that somehow I think that these CEOs are looking out for 
the workers, they want to protect the workers, let's destroy that myth 
as well. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that, in fact, what we have with 
the Employee Free Choice Act is a pretty simple and perhaps even old 
battle. You have employers who don't want a union because they know 
that union workers organized collectively will bargain for good wages, 
good benefits and safe working conditions. And on other hand, you have 
employees who want to form a union precisely because they don't have 
good wages, they don't have good benefits, and they don't have safe 
working conditions.
  The reality is that it is cheaper not to provide good wages, it is 
cheaper not to provide good benefits, and it is cheaper not to have 
safe working conditions. And so employers can't both want to produce a 
product or a service and make a lot of profit on that at the expense of 
workers.
  So, all we are asking, and it is a pretty simple prospect, we are 
asking simply for workers to be able to organize themselves, decide who 
represents them, and sit down as an equal bargaining partner at the 
bargaining table with their employer. And in the end, it is a win-win 
for employers and for workers.
  And I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ELLISON. And I would add to society at large.
  Let me say that 79 percent of workers surveyed reported that workers 
are very, or at least somewhat, likely to be fired for trying to 
organize a union, an important fact I think we need to point out. And 
in about 25 percent of all organizing drives, at least one worker is 
unlawfully fired for union activity.
  So again, this kind of protection, this stress-free way to either 
have a union recognized or not I think is a very, very good idea.
  I believe the gentlelady was kind of going down myths that are out 
there. Let's bust a few more myths. I think that it is important to 
point out that this does not hurt small business. Small businesses 
would not be harmed by the Employee Free Choice Act. In fact, small 
business stand to gain from the Employee Free Choice Act. It is 
interesting to me that in a time when we talk about ``too big to fail'' 
and these huge, enormous businesses, some of them opposing the Employee 
Free Choice Act, it is the small business, again, that is often at the 
back end of the line on this stuff. But along that alone, let's just 
say that small business owners are supporting the bill and are 
beginning to speak out all over the country.
  In fact, a Wisconsin company, Wisconsin Vision, owned by Darren 
Horndasch, says that having a union makes his employees more career 
oriented, more invested in his business and gives him a competitive 
edge. Jim O'Malley, owner of a print shop in Pittsburgh, says that he 
values the union apprenticeship program for his employees. Again, 
sharing training expenses with the union is a benefit to this small 
business employer. Ruth Shep, a business owner in West Fargo, North 
Dakota, says ``good jobs support families, they support the 
community.'' And she wants to see workers be able to form a union and 
to have a choice in our economy. Larry Thompson, owner of an Ohio firm, 
Thompson Electric, recently wrote an op-ed in which he wrote, ``our 
union workers receive the most cutting-edge job training available, and 
it pays off through lower injury rates, increased productivity and 
strengthening the ability to serve the people of Ohio.''

[[Page 8834]]

  So I would agree with you. It is cheaper in the short term, this 
quarter, to try to shave a buck here a buck there. But if you want a 
successful business, you have to build over the long term. That means 
having a good, solid, well trained, reliable and productive workforce. 
And you can't do that on the cheap. And that is why we need the 
Employee Free Choice Act.
  And I yield back to the gentlelady.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Reclaiming my time.
  I would like to point out to the gentleman as well, and, Mr. Speaker, 
you know this, that, in fact, what has been good for unions and for 
union workers has been good for all workers. Now I have never been a 
member of a union. But I do know that when I was working in the low-
wage workforce that precisely because union workers had gained 
benefits, increased wages and working standards, that there was a 
payoff for me as a worker who was not a union member. It meant that 
over time my wages went up because the union workers were the ones who 
fought the most for an increase in the minimum wage, not because union 
workers were receiving minimum wages, but because their fight and 
struggle for a good-paying union job was a fight and a struggle for 
ordinary workers, even those who were working at the minimum wage. So 
the payoff for the union worker and for the organized workforce is that 
there is a benefit, then, to all of us.
  I remember when I was working, Mr. Speaker, as a waitress and 
scrubbing by on tips that it was precisely because union workers fought 
for an increase in wages that that benefited me as a nonunion worker. 
And so there are great benefits.
  We know that the fight for union wages that are good wages, good 
benefits and safe working conditions is a fight that pays off both here 
in the United States and around the world. After all, when employers 
are allowed to close down union factories here in this country, 
relocate them to another country where they pay depressed wages, that 
has a benefit around the world, and it has a direct benefit, a negative 
consequence to American workers.

                              {time}  1445

  And so the strength of being able to organize unions and to bargain 
collectively for benefits and wages and safe working conditions is one 
that pays off to all workers in this country, and indeed, pays off to 
workers around the world.
  And let me just throw out another one of these myths, because some 
have said that if we implement the Employee Free Choice Act, then 
that's going to result in labor unions engaging in intimidating and 
harassing behavior towards employees. This seems rather ridiculous Mr. 
Speaker, that, in fact, when labor unions and workers want to organize, 
it is not in their interest to harass and intimidate workers. The goal 
is to bring workers along. And so this is a myth also that has to be 
destroyed and that indeed, in the present system, the coercion occurs 
in the other way, the coercion occurs from employers who don't want to 
see a union workplace.
  And look what happens in communities. I happen to live in a district 
in Maryland in which we have one hotel on a project where the work 
force is organizing, where there will be good wages and benefits for 
the service employees at that hotel. And that's a good thing, and I 
fought for it too. But in the other hotels, that's not happening. And 
so you can imagine that if we actually lift up workers in one work 
site, that we have the possibility then of lifting up workers in 
another work site.
  And as you've pointed out, the gentleman from Minnesota has pointed 
out that, in fact, Mr. Speaker, that means that all workers benefit 
from the ability to organize to form a union.
  And I would yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank you, Congresswoman Edwards, for doing this 
again. So many myths you're busting tonight, so much good information, 
including the panels that are right next to you.
  But I just want to say that, you know, as you're busting myths 
associated with the Employee Free Choice Act, and I thank you for that, 
let me just talk about a few other things that unions have done for me 
and you. Worker compensation. That's because workers fought for it. 
Social Security, that's a pretty good thing, right? Minimum wage, I'd 
say that's a thumbs up. The weekend. You want to thank somebody for the 
weekend, you can thank the union movement. The 8-hour day, prohibitions 
against child labor so we don't have 9-year-olds slaving away for 14 
hours a day 7 days a week. Worker safety, used to be, Congresswoman 
Edwards, that if you lost your thumb at that punch press, they couldn't 
use you anymore, you just had to leave. Now we've got worker safety and 
requirements, OSHA. Setting a wage scale. As you pointed out, as a 
worker who was on the lower end of the wage scale, you could thank the 
union movement for setting a minimum wage and for setting a wage scale 
that other employers had to meet, or they would lose workers because 
they would come to the higher wage area.
  The union movement, as I pointed out a moment ago, contributed to the 
civil rights movement, for women, for people of color. And even today, 
so many struggles for union representation are caught up in struggles 
for empowerment, for people who are legal immigrants to our society, 
communities of color, women, people who are fighting for a chance in 
our society. The union movement has done a lot for us all.
  I yield back.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. And reclaiming my time from the gentleman, I 
would say this as well; that, you know, people ask me all the time, 
even as a Member of Congress, and certainly as a worker, why do you 
support workers' rights to organize? And it's a pretty simple answer. I 
support workers' rights to organize because I recognize the benefit 
that that pays to all of us in our communities. And you know, our small 
businesses out there want to be able to provide, for example, health 
care for their employees. And it's really tough for a small business to 
do that because health care costs have so skyrocketed, and it cuts 
deeply into even marginal profit lines.
  On the other hand, the unions are out there fighting for health care 
for all of us, for a system that would actually provide health care at 
a lower cost, affordable and accessible for all of us. What does that 
mean for small business? It means it takes it off of your, you know, 
out of your pot. And so that's an important benefit from small business 
that will only come because we are working together with members of 
organized labor to fight for health care for all of us.
  Let's talk about what it means to have workers in our community who 
are able to go out and purchase the services of our small businesses 
and the products produced by all of our businesses. Well, we certainly 
cannot do that on stagnant wages. And so, when the unions are out there 
able to organize workers to negotiate contracts with their employers, 
creating certainty in the workplace, then employers and businesses can 
work on productivity, can work on efficiency and can work on growth. 
And this benefits all of us, from those of us who want to go out into 
the consumer marketplace and purchase a television made by a worker, or 
those of us who want to go and get the services supported by union 
workers. And so it's, again, a win-win situation for all of us.
  And I'd like to say, as well for our brothers and sisters in 
organized labor, Mr. Speaker, there are no harder workers than people 
who get up every day and do the tough jobs, some of them jobs that many 
of us don't want to do, but need to be done. And so, this notion that 
somehow we should deprive them of wages and benefits and safe working 
conditions really goes against our gut, goes against who we are as 
Americans, and because we know that from the beginnings of the last 
century, the hard-fought benefits that you pointed out, of Social 
Security, of the 8-hour work day, of the 40-hour work week, of setting 
a minimum scale for a standard for wages and for working conditions,

[[Page 8835]]

ensuring protections if that thumb was cut off on the production line, 
these are all things that, because union workers stood on the line and 
fought the hard, tough, courageous battles for all of us, that whether 
you're a union worker or not, you get the benefit of that.
  Even those of us who are Members of Congress have the benefit of 
workers having organized. The mere fact that we can put into a 
retirement system is about workers having organized and fought for 
those benefits in their workplace. And so the benefits are tremendous 
for all of us.
  And that is why, in all of our communities, as we're talking about 
spending stimulus dollars to the billions of dollars throughout the 
States on transportation projects and water and sewer infrastructure 
and all of the energy infrastructure that we need for the 21st century, 
what we really need are skilled union workers getting highly paid, you 
know, wages and benefits and safe working conditions to rebuild our 
infrastructure for the 21st century. And you can only get that when 
workers are able to organize.
  And so I would yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. And I again want to thank the gentlelady from Maryland, 
Congresswoman Edwards. You're doing a great job here, a great service 
getting the word out. And I want to lend my voice and thank you. Again, 
reminding everybody that we are here on the progressive message. The 
Progressive Caucus has a vision for America that includes workers' 
rights, and we're talking about that today.
  And I just want to say, as I begin to have to wind down, 
Congresswoman, that I just want to leave with this thought. You know, 
you and I know that this Congress has been abuzz over the last week, 
over the whole AIG thing, right? We've been talking about AIG, AIG. And 
what have we been talking about? These enormous bonuses these folks 
have been getting. $165 million in retention bonuses to people who work 
in the unit of AIG that did all these fancy derivatives that kind of 
led to this tremendous risk to the American economy.
  But this idea of work, executive pay, Congresswoman, is not a new 
one. In fact, it was 1991, when I was a brand new lawyer, just got out 
of law school in 1990, and I read a book called In Search of Excess. 
And in this book it talked about executive pay, exorbitant executive 
pay. 1991. I think I was 25 years old at the time.
  What's my point?
  My point is, that during the same period of time we've seen flat 
worker pay. We've seen worker pay stay stagnant. We've seen people's 
unemployment rise recently, but we've seen the health care plans have 
higher co pays, more of a premium every month, and we've seen workers 
really struggling, and we've seen productivity going up. So we see flat 
worker pay, increasing productivity, meaning workers are making more 
stuff and doing more services within the same amount of time, and so 
the reality is, somebody's got to stand up for the American worker.
  I think it's almost time for us to wrap up. I am going to leave that 
to you, the Congresswoman from Maryland, who's done such a good job in 
organizing this special order tonight for the Progressive Caucus.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. And if I could make an inquiry of the 
Speaker how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 14 minutes remain.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  You raise a good point. And I know that my colleague from Minnesota, 
a real leader in the Progressive Caucus, is set to depart. But I will 
just say this as you're leaving, that this fight for the Employee Free 
Choice Act is really a fight for justice for the American worker. And 
it's a fight to set the American worker back on course for productivity 
and for growth and for success. And so I think that it's time for those 
of us who believe in the capacity of the American worker to stand up 
for workers by supporting the Employee Free Choice Act. And you know, 
Mr. Speaker, the Employee Free Choice Act was just introduced into 
Congress just a week or so ago, and so it is time now for Members of 
Congress to really hear, Mr. Speaker, from constituents about their 
support of the Employee Free Choice Act, and to say to the United 
States Congress that it is time for workers to get a fair deal.
  When I hear you describe, and we read across the papers the excesses 
of CEO executives in the financial industry, and that ordinary workers 
have to bear the burden of paying the cost for straightening this 
system out, it makes me cringe. And the reason that it does, Mr. 
Speaker, is because it's unfair to workers.
  You know, when the auto industry came to the United States Congress 
and said, we're going to need help, otherwise the auto industry may not 
survive, you know, many Members of the United States Congress said to 
auto workers, well, you have to go back and renegotiate your contracts 
and your deal, talking to workers and telling workers that they to 
renegotiate their deals. But we haven't been willing really to say to 
CEOs, I'm sorry but you got quite a deal too. You need to go back and 
renegotiate that with the American public.
  And so I think it's time for us to actually close that gap from CEO 
pay to worker pay, because it's the workers that prop up, that build 
this country. And yet, year after year, decade after decade, workers 
are losing. And the Employee Free Choice Act is yet another tool that 
we have that we will provide to workers so that it enables them to 
organize, to bargain collectively and fairly, as partners at a table, 
with employers and to say to employers, once again, we don't have 
anything against your making money, making a profit, building your 
business. But you cannot do that at the expense of and on the backs of 
workers.
  And I think it's a fairly simple proposition, and I think it is one, 
Mr. Speaker, that the American public feels very strongly about, that 
somehow, all of us who get up every day and go to work for a living 
ought to have good wages, good benefits and safe working conditions, 
just three simple things.

                              {time}  1500

  Because the American worker is not asking anyone, really, for a 
handout. The American worker is not asking for an easy deal or for a 
bonus. They are saying fair wages, good and safe working conditions and 
good benefits. I think that the American worker deserves the 
opportunity to sit at a bargaining table to decide: I want to have a 
union; I want to easily sign up and let my coworkers know that I want a 
union; I want the choice to be able to do that, and then I want to 
bargain fairly at the bargaining table with the employer. I think that 
that, Mr. Speaker, is a good deal for the American people.
  So I am excited about the prospects. I think it is important for us 
to destroy the mythology that is taking place from some who don't 
really believe in the American worker, and I think it is important for 
us to destroy the mythology of those who believe that just because a 
worker gets a good wage and good benefits and good working conditions 
it means that that is the end of the American economy. It is not true. 
It never has been true, and it will not be true tomorrow.
  So I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for joining me this evening 
to speak up on behalf of the American worker and to speak up and say 
that the Employee Free Choice Act is about choice. It is not my choice. 
It is not your choice. Mr. Speaker, it is not your choice. It is the 
choice of the American worker to choose a union, to bargain fairly, to 
get a good deal, and to go to work the next morning to take care of 
themselves and their families.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________