[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6418-6421]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      RIGHT TO WORK PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I rise today to talk about a piece of 
legislation which will be both a bill that Senator Graham and Senator 
DeMint and I will introduce tomorrow and an amendment that I have filed 
to the small business bill on behalf of the three of us.
  We are calling it the Right to Work Protection Act, and it is our 
intent to preserve the right of each State to make a decision for 
itself about whether it will have a right-to-work law and have an 
ability to enforce it. This is in direct response to an action that the 
National Labor Relations Board has taken against the Boeing Company and 
the plant they are building in South Carolina.
  The National Labor Relations Board has moved to stop Boeing from 
building airplanes at a nonunion plant in South Carolina, suggesting 
that a unionized American company cannot expand its operations into one 
of 22 States with right-to-work laws. These laws protect a worker's 
right to join or not to join a union. In fact, the New Hampshire 
Legislature has just approved its becoming the 23rd such State.
  This reminds me, this action by the National Labor Relations Board 
reminds me of a White House dinner in February 1979 when I was Governor 
of Tennessee. The occupant of the chair has been to those dinners. The 
President has them every year. The only ones invited are the Governors 
themselves and spouses. For me, it was always one of the highlights of 
the year.
  So my first such dinner was with President Carter in 1979. As a new 
Governor, I was paying close attention to what the President of the 
United States had to say. This is what he said:

       Governors, go to Japan. Persuade them to make here what 
     they sell here.

  I walked 1,000 miles across Tennessee to be Governor the year before, 
and I don't remember one single Tennessean who said to me: Lamar, the 
first thing you do when you get in office is go to Japan. That was not 
on our minds. But it was tough economic times. Not many people were 
investing anywhere in the United States at that time. I thought, Well, 
if the President of the United States says, Governors, go to Japan and 
persuade them to make here what they sell here, I should do that.
  ``Make here what they sell here'' was then the union battle cry. It 
was part of an effort to slow the tide of Japanese cars and trucks 
entering the U.S. market. At that time, Americans were very worried 
about Japan. There were books about Japan being No. 1, and the fear was 
that Japan would overwhelm us economically. Cars and trucks from Japan 
were fuel efficient, they were attractive, they were selling, and 
manufacturers and the United Auto Workers here were concerned that we 
would lose a lot of jobs. So the cry was to the Japanese: If you are 
going to sell it in the United States, you need to make it in the 
United States.
  So off I went to Tokyo to meet with the Nissan executives who were 
then deciding where to put their first U.S. manufacturing plant. At 
that time, Japan had very few manufacturing plants in the United 
States. They made there what they sold here. I carried with me on that 
trip a photograph taken at night from a satellite showing the country 
with all of its lights on. Try to visualize that. Because what you see 
if you look at a photograph of the United States at night are a lot of 
lights east of the Mississippi River, but it is pretty dark almost 
until you get to California, and there are a lot of lights down around 
Texas. I was trying to make a point. The Japanese executives, who 
didn't know very much about Tennessee and I didn't know very much about 
Japan, would say to me, Where is Tennessee? I would point to our State 
and say, We are right in the middle of the lights.
  My argument, of course, was that locating a plant in the population 
center of the United States would reduce the cost of transporting cars 
to customers. That population center 70 or 80 years ago was in the 
Midwest where the American automobile was literally invented, and it 
made a lot of sense to build almost all the plants there, because 
transportation costs were less when you send these heavy cars and 
trucks to the customers. So you locate your plant near the population 
center. Gradually, that population center migrated south from the 
Midwest, where most U.S. plants have been, to Kentucky and Tennessee.
  Then the Japanese to whom I was talking examined a second 
consideration: Tennessee has a right-to-work law and Kentucky does not. 
That meant that in Kentucky, workers would have to join the United Auto 
Workers Union. Workers in Tennessee had a choice. In 1980, Nissan chose 
Tennessee, then a State with almost no auto jobs. Today, auto assembly 
plants and suppliers provide one-third of our State's manufacturing 
jobs. Tennessee is home for the production of the Leaf, Nissan's all-
electric vehicle, and the batteries that power them. I am happy to 
report it works well. I have bought one, parked in the garage of the 
apartment where I live here. Recently Nissan announced that 85 percent 
of the cars and trucks it sells in the United States will be made in 
the United States, making it one of the largest so-called ``American'' 
auto companies and nearly fulfilling Mr. Carter's request of 30 years 
ago.
  But now unions want to make it illegal for a company that has 
experienced repeated strikes to move production to a State with a 
right-to-work law. What would this mean for the future of American auto 
jobs? Jobs would flee overseas as manufacturers look for a competitive 
environment in which to make and sell cars around the world.
  It has happened before. David Halberstam's 1986 book ``The 
Reckoning''--about the decline of the domestic American auto industry--
tells the story. Halberstam quotes American Motors president George 
Romney who criticized the ``shared monopoly'' consisting of the Big 
Three Detroit auto manufacturers and the United Auto Workers. Romney 
warned, ``There is nothing more vulnerable than entrenched success.'' 
Detroit ignored upstarts such as Nissan which in the 1960s began 
selling funny little cars to American customers. We all know what 
happened to employment in the Big Three companies.
  Even when Detroit sought greener pastures in a right-to-work State, 
its partnership with the United Auto Workers could not compete. In 1985 
General Motors located its $5 billion

[[Page 6419]]

Saturn plant in Spring Hill, TN, 40 miles from the Nissan plant, hoping 
side-by-side competition would help the Americans beat the Japanese. 
After 25 years, nonunion Nissan operated the most efficient plant in 
North America. The Saturn/UAW partnership never made a profit. Last 
year, GM closed Saturn.
  Nissan's success is one reason why Volkswagen recently located in 
Chattanooga and why Honda, Toyota, BMW, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai, 
and thousands of suppliers have chosen southeastern right-to-work 
States for their plants. Under right-to-work laws, employees may join 
unions, but mostly they have declined. Three times workers at the 
Nissan plant in Smyrna, TN, rejected organizing themselves like Saturn 
employees a few miles away.
  Our goal should be to make it easier and cheaper to create private-
sector jobs in this country. Giving workers the right to join or not to 
join a union helps to create a competitive environment in which more 
manufacturers such as Nissan can make here 85 percent of what they sell 
here.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the amendment and bill that I and Senator Graham and Senator 
DeMint will be introducing tomorrow and which we filed as an amendment 
today.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROTECTION OF RIGHT TO WORK.

       (a) Applicability of NLRA to State Right to Work Laws.--
     Section 14 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     164) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the 
     application of any State law that prohibits, or otherwise 
     places restraints upon, agreements between labor 
     organizations and employers that make membership in the labor 
     organization, or that require the payment of dues or fees to 
     such organization, a condition of employment either before or 
     after hiring.''.
       (b) Applicability of Railway Labor Act to State Right to 
     Work Laws.--Title II of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 181 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 209. EFFECT ON STATE RIGHT TO WORK LAWS.

       ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the 
     application of any State law that prohibits, or otherwise 
     places restraints upon, agreements between labor 
     organizations and carriers that make membership in the labor 
     organization, or that require the payment of dues or fees to 
     such organization, a condition of employment either before or 
     after hiring.''.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair. I wish to add that I saw today a 
representative of the Whirlpool Company which has 2,500 employees in 
Tennessee. He said Whirlpool makes 82 percent of what they sell in the 
United States here in the United States, but that they have a choice. 
They have plants in Mexico as well. It is one more example of why 
allowing States to have a right-to-work law keeps jobs in our country.
  I see on the floor Senator DeMint, whose State is directly affected 
by this NLRB decision. He and I are working together on this 
legislation. I am sure he has comments on the legislation and on the 
decision of the NLRB.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Madam President. I wish to associate myself 
with the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee. I appreciate him 
bringing this up. It is important for us here in the Senate as well as 
everyone around the country to understand what this administration is 
doing to hurt jobs in America.
  This has been a good week for America. We have worked together 
building on a lot of the common principles of our country of a strong 
defense and a robust intelligence system to track down an enemy of 
freedom and to render justice as we had promised. This was done over 
two administrations and many Congressmen and Senators. So this is a 
good day for America. I think we need to take this time to maybe think 
about how we can apply the principles that work in America to our 
challenges back home with our economy and our jobs and our culture, 
because it is a bigger issue we are dealing with in the context of this 
decision by the National Labor Relations Board. We need to use the 
principles that work, but it appears this administration and my 
colleagues on the other side are afraid to let these principles work. 
They seem to be afraid of freedom itself.
  We see in their record over the last 2 years being afraid for 
Americans to make their own decisions about their children's education 
and about their health care. They are afraid to death of letting senior 
citizens manage their own retirement funds and health care plans. They 
are certainly afraid to let States manage their own energy resources or 
decide what roads and bridges to build and where to build them. They 
clearly don't want businesses to make their own decisions about hiring 
and firing. They won't let even community banks make their own 
decisions about who to lend money to, even though these small banks 
have nothing to do with the financial collapse. Clearly, from this 
decision, this administration and the Democratic Party is afraid to 
give employees--workers--the freedom not to join a union.
  It is amazing what this National Labor Relations Board, which has 
been stacked with union folks by the administration, is doing to jobs 
in our States and all across the country. Twenty-two States have right-
to-work laws. In the last few months, my State, along with several 
others, has passed a constitutional amendment that would protect the 
freedom of workers to have a secret ballot when union bosses are trying 
to organize their workplace. A secret ballot is so fundamental to 
American principles and the principles of freedom, but the AFL-CIO is 
suing our State and others to stop us from protecting that freedom of 
workers.
  In the last few weeks, a truly extraordinary thing has happened, as 
this National Labor Relations Board has actually filed suit against 
Boeing, which has located a new facility in South Carolina, claiming it 
was retribution for a strike in Washington. People need to understand 
that Boeing has added 2,000 jobs in Washington since they decided to 
build this new production line in South Carolina. But this 
administration--and I am afraid the majority here in the Senate--is so 
afraid companies will have the freedom to locate new facilities, new 
businesses, in States where their workers are not required to join a 
union.
  Let's put this in a different context. A few weeks ago, a delegation 
from California went to Texas to try to figure out why hundreds of 
businesses are moving from California, taking tax revenue and jobs with 
them to Texas and other States. They didn't need to make the trip. It 
was pretty obvious that the business environment that has been created 
in California by the unions and the politicians has made it very 
difficult for world-class companies to be competitive. What takes a few 
weeks in Texas could take 2 years as far as getting a permit to open a 
new business.
  This is a small look at what is happening to our country, because we 
need to look at why so many companies are moving from our country to 
other countries to do business. It is because of decisions such as this 
and decisions by this administration over the last couple of years that 
have made America a place that is very difficult to do business in.
  I appreciate what the Senator from Tennessee is doing, because this 
is not just about one employer or one State. Twenty-two States are 
right-to-work States. Twenty-two States have decided they are going to 
provide the freedom to their workers not to have to join a union. So 
much of this is political and retribution, not just against Boeing for 
putting a site in a right-to-work State, but it is political 
retribution. The administration, I believe, is acting like thugs that 
one might see in a Third World country, trying to bully and intimidate 
employers who are trying to get out from under this cloud of union 
control. It is a political deal of this administration trying to expand 
unionization and union benefits because the unions give the 
contributions

[[Page 6420]]

to the Democratic Party and get out the vote for the Democrats.
  This is crazy. In an environment where this administration and all of 
us here are saying we are trying to create jobs, there is no question 
what they are doing in South Carolina and around this country by trying 
to force unionization is hurting our business climate in America, it is 
hurting employment, it is diminishing our future as a country, and it 
is all for political purposes.
  It is amazing to see that the unions have such a control over this 
administration, even in passing the stimulus bill. With it went 
requirements that a lot of the contractors who use this money had to 
follow union rules or be unionized. We saw in the health plan that the 
unions were the big proponent of it, but as soon as it passed, they are 
the ones asking for waivers so they don't have to live by it.
  What this administration is doing to one company is a threat to every 
company, every employer, and every worker in this country. It goes back 
to their fear of freedom. The command-and-control paranoia we see in 
this administration is antithetical to everything we understand about 
freedom in our country--of individual responsibility and individual 
freedom--and free markets and free enterprise. They are attacking it on 
every front.
  This decision by the National Labor Relations Board cannot stand. We 
must challenge it here in the Congress; employers need to challenge it; 
states are already challenging it, because it is clearly outside of the 
authority of this Federal Government to be threatening and bullying and 
trying to intimidate companies such as Boeing, which should have the 
freedom to locate their plants anywhere they want. This is 
intimidation. Many of Boeing's contracts are military contracts, and we 
know that is being held over their head.
  This is not the way we should do business in America. This is not the 
way our government should operate. We need to get back to those first 
principles that made us great. Clearly, what this administration is 
doing in this case and many others is way outside the realm of what we 
should expect of a good and decent government, and we are not getting 
it here.
  With that, Madam President, I see the other Senator from South 
Carolina is here, and I will yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I thank my colleague from South 
Carolina, who has been terrific in trying to bring reason to this 
issue. Senator DeMint has been a very strong voice for free enterprise, 
and that is really what this is all about.
  To Senator Alexander from Tennessee, thank you for listening to what 
is going on in South Carolina and understanding this is not just about 
our State, it is about the Nation as a whole.
  The Right to Work Protection Act is a very solid piece of legislation 
that is going to serve the country as a whole. When a State chooses to 
be a right-to-work State, what does that mean? That means no one can be 
forced to join a union. The union can ask for your vote. If you say no, 
that is your decision to make, and if the group says yes, you do not 
have to join. In a lot of States, that is not true. If 51 percent of 
the workforce or 60 percent of the workforce says: We are going to go 
union, everybody else is drafted whether they want to be or not.
  So the concept of right to work is really at stake here, and I do 
appreciate this legislation because it would preserve the ability of 
the State to go down that road without suffering at the Federal level. 
It would prohibit Federal Government contracts, Federal Government 
action from punishing a State that chose to adopt right-to-work laws. 
That is why Senator Alexander's legislation is so important. We are not 
making anyone become a right-to-work State. We are saying: If you 
choose to do that, your Federal Government in the NLRB and other 
organizations of the Federal Government cannot use that against you. We 
are protecting that status. I think that is the balanced approach to 
this dilemma we face.
  Now, what is this dilemma?
  Boeing is one of the great companies in the world. They have a 
history of producing terrific airplanes. They have been located in 
Washington for decades. As a South Carolinian who is very happy Boeing 
has come to South Carolina, I want to acknowledge the Washington 
workforce as one of the best in the world. We hope to build great 
airplanes in South Carolina, but the first thing I want to do is 
acknowledge that my complaint or concern is not with the people of 
Washington, not with the workforce in Washington, it is with the 
actions of the NLRB and this complaint filed by the machinists union. 
So I hope to be in partnership with my colleagues from the State of 
Washington in the Senate and on the House side to pursue good policies 
that not only will be good for Boeing but for the country as a whole.
  South Carolina is going to enjoy the status of being a teammate with 
the people of Washington when it comes to trying to help Boeing and 
manufacturing in general. But what happened is that in October of 2009, 
Boeing decided to create a second assembly plant in South Carolina. 
This is a new assembly plant because the orders for the 787 were so 
large, it necessitated building a second line. Boeing, under the 
contract with the machinists union, reserved in that contract the right 
to locate new business wherever they thought it would be best for 
Boeing. They negotiated with the people in Seattle about producing the 
second line in Seattle, and they went all over the country looking for 
other locations to create a second line.
  They came to South Carolina, and I can assure you, after a lot of 
negotiations, the reason they chose South Carolina was because it was 
the best business deal for Boeing. They negotiated in Washington. They 
negotiated everywhere in the country, really, where they thought they 
could do good business, and South Carolina won out. And there is 
criticism back home that the package we gave Boeing was too generous. 
So I can assure you this was a legitimate business deal, and the idea 
that moving to South Carolina somehow was retaliation that violated the 
National Labor Relations Act section 883 is legally absurd. Under that 
act, a company cannot retaliate against a group of employees or a 
location that decides to unionize.
  You would have to prove in a retaliation complaint that the people 
suffered. Well, in this case, not one person in Pugent Sound or in the 
State of Washington lost their job. Because of the additional business 
being generated in South Carolina, 2,000 people have been hired in the 
State of Washington. Not one benefit was cut from the workforce in 
Washington. Nobody's pay was cut. Nobody's benefits were reduced 
because they moved to South Carolina. So this complaint is just 
frivolous. It is motivated by all the wrong reasons.
  Let's just for a moment assume that it is granted and this is the new 
business model. It would mean basically that if you decide to do work 
in a union plant, you are locked into that location forever; you could 
never move. That is crazy. That is not what the law is all about. The 
law prevents retaliation, and that is a specific concept in the law, 
and none of the factors that would lead to that conclusion exist in 
this case. There is new work. No one lost a job. This is a new line of 
business. And we are arguing about the right of a company to be able to 
make a business decision when it comes to new production. That is why 
this complaint, if it ever gets to Federal court, will fail. It is sad 
that Boeing may have to spend millions of dollars defending itself 
against what I think is a very frivolous complaint.
  But let me tell my colleagues a little bit about this if they are 
wondering about it. Here is something I want to put on the table for 
you to consider. One of the members of the Boeing board at the time 
they chose to come to South Carolina--after a lot of negotiations in 
different places, including Washington and South Carolina--one of the 
board members who approved the second assembly line in South Carolina 
was Bill Daley, the Chief of Staff of the President of the United

[[Page 6421]]

States. At the time, he was not Chief of Staff, he was a member of the 
Boeing board, and they voted unanimously to create a second assembly 
plant in the State of South Carolina. I would argue that Mr. Daley, 
when he cast that vote, understood it was best for Boeing to make this 
decision to locate new business, and he did not believe he was 
violating the law or retaliating against unions. One thing you can say 
about the Daley family, it is not in their DNA to retaliate against 
unions. This was in 2009.
  In March 2010, the machinists union filed its complaint with the 
NLRB. Now, the general counsel, the person holding that title a few 
weeks ago, submitted the complaint to the board. But the story is even 
more interesting. In March of 2010, the complaint was filed by the 
machinists union. The vote to come to South Carolina was in October 
2009. In January of 2011, Mr. Daley was chosen to be President Obama's 
Chief of Staff--a decision I supported and thought was a good decision 
for the administration and the country as a whole because Mr. Daley is 
a Democrat, but he is a very well respected member of the business 
community, someone who has a lot of skill and talent, and the President 
chose wisely. I would assume that in the vetting process they looked at 
Mr. Daley's record of involvement in business and other matters. I am 
assuming the vetting team knew the complaint had been filed by the 
machinists union in March of 2010 and that Mr. Daley voted along with 
the rest of the members of the board to come to South Carolina. And 
they must have concluded that this complaint was frivolous. I assume 
that because if they did not know about the complaint, that was one of 
the worst vetting jobs in the history of the world. And if they thought 
he did engage in illegal activity, it made no sense to hire him.
  So, to my colleagues, I want you to consider the fact that Mr. Daley, 
the current Chief of Staff, voted to come to South Carolina. After he 
voted--a year and a half later--he was chosen to be the Chief of Staff 
of the President of the United States. The Boeing CEO, Jim McNerney, 
was chosen by President Obama to lead his Export Council to create jobs 
for Americans by looking at export opportunities. I would argue that 
President Obama would not have chosen Mr. McNerney if he thought he led 
an effort to retaliate against Washington unions.
  All I can say is this complaint is frivolous. It is taking time and 
money away from creating jobs in South Carolina and Washington. And it 
has national implications. To Senator Alexander, you have found the 
right way for the Congress to address this issue. We are not forcing 
anybody to be a member of a union. We are just saying, if a State such 
as South Carolina or Tennessee chooses to be a right-to-work State, 
that cannot be held against them. This legislation would say to the 
country and the business community as a whole: When you look at where 
to locate, you can consider a right-to-work State without violating the 
law. That is an important concept.
  I can assure you, Boeing came to South Carolina because it was the 
best business deal. They had a lot of choices. They chose South 
Carolina not to retaliate but to create a second line. And here is the 
logic of it: Would you put everything you own in one location in 
today's world? So the idea that they expanded into the second plant in 
a different State, in a different location, makes perfect sense. The 
fact that South Carolina is a low-cost right-to-work State I am sure 
they considered. But under the law, no one in Washington lost one 
benefit they had. No one in Washington lost a job they already had with 
Boeing. The goal of this decision by Boeing is to grow their company. 
If we do well in South Carolina, Boeing does well in Washington.
  This complaint is dangerous. This complaint is a dangerous road to go 
down. This complaint is politics at its worst. The law is designed to 
protect us, and it is being abused, in my view. Politics is about 50 
plus 1. The law is something that should protect us all.
  This complaint filed by the general counsel at the NLRB sets a 
dangerous precedent, and the Congress should speak. The administration 
should speak out and say this is frivolous; they are an independent 
agency; nobody can tell them what to do. But we have an independent 
duty to speak out in a constructive way.
  Senator Alexander's legislation is the appropriate way to address 
this issue, and I wish to thank him on behalf of the people of South 
Carolina and the country as a whole, and I look forward to working with 
him to have this passed.
  To my colleagues on the other side, what is going on in this 
complaint is dangerous for us all and not just South Carolina.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________