[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5379-5380]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     NLRB RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL

 Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I am in support of S.J. Res. 36 and 
thank the Senator from Wyoming for introducing it.
  I worry that the recent direction of the National Labor Relations 
Board is killing American jobs, not creating them. This resolution 
concerns a new rule regarding ambush or quickie union elections. But 
this action is just the latest in a number of other anti-job creation 
activities at the NLRB.
  The case last year against the Boeing Corporation is a perfect 
example of where the NLRB actions threatened to kill thousands of new 
U.S. jobs. By threatening to shut down a new plant producing the new 
787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, the NLRB's actions would have cost 
Boeing billions of dollars. This case has made U.S. companies 
reconsider building new plants at home, costing high-quality American 
jobs.
  I am particularly worried about a proposed rule by the NLRB that 
would require employers to turn over employee personal contact 
information to unions, including personal e-mail addresses and cell 
phone numbers. This is a blatant violation of an individual's privacy. 
No one should have access to that type of information, unless you want 
to provide it. As a Congressman, I fought for easy access to opt into 
the Do Not Call List, so that you will not be disturbed by unwanted 
telephone calls. This rule would allow unions to have access to that 
very same information that the overwhelming majority of Americans do 
not want to be public. The NLRB is completely out of touch with what is 
important to Americans.
  The resolution on the floor of the Senate specifically addresses the 
new NLRB rule that would shorten the time frame for a union election to 
as little as 10 days. The new rule is set to go into effect on April 
30. These ambush elections rush workers into making quick decisions, 
which are often uninformed ones, on an issue that directly affects 
their every day life in the workplace. Forcing workers to make this 
quick decision runs against the heart of our democratic system, based 
on the principles of fairness and justice.
  Quickie elections will be particularly harmful to small businesses. 
Small businesses are the engine of our economy and our greatest job 
creators. Small business owners have a range of responsibilities and 
fewer resources than larger corporations. They will struggle to respond 
to the new, accelerated timeframe for elections. Their compliance costs 
will almost certainly rise; taking money that could have been put into 
enhancing their business, growing the economy, and creating jobs.
  The NLRB continues to find ways to prevent job growth and inhibit our 
economy instead of enhancing it. This new rule on ambush elections is 
no different. I thank the Senator from Wyoming, my ranking member on 
the HELP Committee, for this resolution and I urge its passage.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, today I would like to discuss my strong 
opposition to the resolution before us, the resolution disapproving of 
the National Labor Relations Board's final rule governing election 
procedures. This rule seeks to modernize and streamline a process that 
is currently costly, inefficient, and promotes unnecessary delay.

[[Page 5380]]

  Let's be clear about what the rule does and does not actually do. 
This rule does not fundamentally change how workers are permitted to 
organize. This rule does not prevent employers from talking to their 
workers about unionization. This rule is not the Employee Free Choice 
Act by fiat. This rule does not require that an election take place in 
a set number of days. These are all of the claims that have been levied 
against this rule, and, factually, none of them are true.
  The rule's modifications are purely procedural. Here is one example. 
Under the current rules, companies often spend weeks litigating the 
eligibility of a handful of workers even though the election is 
ultimately decided by 50 or 100 votes. Those disputed votes couldn't 
have determined the outcome of the election--the only consequence was 
delay. So under the new rules, disputes about small numbers of voter 
eligibility can be decided after the election. The workers in question 
can cast provisional ballots, just as they do in political elections.
  These exact circumstances played out in Minnesota. On April 8, 2008, 
office clerical workers in Virginia, MN, filed a petition for a union 
election. But because the parties litigated the status of a single 
employee, the unit was not certified until June 10th of that year--64 
days after the petition was filed. Under the new rule, the issue 
concerning that single employee could have been resolved after the 
election, and the election would have been conducted with less delay 
and uncertainty.
  These rules don't favor either unions or companies. They favor 
efficiency and modernization. They are narrowly tailored--targeting 
only those elections that face the longest delays. A vast majority of 
election schedules are agreed to by the parties--90 percent. This rule 
would only affect the other 10 percent. These rules favor better use of 
resources. These are the types of government reforms that we should be 
promoting--cutting down on bureaucracy and red tape.
  Unnecessary delays hurt workers seeking to exercise their rights in 
the workplace--whether they are seeking to certify or decertify a 
union. These rules simply give workers a chance to vote yes or no.
  Working families in Minnesota and across this country are still 
struggling. The middle class--has been ailing for decades. Without a 
strong middle class folks who can afford to buy a home and a car and 
send their kids to college--our country's economic future is tenuous. 
Protecting the ability of working people to have a voice--to vote yes 
or no--will bring more middle-class jobs with good wages and benefits 
that can drive our recovery forward.
  The NLRB's rules are modest and reasonable. They uphold the 
principles of democracy and fairness that have shaped our Nation's 
workplace laws. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Enzi 
resolution. If enacted, this resolution would prohibit the National 
Labor Relations Board, NLRB, from implementing commonsense, 
straightforward changes to the union representation process that will 
ensure union elections are conducted in a more fair and efficient 
manner.
  The new rules, which will go into effect on April 30, will make it 
easier and less burdensome for workers and employers to navigate the 
union election process.
  Workers and employers will now be able to electronically file 
election petitions and other documents. Timely information essential to 
both sides being able to fully engage in the election process will be 
shared more quickly. Time frames for parties to resolve issues before 
and after elections will be standardized. Duplicative appeals processes 
that cause unnecessary delays will be eliminated. Both sides will be 
required to identify points of disagreement and provide evidence at the 
outset of the election process, helping to eliminate unnecessary 
litigation.
  The modest reforms proposed by the NLRB do not mandate timetables for 
elections to occur, as some of my colleagues will allege; rather, the 
new rules simply eliminate existing barriers that get in the way of 
providing employees and employers with access to an open and fair 
election process. As Catholic Healthcare West, which employs most of 
its 31,000 workers in my State of California, wrote during the public 
comment period: ``[the] reforms proposed by the NLRB are not pro-union 
or pro-business, they are pro-modernization.''
  I urge my colleagues to support modernization and oppose the Enzi 
resolution.

                          ____________________