[House Report 112-179]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    112-179

======================================================================
 
           PROTECTING JOBS FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE ACT

                                _______
                                

 July 25, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

     Mr. Kline, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
                        submitted the following


                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2587]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was 
referred the bill (H.R. 2587) to prohibit the National Labor 
Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, 
or transfer employment under any circumstance, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

   This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Jobs From Government 
Interference Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF THE NLRB.

   Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160) is 
amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``: 
Provided further, That the Board shall have no power to order an 
employer (or seek an order against an employer) to restore or reinstate 
any work, product, production line, or equipment, to rescind any 
relocation, transfer, subcontracting, outsourcing, or other change 
regarding the location, entity, or employer who shall be engaged in 
production or other business operations, or to require any employer to 
make an initial or additional investment at a particular plant, 
facility, or location''.

SEC. 3. RETROACTIVITY.

   The amendment made by section 2 shall apply to any complaint for 
which a final adjudication by the National Labor Relations Board has 
not been made by the date of enactment of this Act.

                                Purpose

    H.R. 2587, the ``Protecting Jobs From Government 
Interference Act,'' seeks to strengthen the United States 
workforce and reduce uncertainty by ensuring foreign and 
domestic employers are free to invest in our economy and create 
jobs, without fear of a government board dictating where they 
can and cannot locate work. The bill amends the National Labor 
Relations Act (NLRA) to prohibit the National Labor Relations 
Board (NLRB), in future and pending cases, from ordering any 
employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any 
circumstances.

                            Committee Action

    On July 19, 2011, Representative Tim Scott (R-SC) 
introduced H.R. 2587, the ``Protecting Jobs From Government 
Interference Act.'' Original cosponsors include Chairman John 
Kline (R-MN), and Representatives Phil Roe (R-TN), Joe Wilson 
(R-SC), and Trey Gowdy (R-SC). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce. Given the legislative 
record developed through hearings in the 112th Congress, no 
additional hearings were necessary prior to full committee 
markup.
    The Committee on Education and the Workforce held three 
hearings examining the actions of the NLRB. While the NLRB is 
intended to be a neutral arbiter of labor law, witnesses 
provided evidence that the NLRB is pursuing an activist agenda 
and no longer serving as an adjudicative body mediating 
disputes. At the two most recent hearings, witnesses discussed 
the complaint against the Boeing Company, the restoration 
remedy sought by the NLRB's Acting General Counsel, and the 
chilling effect this complaint is having on the economy and job 
creation.
    The Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 
held a hearing on February 11, 2011, to examine specific NLRB 
holdings, rulemakings, and policies. Witnesses identified and 
discussed a number of recent controversial and unprecedented 
decisions upending years of legal precedent. Witnesses provided 
evidence that indicates the current board is seeking to rewrite 
federal labor law.
    On May 26, 2011, the Subcommittee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions held a second hearing, which explored the 
relatively new phenomenon known as corporate campaigns, their 
effects on job creation, and the extent to which federal 
agencies, such as the NLRB, are often complicit in their use. 
Two employers outlined how these campaigns had intimidated 
their employees and undermined the success of their businesses. 
The committee also heard testimony regarding the complaint 
against the Boeing Company and the request by the NLRB's Acting 
General Counsel that Boeing be ordered to relocate work in 
South Carolina to Washington.
    Finally, on July 7, 2011, the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce held a hearing examining the Board's proposal to 
shorten the time between the filing of a union election 
petition and a representational election; a proposal the 
committee learned will restrict employers' ability to 
communicate with workers and undermine employees' right to make 
a fully informed decision in a union election. Again, the 
complaint against the Boeing Company and the remedy sought by 
the Acting General Counsel was discussed. Witnesses raised a 
number of concerns regarding the the chilling effect the Boeing 
complaint is having on job creators.

                                Summary

    H.R. 2587, the ``Protecting Jobs From Government 
Interference Act,'' amends the NLRA to prohibit the NLRB, in 
future and pending cases, from ordering an employer to close, 
relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstances. This 
will ensure employers have greater freedom to make one of the 
most basic management decisions, where to locate a business. In 
doing so, it will help create an economic environment that will 
foster investment and job creation. To ensure employees can 
continue to exercise their rights under federal labor law, the 
NLRB will continue to have more than a dozen strong remedies 
against unfair labor practices to protect workers and hold 
unlawful employers accountable.

                            Committee Views

    In 1935, Congress passed the NLRA, guaranteeing the right 
of most private employees\1\ to organize and select their own 
representative. Twelve years later, in 1947, Congress passed 
the most significant amendment of the NLRA, the Taft-Hartley 
Act,\2\ to provide for a more balanced approach to labor law. 
Among other things, it made clear that employees had the right 
to refrain from participating in union activity, created new 
union unfair labor practices, and allowed states to enact 
right-to-work laws, limiting the compelling of workers to join 
a union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\The NLRA does not cover all employees and employers in the 
United States. For example, public sector employers (state, local, and 
federal employees), employers covered by the Railway Labor Act 
(airlines and railroads), agricultural labor, and supervisors are not 
covered by the act. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 152(2).
    \2\29 U.S.C. Sec. 141 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The National Labor Relations Board, an independent federal 
agency, was established by the NLRA to fulfill two principal 
functions: (1) to determine by free democratic choice whether 
employees wish to be represented by a union in dealing with 
their employers and if so, by which union; and (2) to prevent 
and remedy unlawful acts (called unfair labor practices or 
ULPs) by either employers or unions.
    Section 10(c) of the NLRA authorizes the NLRB to require 
persons found engaged or engaging in an unfair labor practice 
``to take such affirmative action including reinstatement of 
employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the 
policies of [the NLRA].'' Pursuant to section 10(c) of the 
NLRA, the Board may order a restoration of operations, forcing 
employers to close, relocate, or transfer work from one 
location to another. While there are limitations on the use of 
the restoration remedy, the Board has ordered this remedy 
multiple times since its inception. As recently as 2003, the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
upheld the Board's use of the restoration remedy. Recently, the 
Acting General Counsel has sought this extreme remedy in the 
complaint against the Boeing Company.
    On March 26, 2010, the International Association of 
Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge No. 751 (Local 
751) filed a charge with the NLRB alleging that Boeing had 
violated sections 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor 
Relations Act (NLRA). At the heart of the charge was Boeing's 
decision to locate the second 787 Dreamliner assembly line in 
South Carolina rather than Washington and alleged statements 
made by Boeing executives between October 2009 and March 2010 
which stated that work stoppages were one reason for choosing 
the South Carolina location.
    Almost a year later, on April 20, 2011, after Boeing had 
invested approximately $1 billion in building the South 
Carolina plant, the NLRB Regional Director was directed by the 
NLRB Acting General Counsel to issue a complaint against 
Boeing. Throughout the complaint, the Regional Director alleges 
that Boeing ``transferred'' work from Washington.\3\ According 
to the Regional Director, the transfer of the 787 Dreamliner 
assembly line in conjunction with alleged comments made by 
Boeing between October 2009 and March 2010 violated sections 
8(a)(3) and 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.\4\ Despite the fact that no 
union employee at the Washington facility has lost his or her 
job as a result of Boeing's decision to locate the second 787 
Dreamliner assembly line in South Carolina, the Regional 
Director has sought an extraordinary remedy, requiring Boeing 
to operate its second line of 787 Dreamliner aircraft assembly 
production in the State of Washington.\5\ If successful, the 
NLRB may destroy thousands of South Carolina jobs and have a 
chilling effect on job creation across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Complaint and Notice of Hearing: The Boeing Company and 
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 
Lodge 751, Case 19-CA-32431, Page 5.
    \4\Id. at 6.
    \5\Id. at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Where to locate a business is one of the most basic 
management decisions an employer can make. The intervention of 
the NLRB into this important decision has created uncertainty 
for job creators and will deter investment in the United 
States, ultimately eliminating American jobs. Former Board 
Chairman Peter Schaumber testified to this fact before this 
committee, and multiple business groups have expressed similar 
concerns.
    At the July 7, 2011 hearing before the full committee, 
former Board Chairman Peter Schaumber testified that:

          [W]eeks ago I was in Canada, speaking to a group of 
        60 business people from some of Canada's largest 
        companies. A few with whom I had an opportunity to 
        speak afterwards expressed real concern about doing 
        business in the United States as a result of the 
        agency's complaint against the Boeing Company.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\See Testimony of Peter Schaumber, ``Rushing Union Elections: 
Protecting The Interests Of Big Labor At The Expense Of Workers' Free 
Choice'' House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. Thursday, July 7, 2011.

    This concern was reiterated by the Chamber of Commerce of 
the United States of America, the world's largest business 
federation, representing the interests of more than three 
million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and 
region. It stated in a letter to the committee in support of 
H.R. 2587 that ``businesses considering investing in new 
facilities in the United States will likely think twice and 
consider the risk that their decisions may be second guessed by 
the NLRB.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Letter from R. Bruce Josten, Executive Vice President, 
Government Affairs, Printing Chamber of Commerce of the United States 
of America, to John Kline, U.S. Congressman (July 20, 2011) (on file 
with author).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The National Association of Manufacturers, the nation's 
largest industrial trade association, representing small and 
large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 
states, stated that the Boeing complaint ``is having an impact 
on the capital expenditure and hiring decisions of many 
[employers].''\8\ A recent survey of its members as to the 
effects the Boeing complaint and other NLRB actions will have 
on jobs found that ``[o]f more than 1,000 responses, 69 percent 
said the NLRB's actions will negatively affect their ability to 
create and grow jobs.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Letter from Joe Trauger, Vice President, National Association of 
Manufacturers to John Kline, U.S. Congressman (July 21, 2011) (on file 
with author).
    \9\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Printing Industries of America, expressed similar 
concerns, stating:

          The complaint filed by the NLRB against The Boeing 
        Company demanding that the company transfer its work 
        from one facility to another is an example of 
        regulatory actions that are chilling job growth. 
        Printing company owners must have the freedom to 
        determine in which facilities they may plan, transfer 
        or relocate employment without threat that the 
        government will override those business decisions. As 
        recent NLRB actions have demonstrated, such a threat is 
        very present and obviously worrisome as employers 
        attempt to salvage and once again grow business 
        operations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Letter from Lisbeth Lyons, Vice President, Government Affairs, 
Printing Industries of America, to U.S. Congressmen (July 20, 2011) (on 
file with author).

    To prevent the long term damage this remedy could have on 
the United States' economy and jobs, the committee passed and 
reported H.R. 2587. It will amend the NLRA to prohibit the 
NLRB, in pending and future cases, from ordering an employer to 
relocate, shut down, or transfer employment under any 
circumstances.
    To ensure employees are able to exercise their rights under 
the NLRA and employers who violate the law are held 
accountable, the NLRB retains more than a dozen strong, 
alternative remedies against employers that commit unfair labor 
practices, including back pay and bargaining orders. Back pay 
orders cover not only wages and interest but also, where 
appropriate, other employment benefits, including: vacation 
benefits, bonuses, health and medical coverage, overtime hours, 
meal allowances, and tips. Such orders can be significant. Back 
pay in conjunction with other remedies is an effective 
deterrent against unfair labor practices and an appropriate 
remedy when employers violate the NLRA.
    Opponents of this legislation suggest that it will damage 
workers' rights and move jobs overseas. To the contrary, this 
legislation will only strip the NLRB of one remedy out of more 
than a dozen significant remedies and will create an 
environment in which employers will want to establish work in 
the United States. As noted by former Chairman Schaumber and 
the aforementioned business groups, the remedy sought in the 
Boeing complaint has already given employers pause as they look 
to expand in the United States, fearing what appears to be an 
environment hostile to business. This legislation will help 
create an economy that attracts--not just keeps--jobs in the 
United States.

                               Conclusion

    The committee believes the NLRB should not have authority 
to dictate where an employer can or cannot locate his or her 
business. Exercising this extreme authority creates uncertainty 
and undermines the ability of an employer to create jobs. 
Employers who want to grow their business may hesitate to do so 
in light of draconian measures envisioned by unelected entities 
such as the NLRB. Congress has a responsibility to ensure 
federal policies protect workers and promote economic growth 
and job creation. The Protecting Jobs From Government 
Interference Act will help create the confidence employers need 
to expand their business and create new jobs, and eliminate 
fear the NLRB will attempt to reverse important decisions made 
on behalf of our country and its workers. This legislation 
ensures workers retain strong protections under the law, and 
employers regain the certainty they need to create new jobs.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

    This act may be cited as the ``Protecting Jobs From 
Government Interference Act.''

Section 2. Authority of the NLRB

    This section would amend section 10(c) of the National 
Labor Relations Act to prohibit the National Labor Relations 
Board, in pending and future cases, from ordering any employer 
to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any 
circumstances.

Section 3. Retroactivity

    The section applies section 2 of the act to all cases in 
which a final adjudication by the Board has not been made by 
the date of enactment.

                       Explanation of Amendments

    The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, are explained in the body of this report.

              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch. H.R. 2587 prohibits the National Labor Relations Board 
from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer 
employment under any circumstance. H.R. 2587 would have no 
direct impact on the Legislative Branch.

                       Unfunded Mandate Statement

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement of 
whether the provisions of the reported bill include unfunded 
mandates. This issue is addressed in the CBO letter.

                           Earmark Statement

    H.R. 2587 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of House Rule XXI.

                            Roll Call Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for 
each record vote on a motion to report the measure or matter 
and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the 
total number of votes for and against and the names of the 
Members voting for and against.


         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause (3)(c) of House Rule XIII, the 
goal of H.R. 2587 is to prohibit the National Labor Relations 
Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or 
transfer employment under any circumstance. The Committee 
expects the Department of Labor and the National Labor 
Relations Board to comply with these provisions and implement 
the changes to the law in accordance with these stated goals.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in the body of this report.

               New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received 
the following estimate for H.R. 2587 from the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 25, 2011.
Hon. John Kline,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2587, the 
Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Christina 
Hawley Anthony.
            Sincerely,
                                      Douglas W. Elmendorf,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2587--Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act

    H.R. 2587 would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board 
from ordering an employer to restore or reinstate any work or 
employee, or from requiring investment in a particular plant or 
facility.
    Enacting H.R. 2587 would not affect federal spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    H.R. 2587 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Christina Hawley 
Anthony. The estimate was approved by Holly Harvey, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the 
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 2587. 
However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in 
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

  Sec. 10. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) The testimony taken by such member, agent, or agency or 
the Board shall be reduced to writing and filed with the Board. 
Thereafter, in its discretion, the Board upon notice may take 
further testimony or hear argument. If upon the preponderance 
of the testimony taken the Board shall be of the opinion that 
any person named in the complaint has engaged in or is engaging 
in any such unfair labor practice, then the Board shall state 
its findings of fact and shall issue and cause to be served on 
such person an order requiring such person to cease and desist 
from such unfair labor practice, and to take such affirmative 
action including reinstatement of employees with or without 
back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this Act: 
Provided, That where an order directs reinstatement of an 
employee, back pay may be required of the employer or labor 
organization, as the case may be, responsible for the 
discrimination suffered by him: And provided further, That in 
determining whether a complaint shall issue alleging a 
violation of section 8(a)(1) or section 8(a)(2), and in 
deciding such cases, the same regulations and rules of 
decisions shall apply irrespective of whether or not the labor 
organization affected is affiliated with a labor organization 
national or international in scope. Such order may further 
require such person to make reports from time to time showing 
the extent to which it has complied with the order. If upon the 
preponderance of the testimony taken the Board shall not be of 
the opinion that the person named in the complaint has engaged 
in or is engaging in any such unfair labor practice, then the 
Board shall state its findings of fact and shall issue an order 
dismissing the said complaint. No order of the Board shall 
require the reinstatement of any individual as an employee who 
has been suspended or discharged, or the payment to him of any 
back pay, if such individual was suspended or discharged for 
cause. In case the evidence is presented before a member of the 
Board, or before an examiner or examiners thereof, such member, 
or such examiner or examiners, as the case may be, shall issue 
and cause to be served on the parties to the proceeding a 
proposed report, together with a recommended order, which shall 
be filed with the Board, and if no exceptions are filed within 
twenty days after service thereof upon such parties, or within 
such further period as the Board may authorize, such 
recommended order shall become the order of the Board and 
become effective as therein prescribed: Provided further, That 
the Board shall have no power to order an employer (or seek an 
order against an employer) to restore or reinstate any work, 
product, production line, or equipment, to rescind any 
relocation, transfer, subcontracting, outsourcing, or other 
change regarding the location, entity, or employer who shall be 
engaged in production or other business operations, or to 
require any employer to make an initial or additional 
investment at a particular plant, facility, or location.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             MINORITY VIEWS

    Committee Democrats strongly oppose and voted unanimously 
to reject H.R. 2587. This legislation represents an enormous 
step backwards for worker rights in this country and will force 
workers to choose between their rights or their job. The 
Republican legislation effectively renders critical rights and 
protections afforded under the National Labor Relations Act 
(NLRA) meaningless.
    H.R. 2587 will be devastating to workers across this 
country. It will make it easier to ship jobs overseas, provide 
employers with a loophole for firing workers who try to 
organize a union, make runaway shops legal for all intents and 
purposes, and create a new race to the bottom for American 
workers' rights, wages, benefits and working conditions. At a 
time when 25 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed, 
this Committee and this Congress should be focused on creating 
and protecting jobs. This legislation does not create a single 
job and diminishes the few protections workers have.
    Committee Republicans introduced H.R. 2587 and voted it out 
of Committee in a dramatic rush--less than 48 hours. There was 
not a single hearing on this bill, there has been no hearing on 
the concepts in this bill and their implications, no 
retrospective study on whether remedies to restore status quo 
ante that have been in place for 75 years lack merit, no 
objective assessments by the Government Accountability Office 
or the Congressional Research Service, and no evaluation of the 
impact on wages and job security of millions of workers who 
will be touched by this legislation.
    The urgency with which this bill, only the second labor 
bill marked-up by this Committee in this Congress, was 
considered is unprecedented in this Congress. The Majority's 
sense of urgency should be directed at legislation where 
urgency is needed--creating and protecting American jobs. 
Instead, the top priority of Committee Republicans is to rush a 
special interest bill to the floor to protect a multi-billion 
dollar corporation to the detriment of U.S. workers.

     H.R. 2587 Destroys Long-Standing Workers Rights & Protections

    For more than 75 years, the National Labor Relations Act 
(NLRA or Act) has provided Americans the right to band together 
in unions and bargain for a better life. From the beginning, 
the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) has 
administered and enforced this law on behalf of workers and 
employers. Under this law, it is illegal to retaliate against 
workers for exercising their rights. These decades-old rights 
include the right to strike or the right to form or join a 
union or even to simply sign a petition asking for a raise or 
better safety equipment.
    The freedom to organize and collectively bargain depends 
upon the effectiveness of the NLRA. The rights of workers are 
enshrined in the NLRA. Section 1 of the Act declares ``it is 
the policy of the United States'' to ``encourage the practice 
and procedure of collective bargaining and to protect the 
exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-
organizing 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.''
    Section 7 of the Act establishes the fundamental rights of 
workers to ``self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor 
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives 
of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted 
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other 
mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to 
refrain from any or all of such activities . . .''\1\ Section 8 
lays out a variety of prohibitions for both employer and union 
behavior. For example, employers may not interfere with, 
coerce, intimidate, or discriminate against employees in the 
exercise of their Section 7 rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\29 U.S.C. 157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To ensure that these rights are meaningful, workers must 
have the ability to enforce their rights. The remedies 
available to workers whose rights have been violated have long 
been criticized as inadequate and ineffective. Human Rights 
Watch, legal scholars, and Board members agree that the law's 
remedies are ``so weak [that] they fail to enforce the law and 
to protect employees.''\2\ H.R. 2587 will weaken these remedies 
even further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Ellen Dannin, No Rights without Remedies: The Long Struggle for 
Effective National Labor Relations Act Remedies,'' American 
Constitution Society, Issue Brief (Jun. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the NLRA does not require specific remedies, Section 
10(c) of the Act provides that the Board may order ``such 
affirmative action . . . as will effectuate the policies of 
[the] Act.''\3\ The Supreme Court has held that that ``the 
relief which the statute empowers the Board to grant is to be 
adapted to the situation which calls for redress.''\4\ Unlike 
modern employment statutes, such as the Civil Rights Act, there 
is no individual right of action under the NLRA for retaliation 
due an employee seeking to exercise their statutory rights. 
This means that workers cannot bring a claim in the courts. 
Aggrieved workers' only source of recourse is to file a 
complaint with the NLRB and their remedies are generally 
limited, unlike in the court system. For example, the law only 
requires employers reinstate employees unlawfully discharged, 
post a notice promising to never do it again, and pay the 
employee back wages minus what the worker earned or should have 
earned in the interim. In 2003, the average back-pay amount was 
a mere $3,800.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\29 U.S.C. 160(c).
    \4\MacKay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333, 348 (1938).
    \5\Strengthening America's Middle Class through the Employee Free 
Choice Act, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 
Labor & Pensions, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007) (written testimony of 
Nancy Schiffer, at 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 2587 will eliminate the only meaningful remedy workers 
have when an employer uses layoffs, transfers, or plant 
closings to discriminate or retaliate against them for engaging 
in protected activity. While this legislation creates a giant 
loophole that will allow employers to evade any liability for 
violating workers rights, it is aimed directly at eliminating 
the remedy requested by the NLRB's Acting General Counsel, Lafe 
Solomon, in his complaint on behalf of the International 
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) District 
751 against the Boeing Corporation (Boeing). Workers believe 
that Boeing retaliated against them for past and possible 
future strikes when it admittedly\6\ relocated its second 
production line of the 787 Dreamliner to a non-union facility 
in South Carolina. Consistent with the law and Board 
precedent,\7\ Mr. Solomon sought an order requiring Boeing to 
return the unlawfully transferred work from South Carolina back 
to Washington state. The specific remedy, if a remedy is 
determined to be appropriate, is at the discretion of the 
Administrative Law Judge hearing the case. Rather than waiting 
for the case to be decided, Committee Republicans want to 
change the rules so that no effective remedy is available to 
these workers or any others who make an unfair labor practice 
claim in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Complaint at 4-5, The Boeing Corporation and the International 
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 751, 
Case No. 19-CA-32431, National Labor Relations Board Region 19 (2011). 
In support of the complaint, Solomon cites numerous examples of Boeing 
executives clearly stating that the decision to relocate the production 
line was unlawfully motivated by its desire to avoid future strikes. 
Examples include an October 21, 2009 statement by Boeing's CEO at a 
quarterly earnings conference that was posted on the company's intranet 
that the decision to relocate to South Carolina was due to strikes, an 
October 28, 2009 memorandum to employees that stated, among other 
things, the decision to relocate the second production was made to 
reduce vulnerability to work stoppages, and a March 2, 2010 videotaped 
interview with the Seattle Times where Boeing's Executive Vice 
President stated that the decision to locate the second line was 
because of past strikes and the possibility of future strike.
    \7\Acting General Counsel's Opposition to Respondent's Motion to 
Dismiss and Motion to Strike, The Boeing Corporation and the 
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 
Lodge 751, Case No. 19-CA-32431, National Labor Relations Board Region 
19 (2011). See also: Lear Siegler, Inc., 295 NLRB 857, 861 (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             H.R. 2587 Creates Massive Loophole in the Law

    While H.R. 2587 seeks to slant the rules for Boeing in its 
on-going case, the bill reaches far beyond Boeing. It would 
expand the ability of employers to outsource jobs, expand their 
ability to lawfully discriminate and retaliate against workers, 
and create a race to the bottom where American workers are 
pitted against each other as employers give work to the lowest 
bidder.

             THE BILL MAKES IT EASIER TO SHIP JOBS OVERSEAS

    Last year, it was reported that American companies created 
1.4 million jobs overseas compared with less than 1 million in 
the U.S.\8\ American workers are nearly powerless against 
employers who outsource jobs overseas, and H.R. 2587 takes away 
one of the only protections workers have against outsourcing. 
While employers can outsource jobs for any reason, they cannot 
do so when that reason is unlawful, such as retaliating against 
workers for exercising their rights under the NLRA. H.R. 2587 
changes that and would now allow companies to outsource jobs 
overseas, without any meaningful consequence, in retaliation 
for U.S. citizens exercising their rights under the NLRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Pallavi Gogoi, Job Market Booming Overseas For Many American 
Companies, HUFF. POST (Dec. 28, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Committee Republicans mistakenly argue that under current 
law employers can outsource jobs overseas for retaliatory or 
discriminatory purposes. This is simply not true. For example, 
in 2000 the NLRB sought and obtained an injunction that stopped 
a jewelry manufacturer from moving its California operations to 
Mexico.\9\ The Board sought the injunction because the company 
was making the move in retaliation for workers exercising their 
rights under the NLRA, namely, organizing a union. The employer 
was ordered to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Aguayao Ex Rel NLRB v. Quadrtech Corp (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Restore to the California facility work 
        which had been subcontracted or relocated to Mexico;
           Return to the California facility any 
        equipment, fixtures, inventory, supplies and work in 
        progress that had been relocated or subcontracted from 
        that facility;
           Reinstate any employees who had been laid 
        off pursuant to any removal of work; and
           Rescind any outstanding agreements to 
        subcontract work to Tijuana, Mexico.
    Under H.R. 2587, these workers would have no effective 
remedy to fight their employer's unlawful attempt to relocate 
to Mexico. An employer would be permitted to relocate work to 
China or India because workers engaged in a protected activity 
such as trying to organize or striking. Earlier this year, 
Boeing fired 1,000 employees in California after entering into 
a multi-billion dollar deal with China to outsource the 
production of 200 airplanes.\10\ In addition to China, Boeing 
has outsourced much of the work related to the 787 Dreamliner 
to South Korea, Sweden, Japan and Italy.\11\ While no one 
alleges these moves were unlawful, under the Republican 
legislation, if the South Carolina workers tried to exercise 
their rights Boeing could outsource that work as well in 
retaliation. The NLRB would be helpless to restore that work, 
thanks to this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Gregory White, Boeing Fires 1,000 Employees in California, 
Moves More Jobs to China, BUS. INSIDER (Jan. 20, 2011). Available at: 
http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-layoffs-orange county-2011--1.
    \11\Michael Hiltzik, 787 Dreamliner Teaches Boeing Costly Lesson on 
Outsourcing, L.A. TIMES (Feb. 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE BILL ALLOWS EMPLOYERS TO CREATE RUNAWAY SHOPS & THREATEN WORKERS IF 
                  WORKERS TRY TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS

    Under H.R. 2587 a company could bust a union by setting up 
a separate alter ego down the street, subcontract its work 
there, and eventually close down the unionized worksite. The 
only effective remedy for that kind of conduct is to order the 
employer to return the subcontracted work.\12\ This bill would 
no longer allow that remedy. The Republican legislation 
eliminates long-standing remedies utilized by Republican and 
Democratic Boards, such as ordering an employer to ``restore'' 
or ``reinstate'' work because their action violated workers 
rights. For example, in 2004, the Bush Board required that an 
employer restore work for a group of workers after finding that 
the employer had violated the NLRA by laying them off for union 
activity. And H.R. 2587 will permit employers to lawfully 
threaten workers without any effective remedy. Employers will 
be able to openly threaten workers that if they try to exercise 
their rights to form a union the plant will close or jobs will 
be moved. While unlawful today, H.R. 2587 removes the remedy 
for these workers and with it the single most effective 
deterrence against such threats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Compu-Net Communications, Inc., 315 NLRB No. 32 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. 2587 Denies Workers of Any Effective Remedy When Their Rights Are 
                                Violated

    H.R. 2587 denies workers any effective remedy when their 
jobs are unlawfully relocated whether it be to South Carolina 
or South Korea. Committee Republicans assert that back pay or 
giving workers who lost their jobs at the old facility first 
priority for jobs at the new facility are sufficient remedies 
for workers retaliated against for exercising their rights. 
This belief ignores common sense and reality. The fact is that 
H.R. 2587 denies workers any effective remedy that will make 
these workers whole. An award of back pay that comes 3 years 
later minus any wages earned in the interim does not help a 
worker who has since lost their home and livelihood due to the 
employer's unlawful actions. Similarly, a remedy giving a 
worker first priority for a job at a facility possibly halfway 
across the country does not come close to making that worker 
whole. While the employer has violated the worker's rights, it 
is the worker who must now choose between their job and their 
community, their home and possibly their family. This is not a 
real remedy. This does not make someone whose rights have been 
violated whole.
    Committee Republicans and Boeing assert that the remedy 
requested by the Acting General Counsel, that the production 
line for the 787 remain in Washington state, is not 
appropriate. According to the company, it states if it is found 
to have violated the rights of workers, the appropriate remedy 
``would be for Boeing to re-hire and restore the terms and 
conditions of employment to those employees adversely affected 
by the ``transfer.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, or In the 
Alternative, To Strike the Injunctive Relief at 25, The Boeing 
Corporation and the International Association of Machinists and 
Aerospace Workers District Lodge 751, Case No. 19-CA-32431, National 
Labor Relations Board Region 19 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, this would not make discriminatees whole as it 
does nothing to remedy their loss of future opportunity. Moving 
the production line to South Carolina in retaliation deprives 
the workers of future opportunities with the company in the 
area of the company that has been described as: ``the next 
evolutionary step'' in aviation\14\ and the ``future of 
commercial aviation.''\15\ Permitting the production line to 
continue in South Carolina and simply reinstating the 
Washington state jobs to other jobs would not make these 
workers whole. Furthermore, an April 2011 company newsletter 
admits that ``when the second line in South Carolina is up and 
operating, the surge capability in Everett will be phased 
out.''\16\ In other words, these workers will lose their jobs. 
Under this bill, there would be no ability to order that work 
be reinstated for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Karen West, How Boeing Transformed the Aviation Industry, MSNBC 
(Jul. 2, 2007).
    \15\Dan Reed, The Future of Commercial Aviation Arrived Tuesday, 
USA Today (Dec. 9, 2009).
    \16\Boeing Corporation, 787 Surge Line Construction Activity under 
Way in Everett, WA, Employee Electronic Newsletter (Apr. 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If Boeing does not agree with the remedy requested, which 
it has made clear it does not, it retains the right to object 
to it, which it has already attempted to do. The Board has said 
``when bargaining work has been unilaterally and unlawfully 
removed, whether by subcontracting or relocation, it is 
appropriate to order restoration of the work to the bargaining 
unit, unless the employer has demonstrated that restoration 
would be unduly burdensome.''\17\ As a result, employers are 
not defenseless against restoration of work or rescission of 
the transfer remedies under current law. An employer can claim 
that it would be unduly burdensome to subject them to the 
remedy, which Boeing asserted during the pre-trial phase of the 
case. This trial is still on-going and facts have yet to be 
heard, let alone decided on; however, Boeing will have another 
chance to make this claim that the remedy is unduly burdensome 
if and when the ALJ decides the company violated the workers' 
rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Charging Parties' Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss 
for Failure to State a Claim, or In the Alternative, to Strike the 
Injunctive Relief at 23, The Boeing Corporation and the International 
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 751, 
Case No. 19-CA-32431, National Labor Relations Board Region 19 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          H.R. 2587 Overturns Decades of Well-Established Law

    Committee Republicans contend that the NLRB's unfair labor 
practice charge against Boeing ``has sent a shockwave across 
the country at a time when many employers are still struggling 
with the lingering effects of the recent recession.''\18\ The 
NLRB's proposed remedy for unlawful discriminatory relocation 
has been in place for the better part of a half century, and 
has been imposed on many occasions. The only thing shocking 
about the proposed remedy in the complaint is the surprise 
expressed by those who allege, without a scintilla of support, 
that a relocation remedy is unprecedented or extreme. Rather, 
what is at issue is an employer who has apparently pitted one 
group of workers in South Carolina against another group in 
Washington state--American workers versus American workers. 
With this bill, the Majority rewards that divisive dynamic and 
encourages it across the country, which does not create jobs 
but certainly drives down wages, benefits, and working 
conditions for American workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Opening Statement of U.S. Representative John Kline Regarding 
H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act (Jul. 
21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What is shocking is the rushed consideration of this 
legislation by the Majority without any effort to consider the 
sweeping implications for workers throughout the United States. 
If enacted, workers will have a right to engage in concerted 
protected activity, but have no meaningful remedy if an 
employer relocates or subcontracts out their work in 
retaliation. This will incentivize employers to move their 
plants to escape workers who attempt to bargain with them, 
whether from state to state, down the street or out of the 
country, or to advise workers that they should know that if 
they do engage in protected activity, the employer can 
eliminate, transfer, outsource, or subcontract their work--and 
their jobs--with impunity.
    Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act which sets forth 
remedies for unfair labor practices, the NLRB is authorized to 
restore the status quo ante, including when an employer 
subcontracts work, relocates production or withholds job 
opportunities in retaliation for employees exercising rights 
protected under the NLRA. The Supreme Court has affirmed that 
the NLRB has the authority to:

          redress the wrong incurred by an unfair labor 
        practice . . . [to] restore economic status quo that 
        would have obtained but for the wrongful [act]. . . . 
        The task of the NLRB in applying Section 10(c) is to 
        take measures designed to recreate relationships that 
        would have been there had there been no unfair labor 
        practice.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Frank Bowman Transportation Company, 424 US 747, 769 (1975), 
quoting in part from NLRB v Rutter-Rex Mfg. Company, 396 US 258, 263 
(1969).

    Where the relocation or subcontracting of work from a 
facility is discriminatorily motivated, and thus violative of 
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Board may also order 
restoration of operations.\20\ As noted above, this authority 
is tempered, however, if the employer can show that relocation 
of a facility is unduly burdensome.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Frito Lay, 232 NLRB 753, (1977) enforced in part, 585 F2d 62 
(1978).
    \21\ While the Boeing case remains pending before an ALJ, Boeing 
has already tried to argue that the remedy requested in the complaint--
to require Boeing to keep the work in Washington state--is unduly 
burdensome. The ALJ denied Boeing's request stating it was premature to 
request dismissal before the case was even heard, and that determining 
if a relocation remedy is unduly burdensome is fact intensive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A 1974 NLRB case involving General Electric (GE) found 
unpersuasive the same economic arguments now being made by 
Boeing to justify why it is moving production to South 
Carolina. Like Boeing, GE was promoting a so-called ``two 
source supply''--one source unionized (in Illinois) and the 
other source non-union (in Tennessee)--to hedge against strikes 
and avoid potential interruption of supply. If the Tennessee 
workers voted against a union, GE suggested that the workers 
could win opportunities to operate a new product line. The 
Board stated:\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\General Electric Company, 215 NLRB 520 (1974). Here, the NLRB 
set aside an election because the employer, citing concerns about 
possible future strikes, stated that the plant's nonunion status was a 
primary factor in choosing to locate a production line for a new motor 
there. In its decision, the Board distinguished an employer's right to 
take defensive action when threatened with an imminent strike from 
threats to transfer work ``merely because of the possibility of a 
strike at some speculative future date.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          While GE might wish to be able to insure both itself 
        and its customers against production interruptions 
        which can sometimes result from employee concerted 
        activity, no such insurance is legally possible, for 
        the simple reason that employees have a federally 
        protected right to engage in such activity.
          That right may no more be interfered with by 
        deliberately withholding job opportunities at 
        represented plants than it can by ``runaway shop'' 
        conduct, which precedent has long established as being 
        illegal. Threats to engage in such conduct cannot be 
        hidden behind innocent sounding labels such as ``two 
        source supply.''

    In sum ``[t]he law does not permit an employer to flee the 
bargaining agent because of hostility to it . . ..''\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\Local 57, Garment Workers (Garwin Corp.) v NLRB, 153 NLRB 664 
(1965), modified 374 F2d 295, (CA DC), cert denied, 387 US 942 (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is an abundant history of ordering the termination of 
subcontracts or relocation of production as a remedy for 
discrimination against unionized workers. Yet none of these 
cases has sent ``shock waves.''
      In 1981, Century Air Freight in New Jersey 
subcontracted out its trucking work and simultaneously fired 
its unionized employees in order to escape its obligation to 
bargain with its workforce. In this case, management was 
fearful the union might strike if they did not win wage 
increases. In 1987, the Republican-controlled NLRB ruled that 
the company had to terminate its subcontracting of trucking 
work previously performed by the unionized workforce because it 
was ``inherently destructive'' of the employees' right to 
belong to a union and exercise the right to strike. Had H.R. 
2587 been in place, these employees never would have been 
reinstated, and the status quo ante would not have been 
restored.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Century Air Freight, 284 NLRB 730 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      In 1987, employees of Capehorn Industries in 
Clifton, New Jersey went on strike. A few weeks later the 
employees notified the employer by letter of an unconditional 
offer to return to work. However, the employer did not rehire 
them and permanently subcontracted their work. Since permanent 
subcontracting negated the workers' right to strike and the 
ability to return to their jobs if they were available, the 
Board required the employer to end the subcontract and rehire 
these workers. Under H.R. 2587, these workers would be left 
without an effective remedy.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Capehorn Industry, 336 NLRB 364 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      In 1988, Lear Siegler closed its foam cutting 
production plant in Hermansville, Michigan and moved the 
production to the company's West Chicago, Illinois plant 
several days after its Hermansville employees voted for the 
United Auto Workers as their union representative. The NLRB 
subsequently found that the company would not have closed this 
plant and laid off the employees had it not been for their 
participation in a union organizing campaign. The Board ordered 
Lear Siegler to ``re-establish and resume production operations 
at its Hermansville, Michigan facility in a manner consistent 
with the level and manner of operation that existed before the 
operation was closed'' and ``to offer reinstatement''\26\ to 
laid off bargaining unit employees. The NLRB evaluated whether 
this requirement was ``unduly burdensome'' in response to 
employer objections. By the time the case was heard, the 
production equipment still remained at Hermansville; trucks 
regularly delivered foam to Hermansville; the loading and 
unloading of trucks in Hermansville was being done by non-union 
subcontracted employees; and the only thing needed to start up 
production again was bulk foam and the laid off employees. Had 
H.R. 2587 been in effect, the employees who were victims of a 
runaway shop and discriminatory layoffs would never have gotten 
their jobs back because the NLRB would have been handcuffed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\295 NLRB 857.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 2587 encourages and enables the outsourcing of work 
and leaves workers whose rights have been discarded powerless. 
It rewards lawbreaking. By blocking the NLRB's ability to order 
employers to restore workers to the same position they would 
have been in but for the employer's unlawful discrimination, 
this bill gives employers the freedom to evade accountability 
for breaking the law and leaves workers without a meaningful 
remedy. A right without a remedy is no right at all.

  Part of an Ongoing Effort To Undermine the National Labor Relations 
                                 Board

    Republicans have engaged in a relentless assault of the 
NLRB. They began their attacks in the first days of the 112th 
Congress by attempting to cripple the Board by cutting $50 
million from its Fiscal Year 2011 budget in the House passed 
H.R. 1--a cut which would have required the Board to furlough 
all staff for three months.\27\ In fact, Republicans attempted 
but failed to defund the Board entirely. Committee Republicans 
have since demanded the deliberative documents of the Board 
members in a case which they are currently deliberating--
including their legal memos, emails and working draft opinions. 
This demand raises serious concerns as it could harm the due 
process rights of the parties and interfere with the Board's 
decisionmaking processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Potential Impact of H.R. 1 on the National Labor Relations 
Board (NLRB), Congressional Research Service, (Mar. 15, 2011). 
Available at: http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/documents/112/pdf/
CRSNLRBanalysis.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the Boeing case in particular, Congressional Republicans 
have undertaken efforts that would unfairly advantage Boeing at 
trial. For example, in May Chairman Kline and Chairman Issa of 
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform demanded 
documents and communications related to the investigation of 
Boeing and the unfair labor practice claim despite the fact 
that the case is currently before an Administrative Law Judge. 
These requests would include those documents protected by 
attorney-client privilege and the prosecution's strategy memos 
which could clearly provide Boeing with an unfair advantage in 
court and harm the due process rights of the workers involved 
in the case. In addition, Senator DeMint has sent a FOIA 
request to the NLRB for nearly the same documents. Requests for 
similar documents were made by Boeing--but that request was 
denied by the ALJ on June 23, 2011. What Boeing could not 
obtain from the ALJ, because the production would be improper 
and unfair, Chairman Issa now demands under threat of 
congressional subpoena. Even a Republican witness at a recent 
HELP Subcommittee hearing\28\ agreed that the Board has 
historically and should continue to zealously defend such 
privileged documents from improper disclosure. Additionally, 
the lead prosecutor overseeing the Boeing case, the NLRB's 
Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon, has been subjected to a 
variety of congressional pressure, including being made to 
testify about the case under threat of subpoena before another 
Committee as the trial before the ALJ got underway, despite his 
concerns that testifying would compromise the trial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\Corporate Campaigns and the NLRB: The Impact of Union Pressure 
on Job Creation, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 
Labor & Pensions, 112th Cong., 1st Sess. (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 2587 is the latest effort to help Boeing in its 
efforts to avoid potential meaningful liability in this case as 
the bill removes any effective remedy available to workers in 
the case. It does so at the expense of the rights of all 
American workers.

          H.R. 2587 Is an Assault on the American Middle Class

    Now, more than ever, we must work to protect the middle 
class. Committee Republicans are instead choosing to sacrifice 
the fundamental rights that helped build the middle class in 
order to protect a Fortune 500 company from a single NLRB 
complaint. With over 25 million Americans unemployed or 
underemployed, Committee Republicans have yet to schedule a 
legislative hearing or mark-up on any jobs bills.\29\ H.R. 2587 
does not create jobs and in fact may cost more Americans their 
jobs as it will now be easier than ever for unscrupulous 
employers retaliate against workers, depress wages, and send 
jobs overseas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\Heidi Schierholz, Labor Market in Full Retreat, EPI (July 8, 
2011). Available at: http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/7272/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By allowing employers to discriminate against workers who 
exercise their right to join together and bargain for better 
wages without an effective remedy, H.R. 2587 insidiously plays 
American workers against each other. This means workers will 
exercise their rights to push for better wages, benefits, and 
working conditions less frequently and only at great peril. In 
turn, wages, benefits, and working conditions can only 
deteriorate.
    Weakening the rights and protections of U.S. workers will 
have a devastating impact on the already struggling economy. On 
July 19, 2011, the Wall Street Journal stated that the problem 
with the economy and job creation is insufficient demand, ``the 
main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is 
scant demand . . .''\30\ Demand is scarce because wages are 
stagnant even while profits are up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\Phil Izzo, Dearth of Demand Seen Behind Week Hiring, Wall St. 
Journal (Jul. 19, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Chief Investment Officer at JP Morgan Chase states ``US 
labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both 
company sales and US GDP.''\31\ While wages are down, profit 
margins of the Standard & Poor's 500 companies ``are at their 
highest levels since the mid-1960s.''\32\ Middle class 
Americans are struggling to make ends meet as corporations pad 
their pockets. A May 2011 study from Northeastern University 
found that, between 2009 when the economic recovery began and 
the end of 2010, national income rose by $528 billion with $464 
billion of that growth going to corporate profits and only $7 
billion to wages and salaries. By depressing wages in a race to 
the bottom, this bill can only exacerbate the economic problems 
faced by our country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Harold Meyerson, Corporate America's Chokehold on Wages, Wash. 
Post (Jul. 20, 2011).
    \32\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Conclusion

    H.R. 2587 is being rushed to the floor on behalf of a 
special interest at a reckless speed. The attention of this 
Committee should be on creating and protection jobs, not on 
attacking workers rights to collectively bargain, their right 
to earn a livable wage and their right to affordable health 
care and a secure retirement. Taking away workers rights does 
not create jobs or strengthen the economy. It depresses 
economic activity and demoralizes the workforce. Committee 
Democrats are united in our opposition to H.R. 2587 and will 
continue to fight for America's middle class and against these 
efforts to roll back workers rights.

                                   George Miller, Senior Democratic 
                                       Member.
                                   Dale E. Kildee.
                                   Robert E. Andrews.
                                   Lynn C. Woolsey.
                                   Carolyn McCarthy.
                                   Dennis J. Kucinich.
                                   Donald M. Payne.
                                   David Wu.
                                   Ruben Hinojosa.
                                   John F. Tierney.
                                   Rush D. Holt
                                   Raul M. Grijalva.
                                   David Loebsack.
                                   Robert C. Scott.
                                   Susan A. Davis.
                                   Timothy H. Bishop.
                                   Mazie Hirono.

                                  
