Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding and for his leadership in support of working men and women.

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I am a strong supporter of tribal sovereignty and believe that we must recognize the rights of tribal governments. But I am also a strong supporter of labor rights, the ability of hardworking men and women to join together in collective bargaining to improve their workplace and the lives of their families.

Union membership has many advantages: higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. It is no coincidence that we have seen the middle class shrink dramatically at the same time that union membership has declined. That is why we need to act to expand labor rights and why we should be concerned about the bill before us.

I believe that the 2004 National Labor Relations Board decision in San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino struck the appropriate balance between respecting tribal sovereignty and upholding labor rights. In its decision, the NLRB stated the National Labor Relations Act does not apply if it would undermine the ``exclusive rights of self-governance in purely intramural matters'' or ``abrogate Indian treaty rights.'' However, the NLRB clarified that labor law would apply if an entity is a purely commercial enterprise and employs or caters to individuals who are not tribal members. That is an appropriate test, whether we are talking about casinos or construction companies, hotels and resorts, or mines or power plants.

H.R. 511 would overturn the NLRB's carefully crafted decision and could take away existing bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of workers. We know that workers at tribally owned casinos have benefited from union membership. A UNITE HERE! union study of tribal casino workers in California documented higher wages, lower healthcare costs, and less worker reliance on public benefits like Medicaid to meet the needs of their families. Employers, too, gain when workers are more productive and turnover is reduced.

We have real-world examples of how unions have helped workers. Gary Navarro, a Pomo Nation member employed at Graton Casino & Resort, testified before the Education and the Workforce Committee that ``I became active in my union because of unjust treatment of casino workers by the managers and how nothing could be done about even sexual harassment because of sovereignty. Exercising our right to organize turned out to be the only way to protect ourselves and our coworkers.''

Madeline, a worker at Foxwoods, was suspended because she was forced to clock out when she went to see a nurse for a work-related injury, which put her over the casino's attendance points system. Her union won her reinstatement and backpay. And the company provided a mandatory OSHA training program for management.

Jenny Langlois, at Foxwoods, benefited from a union contract that gave her the time she needed to receive treatment for breast cancer.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 511 would result in the loss of those gains, and, by eliminating NLRA rights, could deny them to many more workers in the future. By doing so, it would leave those workers without any avenue to bargain collectively, ensure fair compensation, or seek redress for workplace injuries.

Three out of four of the 600,000 workers employed in tribal casinos are not tribal members. They do not have full access to internal, tribal mechanisms for filing grievances or petitioning for changes in policy. And while some tribal governments have labor laws that apply to commercial operations, many don't, and there is no guarantee that those who have them will not change or eliminate them in the future. By eliminating NLRA rights, workers could have no place to turn to push for labor rights, to appeal unfair firings or disciplinary action, or to take action against sexual harassment.

H.R. 511 would affect more than the gaming industry, including construction workers, miners, and hotel workers. That is why the International Labour Organization has stated that it ``would appear likely that an exclusion of certain workers from the NLRA and its mechanisms would give rise to a failure to ensure to

these workers their fundamental freedom of association rights absent any assurances that there were tribal labor laws that provide the same rights to all workers.''

But there is no such requirement in H.R. 511. It would preempt NLRA coverage. But there are other Federal laws that apply to tribes, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Why should we single out the NLRA, the law that gives workers bargaining rights? Or will we be asked to eliminate those other important protections in the future?

Mr. Speaker, proponents of the bill argue that it is designed to provide equal treatment for tribal nations with State and local governments, but there are key distinctions.

First, we are talking here not about people who work directly for tribal governments but for workers in commercial enterprises. Most States and localities don't operate huge commercial entities that hire the majority of workers from outside of their jurisdictions.

Second, if State or local workers want to push for laws to obtain or protect collective bargaining rights, they have the ability to participate in the political process and vote in elections. That is one reason that the vast majority of State and local public employees have those rights. Non-tribal workers at tribal-operated commercial enterprises lack that ability. They don't vote in tribal elections, and they have no direct ability to affect labor policies for tribal governments.

Mr. Speaker, we should fight for workplace rights and support the balanced approach taken by the NLRB. I ask my colleagues to join in opposing this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source