Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment that protects union elections by ensuring timely notices of union representation elections. This amendment overturns a recent National Labor Relations Board regulation that undermines workers' rights to organize in their workplace.

I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Scott and his exceptional staff for working with me on this amendment, and for their tireless efforts to strengthen unions and protect our country's workers.

The PRO Act strengthens workers' rights to a free and fair union representation election. It does so by fostering transparency in the workplace about the right to organize and removing barriers that were solely created to undercut labor organizing at the workplace.

In 2014, Madam Chair, the Board updated its union election procedures by streamlining the union representation process. The PRO Act codifies many of the 2004 requirements, including the timelines for pre- and post-election hearings.

The 2014 Election Rule protected the integrity of the union representation process, which is critical, and it was upheld in every court where it was challenged.

You see, corporate greed is what is driving this administration's attack on workers. In December of 2019, the Board rescinded many parts of that 2014 rule, burdening our workers with unnecessary delays and giving corporations more opportunity to stall workplace rights and organizing with frivolous litigation.

The Republican Chairman of the Board, John Ring, pushed these changes without providing any notice to the public, ambushing workers with new procedures, solely designed to undermine the rights for our folks, for our neighbors and workers to organize.

One important change in that 2014 Election Rule required corporations to post a notice when workers file a petition for an election. This notice is critical to informing workers about the details of the petition, and their rights, while the board processes their petition.

Notably, the 2014 rule required corporations to post this notice within two business days, 2 business days after the board issues notice of a pre-election hearing. This requirement was fair, and it was just.

However, once again, the agents of corporate greed are trying to cheat us out of our rights. Chairman Ring and the other Republican members of the board nearly tripled the amount of time corporations have to post that notice to 5 days after being notified about the pre- election hearing. This delay enables the corporations to take advantage of a crucial time period where workers may not know their rights or the details of the board process governing their petition for a fair election.

We should be doing all we can do, Madam Chair, to ensure workers' collective bargaining rights are protected. Enough of the antiworker mentality driven by those who want to avoid paying fair wages and offering strong workplace protections for our neighbors.

This amendment restores fairness and democracy into our process, Madam Chair, and it brings back the 2014 election rule by requiring the corporations to post the notice of petition for election within 2 days after the board notifies the corporations and the union about the pre- election hearing.

It is pretty simple. In doing so, this amendment will foster more transparency, and will prevent unnecessary delays that undermine the right to organize in our country.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Look, unnecessary delays in union representation elections provide corporations with more time to wage anti-union campaigns using illegal and legal tactics. That is why folks are going to be against this.

When workers file a petition for union representation elections, corporations must properly notify them of their rights under the law. It is pretty clear. It is pretty transparent, and allows, again, information to get to workers, our neighbors that are there that want to organize for better wages, for protection at the workplace.

I urge my colleagues to please vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Democrats insist that the PRO Act expands workers' rights. But, in reality, this bill coerces workers and undermines their rights in order to increase the wealth and power of union bosses. Unions have a long and sordid history of harassing and intimidating workers into supporting them, and this bill makes it worse.

For example, in 2013, Ms. Marlene Felter, a medical records coder in California, testified that union organizers ``were calling them on their cell phones, coming to their homes, stalking them, harassing them . . . to convince them to sign union cards.''

In 2017, one Minnesota personal care attendant, who chose not to provide her full name, described her experience with an SEIU union organizer for a Forbes.com piece: ``The woman identified herself as a SEIU representative, and asked if they could talk for a few minutes. Holly said she didn't have time right now, but the woman persisted, placing herself between Holly and the front of the door and repeatedly asking her how she intended to vote in the upcoming union election.

``Holly became frightened; arms full of groceries, she could hear her patient becoming agitated and distressed inside, and here was this strange woman blocking her way and demanding to know how she would `vote.' Holly finally extricated herself and entered her home, slamming the door behind her. But that wasn't the end of things. Over the next weeks and months, she received multiple calls and visits from the union.''

The author of the piece asked Holly how she would characterize the nature of these calls and visits. ``Stalking, absolutely,'' said Holly. ``They wouldn't leave me alone.''

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, testified before our committee in May 2019 that unions need workers' personal information because ``it is essential in order to be able to communicate with them. . . . You may have to meet with them at a grocery store, anyplace else where you can get them. The most efficient place and the best place for them to be able to talk is in their home setting, at their home, so that you can have a real conversation with them.''

The PRO Act's own supporters admit unions will harass workers at their own homes, at work, and at the grocery store, yet Democrats claim this bill expands and protects workers' rights.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source