Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a very simple and straightforward amendment. This amendment does not alter the critical provisions of this legislation, but it does provide clarity about what the PRO Act will and will not do, as well as recognizes State efforts when it comes to employee rights and standards.

The PRO Act does not govern in any way the definition of who is an employee for the workplace protections related to minimum wages, overtime, or unemployment insurance. Under the PRO Act, the definition of who is an employee only applies to who is eligible to join a union and collectively bargain.

If a worker is an employee under the PRO Act, they will have the right to join or refrain from union representation, engage in collective bargaining and bargain over the terms and conditions of their work.

As we know, employment status varies under Federal and State statutes. Thus, an individual can be an employee under one law and remain an independent contractor for the purposes of another.

I have a deep respect for State authority and believe that, as we address Federal NLRA standards, it is important to thoughtfully assess the 20 States that have taken differing actions currently relying on some version of the ABC test to determine their own worker protection eligibility.

This straightforward amendment I am offering today does not end the discussion on the ABC test but helps clarify the benefits of the PRO Act and sets our country on a path to support workers.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment as well as the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to close out our debate, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

It is very interesting that our colleagues have talked about unions providing the middle class better jobs and benefits. It is very interesting to look at the declining rate of union membership and see the increasing salaries, number of jobs being created in the country, benefits, and all positive things happening, record unemployment, record wage increases. That is going along with declining union participation.

Mr. Chairman, the PRO Act is one of the most antiworker, anti-small business bills to be considered by Congress in decades, and this amendment makes it worse.

The PRO Act is a liberal Democrat wish list designed to enrich and empower union bosses and trial lawyers at the expense of rank-and-file workers and small businesses.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this misleading, unworkable, and misguided amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STEVENS. Madam Chairwoman, today, as we consider the PRO Act, we think of how far the labor movement has come and how far we have yet to go. We think of all the important steps we need to take as a government and as a nation to rebuild our working class as productivity is dropping and inequality is rising, to ensure fundamental, basic protections are in place for a better work environment and a stronger economy for all, to secure workers' rights to collectively bargain.

The PRO Act represents the rights of the nearly 700,000 brothers and sisters in unions across my home State of Michigan where the steady humming of hard work and determination abounds. The PRO Act is in our bones.

Public approval of labor unions is near a 50-year high, but union membership is at its lowest level since just after the National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935. It is not a coincidence that as union membership has declined, income inequality has soared.

At the same time, new forms of work continue to emerge in our innovation economy, work that allows individuals the complete freedom to work whenever and for whomever they choose.

Many developed countries have sought to address the changing nature of work through sectoral bargaining, where representatives of workers and employers in a given industry bargain over wages and standards throughout that industry. By covering more workers under a collective bargaining agreement, workers and employers can bargain for industry- wide floors in wages and benefits.

This amendment asks the Government Accountability Office to look to the future by evaluating how laws and policies on sectoral bargaining have been playing out in other countries, strengthening workers' ability to effectively bargain in the face of a rapidly changing economy.

Specifically, my amendment asks the GAO to assess the various forms of sectoral bargaining, including:

One, multiemployer bargaining, which permits unions to collectively bargain contracts for workers across a region or an industry;

Two, pattern bargaining, which involves union organizing and collective bargaining with all the companies in an industry. The United Auto Workers has used this model to bargain for common terms with the big three in Michigan; and

Three, wage standard boards where government, industry, and labor would be responsible for setting wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment across specific industries.

Madam Chairwoman, the Education and Labor Committee has held three hearings on the future of work where we have begun exploring alternative models to empower workers in the face of this rapidly changing economy.

While sectoral bargaining is no substitute for the essential reforms in the PRO Act, a number of emerging industries, think tanks, and other worker advocates have begun to explore this idea to complement the PRO Act.

We ask that the GAO also assess the economic impacts of sectoral bargaining, including the impact on wages, prices, productivity, and the development of emerging industries, including those who engage their workforces through technology.

As a co-chair of the Future of Work Task Force on the New Democrat Coalition, we, as Democrats, realize that there is an urgency to start to fix the problem that some of this legislation addresses. But this must not be the end of the conversation of what we need to do to support workers and allow our economy to thrive in the 21st century labor movement.

Another amendment I had introduced was not made in order, but it would have asked the GAO to explore the deployment of portable benefit systems and the feasibility of a new employee classification for this gig economy and their employees.

We will continue exploring these alternative work models that ensure a strong set of benefits and protections for workers, while allowing them to retain the independence and flexibility they want.

With a comprehensive assessment by the GAO on sectoral bargaining in other countries, Congress will be better informed on the next steps after the PRO Act is enacted into law.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source