Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, throughout their history, America's labor unions have enabled millions of American workers to secure their place in the middle class and receive their fair share of the profits they produce. When workers have the power to stand together and negotiate with their employer, they have higher pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions.

Unions not only benefit union members, but also nonunion members benefit from the higher wages that union members enjoy. And even the children of union members also do better. And under union contracts, pay gaps disappear because union members get equal pay for equal work.

But union membership, which peaked at around 30 percent of the workforce during the 1950s, is just at 10 percent today. That is the lowest level since just after the National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935. It is not a coincidence that as union membership has decreased, income inequality has increased.

This decline in union membership is not a function of workers' choices. A recent study found that nearly half of nonunion workers would join a union if given the chance. The gap between worker preferences and union membership is the product of intensified antiworker attacks and labor laws that fail to address unfair labor practices.

The lesson from the last 40 years is clear: That it is our current labor laws that are too weak to defend workers' rights to join a union and to collectively bargain with their employer.

H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act, is the most significant upgrade in U.S. labor laws in 80 years. This comprehensive proposal makes sensible reforms to protect and strengthen workers' rights.

The PRO Act would put teeth in the Nation's labor laws by authorizing the NLRB to assess meaningful civil penalties when companies violate their workers' rights to organize and bargain.

It will close loopholes that the corporations use to misclassify workers as independent contractors instead of employees; thereby evading their obligation to bargain, as well as evading their obligation to pay minimum wage and overtime; provide Worker's Compensation, unemployment compensation, and employee benefits.

It ensures that workers can decide whether to form a union without interference. Democracy in the workplace should be a right, not a fight.

Too many Americans are now working too hard for too little. And while corporations are enjoying record-level profits, workers and their families are struggling to keep pace with rising costs of housing, childcare, education, and other essentials.

So I urge my colleagues to support the PRO Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019.

Big Labor is in a panic over plummeting union membership. Union bosses could self-correct and increase transparency and accountability to serve workers better, or dedicate more resources to union organizing, rather than attempting to organize less than one-tenth of 1 percent of eligible employees, as they did in 2018.

Instead, the largest federation of labor unions in America spends more than three times as much money on political activities as it does on its stated purpose of organizing and representing workers. And they are resorting to their usual arm-twisting and intimidation tactics by demanding Democrats pass the PRO Act.

Before I get into the many, many failings of this bill, I want to correct the Democrats' false narrative that the decline in union membership is hurting workers.

Americans are benefiting from a booming economy, thanks to Republican tax and regulatory reforms. Despite Democrats' false claims, wages are rising fastest for lower- and middle-income workers. Unemployment is at a 50-year low, and millions of jobs have been created since President Trump took office.

In fact, millions of poor Americans continue to move into the middle class, and millions in the middle class are moving into the ranks of the wealthy. The substantial economic mobility many Americans are experiencing should be celebrated.

Instead, Democrats are trying to claim falsely that the economy isn't working for average Americans, and the only way to fix it is to expand enforced unionism through coercive, socialist schemes like the PRO Act.

Let's also remember that Federal law already protects the rights of employees to organize, and Republicans respect that right. Any reforms to U.S. labor laws should help workers, not union bosses.

The PRO Act will require employers to hand over workers' private, personal information to union organizers, without workers having any say in the matter. This would make it even easier for union organizers to target, harass and intimidate workers.

It would also overturn all State right-to-work laws. These are laws that allow workers to decide for themselves whether to join a union and pay dues. If the PRO Act becomes law, workers will be forced to take money from their paychecks and give it to labor unions, even if they don't want to be represented by a union.

This provision is astonishing since we know that from 2010 to 2018, unions spent $1.6 billion in members' dues on hundreds of left-wing groups, without first receiving consent from workers to do so.

The PRO Act will also undermine workers' rights to vote by secret ballot. This is hypocrisy at its worst, or best. House Democrats elect their own leaders by secret ballot, and Democrats held up the USMCA trade deal to guarantee workers in Mexico had the right to a secret ballot. Yet, they are willing to deprive American workers of that same protection.

Among the PRO Act's most harmful provisions is the incorporation of California's newly-enacted, overly broad, and confusing definition of employee, which will deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to work independently and start their own businesses.

Bottom line, there are over 50 harmful provisions in this bill that are bad for workers, job creators, and the U.S. economy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, low-income workers are being better paid because of State minimum wage laws that most Republicans opposed. And jobs created in the 35 months of the Trump administration are fewer than the jobs created in the last 35 months of the Obama administration.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), chair of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chair, before I begin, I enter into the Record letters in support of the PRO Act from the American Federation of Musicians and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, New York, NY, February 4, 2020.

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of 80,000 members of the American Federation of Musicians, I write urging your support of H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (``PRO Act'') and ask that you oppose any amendments or any offensive motions that may be offered during House deliberations.

The PRO Act strengthens the National Labor Relations Act by supporting the ability of working people to have a voice on the job. The bill would update the National Labor Relations Act to allow workers to have a greater say in such important workplace issues as higher wages and retirement security. Once workers vote to form a union, the National Labor Relations Board could seek enforcement and relief in federal court allowing for swifter justice. In addition, the bill would prohibit employers from forcing workers to attend captive audience meetings designed to encourage workers from voting against the union. Companies and corporate officers would be confronted with stiff financial penalties for violating the law.

The PRO act also establishes a mediation and arbitration process to prevent employers from avoiding the completion of a first contract. Historically, many employers attempt to stall first-contract negotiations in an effort to frustrate and in some cases stop the collective bargaining process, often after union organizers and negotiators have worked for years to finalize a first contract.

The bill also supports workers' right to picket or withhold their labor in order to push for workplace changes. It also protects employees' right to strike and prevents an employer from hiring permanent replacement workers and allows unrepresented workers to participate in collective action and class action lawsuits against unscrupulous employers.

Finally, HR 2474 eliminates state right to work laws which over the years have given more power to billionaires and special interest groups at the expense of lowering worker wages, eroding pensions and healthcare coverages in states where such laws have been enacted.

We urge you to support the PRO Act. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Raymond M. Hair, Jr., International President, American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada. ____ New York, NY, February 3, 2020.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the approximately 125,000 American members of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), I urge you to support the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, H.R. 2474, and to oppose weakening amendments and any Motion to Recommit when the House of Representatives considers the bill. The PRO Act will restore fairness to the economy by strengthening the federal laws that give working people a voice on the job so they can negotiate for higher wages, better benefits, a more secure retirement and a safer workplace.

Too often, when workers choose to form a union, employers stall the bargaining process to avoid reaching an agreement-- as evidenced by riggers in the Pacific Northwest employed by Rhino Staging Northwest who voted in 2015 to be represented by Local 15 of the IATSE, but today still don't have a contract.

These riggers--who work high above stages, on scaffolding or catwalks, installing complex lighting and audio equipment--followed state and federal labor laws, and over many years organized themselves. Fed up with low pay, no employer-funded healthcare, and unsafe working conditions they voted to unionize.

Yet, after these workers voted for the union, Rhino refused to bargain in good faith as required by federal labor law. Rhino challenged the union before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and in federal court. It lost. It has stalled and delayed and still today has not entered into a contract.

This is just one example of how some employers have been able to violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) with impunity, routinely denying workers their basic right to join with coworkers for fairness on the job. Time after time, employers get away with it.

The PRO Act would establish a process for mediation and arbitration to help the parties achieve a first contract. This important change would make the freedom to negotiate a reality for countless workers who form unions but never get to enjoy the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement.

The PRO Act would modernize the NLRA by bringing its remedies in line with other workplace laws. In addition to imposing financial penalties on companies and individual corporate officers who violate the law, the bill would give workers the option of bringing their case to federal court.

Under the bill, once workers vote to form a union, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would be authorized to order that the employer commence bargaining a first contract. These orders would be enforced in district courts to ensure swift justice. In addition, the bill would ensure that employees are not deprived of their right to a union because their employer hides behind a subcontractor or other intermediary, or deliberately misclassifies them as supervisors or independent contractors.

The bill would also eliminate ``right to work'' laws; prohibit mandatory ``captive audience'' meetings; and protect the right to strike, among other provisions.

The PRO Act is a top priority for the IATSE, we urge you to support this bill and help us build an economy that works for all working families. Sincerely, Matthew D. Loeb, International President.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chair, when I was a young college professor in the Los Angeles Community College District, the board of trustees passed a measure that would lay off over 100 of us, even though we had tenure.

It was my union, the American Federation of Teachers, that organized the protests and stood up for us. The union saved my job.

Yet, today, we see that there is a decline in union membership. It is not because workers don't want to be in a union. It is because employers have been allowed to use antiunion tactics, such as paying millions of dollars to professional union busters who come into the workplace to intimidate workers in captive audience meetings.

Even when workers vote to approve a union, more than half of them still do not have a collective bargaining agreement 1 year later. That is because employers face few penalties for bargaining in bad faith, while employees can be fired for striking and exercising their rights.

The PRO Act is the best way to protect the right to organize and to help workers have the quality of life they deserve.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor who knows that union members make more than nonunion members.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus and distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor, and a lady who knows, by every measure, that economic progress was better under Obama than President Trump.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House of Representatives.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), who is the co-chair of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). She is someone who has read the bill and knows that civil fines in the bill are paid to the U.S. Treasury, not to the unions victimized by unfair labor practices.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, can you advise how much time is remaining on each side?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who is a strong supporter of workers and who hails from one of the majority of States that have an ABC test.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who knows that Social Security numbers are not available under this bill, but the same information that the Trump NLRB currently provides is in the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rose).

Mr. ROSE of New York. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters of support for the PRO Act from the TWU, ATU, and AFSCME. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC, February 3, 2020.

Dear Representative: On behalf of more than 151,000 members of the Transport Workers Union (TWU), I am writing to urge you to support the passage of Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (H.R. 2474), as well as to oppose any weakening amendments or motion to recommit. As written, his bill directly addresses the needs of the middle-class in the 21st century and will help ensure that our next generation economy is one that puts working families first.

Our labor laws are designed to provide access to the time- tested process of collective bargaining. Under the National Labor Relations Act, certain workers, through their elected representatives, negotiate directly with their employer over the terms of their labor. How often will they work? How much will they be paid? What benefits will they receive beyond their salary? Through collective bargaining, these questions are answered in a unique way for each work group and at each company. This is an incredibly flexible process that has allowed TWU to successfully negotiate contracts for everyone from flight attendants to mechancis to railroad inspectors to bus operators to bikeshare workers.

In the nearly 75 years since Congress last took action to substantially reform our labor laws, our economy has undergone significant changes. However, the central role that workers play in generating wealth for our nation has not changed. While Facebook bikeshare workers (TWU members since 2019) may be employed at a company and in a job that did not exist in 1947, they still deserve the right to collectively bargain to improve their compensation and benefits. The reforms in the PRO Act will ensure that gSains in the 21st century economy include working families.

The proportion of unionized workers in the U.S. is at a 90- year low because of structural hurdles which make joining a new union very difficult. Companies misclassify workers as independent contractors, engage shell companies to hire employees, and ignore our labor laws on a daily basis in order to deny their workers the right to organize and collectively bargain. Tactics like these have driven down the percent of unionized workers in the U.S. along with salaries and benefits for the middle class. Our era of historic income inequality can only be fixed by reforming our outdated labor laws and empowering working families.

The PRO Act would directly address these issues and give workers across the entire economy equal access to the collective bargaining process. In order ensure workers' rights keep pace with the new economy, the Transport Workers Union strongly urges you to to vote for final passage of H.R. 2474 and oppose any weakening amendments. Sincerely, John Samuelsen, International President. ____ Amalgamated Transit Union, Silver Spring, MD, February 3, 2020.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), the largest union representing transit workers in the U.S., I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019 (H.R. 2474).

Public transit employees work under difficult circumstances. Bus drivers work long shifts, refraining from drinking water because they don't get adequate time to use the restroom. Operators frequently get assaulted by angry passengers who don't want to pay increased fares for reduced service. Transit maintenance employees do their jobs under dangerous conditions, from the garages they work in, to the tools they use, to the air they breathe.

Often times when low paid transit employees attempt to improve their standard of living by joining a union, they are thwarted by ruthless multinational companies which do everything they can to squash workers' dreams, and current U.S. Labor Laws authorize and enable them to do so.

Private transit employers regularly violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) with no consequences. Workers are forced to attend ``captive audience'' meetings whose sole purpose is to convince them to vote against the union. Companies place massive pressure on the shoulders of low income individuals with families and tell them lies about what it means to be in a union.

Sometimes, the companies hide behind definitions in the law to get their way. Last year, in the case of SuperShuttle DFW, Inc. v. Amalgamated Transit Union 1338, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that a shuttle company's drivers were correctly classified as independent contractors, making it difficult for gig-workers to be classified as employees under the NLRA because protected bargaining is only granted to traditional employees.

Moreover, even when workers actually vote to join a union, the companies still fight, working ruthlessly to decertify bargaining units and bust unions even before they get a chance to negotiate a first contract. It never ends, and it is not a fair fight.

The PRO Act would modernize the NLRA by bringing its remedies in line with other workplace laws, imposing appropriate financial penalties on companies that violate the code. It would also establish a process for mediation and arbitration to help the parties achieve a first contract, making the freedom to negotiate a reality for countless workers who form unions but never get to enjoy the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement. It would generally provide a more level playing field so that an increased number of workers could join unions and have a better chance to successfully fight for their wages, benefits, and working conditions.

On behalf of the members and potential future members of the ATU living in your congressional district, we urge you to support H.R. 2474. Thank you for your consideration of our views. AFSCME, Washington, DC, January 27, 2020. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) strongly supports passage of the ``Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act'' (H.R. 2474). As the largest public-sector union, our members believe that all workers, both private and public sector workers, deserve the right to organize and bargain collectively to improve their working conditions.

At a time when the economy is strong and unemployment is low, there are still people who have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Some workers cannot take time off of work due to a cold or to take care of a sick family member because they will lose pay and won't be able to cover rent or buy food. When workers can form or join a union, they can negotiate a contract that provides livable wages, paid leave, health insurance and retirement benefits. Workers have protections if they are retaliated against by their employer. They can demand safe workplace environments. When workers have protections and good working conditions, the products and services that they provide are better. This is good for the company, consumers and the economy.

According to a study by David Madland at the Center for American Progress (CAP), there is a direct correlation between the strength of unions and the middle class. Union membership rates have fallen over the past 50 years, along with the share of income that goes to the middle 60 percent of American households. In 1968, this group of households brought home 53.2 percent of national income. That same year, 28.2 percent of American workers were union members. As union membership rates began to slide downward, so too did the share of income accruing to the middle class. In 2017, just less than 11 percent of American workers were unionized, and the middle 60 percent of households now earn just 45.5 percent of national income, barely up from 45.4 percent in 2016, a record low share.

For decades, abusive employers have been able to violate federal labor laws with relative impunity, making it more difficult for workers to organize and negotiate for fair pay, benefits and working conditions. The PRO Act builds upon collective bargaining rights for private sector workers by expanding coverage to more employees. It increases penalties for violations of workers' rights. It strengthens support for workers who suffer retaliation and it prohibits employers from interfering in union elections.

AFSCME strongly urges Congress to pass the PRO Act. This bill will improve the rights of workers, which will make our country stronger. Sincerely, Scott Frey, Director of Federal Government Affairs.

Mr. ROSE of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the PRO Act to protect workers against an unprecedented tide of attacks on hardworking Americans.

Unions are the backbone of our economy, and, for too long, Congress has watched as unions are trampled on in the name of shareholder value. Well, no more.

For far too long, the Democratic Party has treated unions as if they were fully owned subsidiaries, talking to them only during times of elections. Well, with this Congress, we say that those days are no more.

For too long, the Democratic Party stood on the sidelines and watched nonunion members go to war with union members, all in the working class and the middle class, and we had forgotten that, when the union movement works well, when the union movement grows, the entire middle class prospers. Well, that ends today.

With this bill, we reaffirm workers' rights to organize a union and to negotiate higher wages and better benefits. By passing this bill, we uphold the bedrock values of this country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the vice chair of the Committee on Education and Labor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I have a couple of other speakers, but they are not here now, so we are prepared to close.

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

Mr. Chair, for nearly 80 years, Federal labor law has struck a careful balance among the rights of employers, employees, and unions, resulting in a growing economy and greater prosperity. But the Democrats are seeking to upend that balance and radically tilt the playing field in favor of unions and against workers and small businesses.

We now have additional proof about the motivations of House Democrats for advancing this radical special interest legislation. It comes from Democrats' most feared, Big Labor union boss, Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, who said the following yesterday:

Those who would oppose, delay, or derail this legislation, do not ask us, do not ask the labor movement for a dollar or a door knock. We won't be coming.

That truly says it all. The PRO Act is all about serving the interests of union bosses at the expense of workers and business owners.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the PRO Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act is based on a simple idea that hard work should pay off. Strong labor unions and collective bargaining rights have long ensured that workers receive a fair share of the profits that they have produced.

Unfortunately, decades of antiunion attacks have slowly eroded workers' collective bargaining rights, weakened labor unions, and contributed to a dramatic rise in income inequality.

When workers have the power to stand together and form a union, they have higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. The protecting the Right to Organize Act is an opportunity for all of us to stand with workers and help build an economy where everyone can succeed.

Mr. Chair, I recognize the workers and advocates, both here today and across the country, who have been critical in bringing this legislation to the floor. In that regard, I include in the Record a letter from 138 unions and civil rights and faith-based organizations in support of H.R. 2474. January 31, 2020.

Dear Representatives: The undersigned organizations support the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, as introduced by Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Jacky Rosen (D- Nevada), Representatives Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.), Andy Levin (D-Mich.), Pramila Jayapal (D- Wash.), and Brendan Boyle (D-Penn.).

The ability of working people to join together to collectively bargain for fair pay and working conditions is a fundamental right. When working people join a union, they have a voice on the job and the ability to collectively bargain for wages, benefits, and working conditions. Unions are crucial in fostering a vibrant middle class and reducing income inequality. When unions are strong, they set wage standards for entire industries and occupations, they make wages more equal within occupations, and they help close racial and gender wage gaps.

For decades, however, that right has been eroding as employers exploit weaknesses in the current law to interfere with workers' rights--and face no real consequences for doing so. The result has been stagnant wages, unsafe workplaces, and rising inequality.

The PRO Act would go a long way toward restoring workers' right to organize and bargain collectively by streamlining the process for forming a union, ensuring that new unions are able to negotiate a first collective bargaining agreement, and holding employers accountable when they violate workers' rights.

This is important because by bringing workers' collective power to the bargaining table, unions are able to win better wages and benefits for working people. On average, a worker covered by a union contract earns 13.2 percent more in wages than a peer with similar education, occupation, and experience in a nonunionized workplace in the same sector. Moreover, when unions are strong, they set wage standards for entire industries and occupations, they make wages more equal within occupations, and they help close racial and gender wage gaps. Finally, there is a huge gap between the share of workers with union representation (11.9 percent) and the share of workers that would like to have a union and a voice on the job (48 percent). The PRO Act would take a major step forward in closing that gap.

The PRO Act protects the right to join a union by:

1. Imposing stronger remedies when employers interfere with workers' rights. Under current law, there are no penalties on employers nor any compensation awarded to workers when employers illegally fire or retaliate against workers who are trying to form a union. The PRO Act would institute civil penalties for violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and would also require the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to go to court and get an injunction to immediately reinstate workers if the NLRB believes the employer has illegally retaliated against workers for union activity. Finally, the PRO Act would give workers the right to go to court on their own to seek relief, bringing labor law in line with other workplace laws that allow for a private right of action.

2. Strengthening workers' right to join a union and collectively bargain over working conditions. Though current federal law requires employers to bargain in good faith with the union chosen by their employees to reach a collective bargaining agreement, employers often drag out the bargaining process to avoid reaching an agreement. The PRO Act establishes a process for reaching a first agreement when workers organize, employing mediation and then, if necessary, binding arbitration, to enable the parties to reach a first agreement. The PRO Act would also allow employers and unions to agree upon a ``fair share'' clause requiring all workers who are covered by the collective bargaining agreement to contribute a fair share fee towards the cost of bargaining and administering the agreement, even in so called ``right- to-work'' states. Furthermore, the PRO Act will help level the playing field for workers by repealing the prohibition on secondary boycotts and prohibiting employers from permanently replacing strikers.

3. Unrigging the rules that are tilted against workers. Too often, employers misclassify workers as independent contractors because only employees have the right to organize under the NLRA. Similarly, employers will misclassify workers as supervisors to deprive them of their NLRA rights. The PRO Act tightens the definitions of independent contractor and supervisor to crack down on misclassification and make sure that all eligible workers are able to unionize if they choose to do so. The PRO Act also makes clear that workers can have more than one employer, and that both employers need to engage in collective bargaining over the terms and conditions of employment that they control or influence. And in an effort to create transparency in labor-management relations, the PRO Act would require employers to post notices that inform workers of their NRLA rights and to disclose contracts with consultants hired to persuade workers on how to exercise their rights.

The time for the PRO Act is long overdue, and we cannot delay in working toward its passage. We call on Congress to enact this important piece of legislation as quickly as possible to ensure working people are paid fairly, treated with dignity, and have a voice on the job. Sincerely,

Economic Policy Institute, National Employment Law Project, 1worker1vote, 350.org, 9 to 5, AFL-CIO, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, Inc., Alliance for Justice, Alliance for Retired Americans, American Association for Justice, American Family Voices, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, American Income Life (AIL), American Income Life: Michael Vasu Agency, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO, Association of Flight Attendants-- CWA, Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network (AWN), Bend the Arc: Jewish Action.

BlueGreen Alliance, California Reinvestment Coalition, Campaign for America's Future, Catholic Labor Network, Center for American Progress, Center for Law and Social Policy, Center for Popular Democracy, Center for Public Policy Priorities, Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., Child Labor Coalition, Claimant Advocacy Program, Metropolitan Washington Council AFL-CIO, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Coalition on Human Needs, Colorado Fiscal Institute, Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis, Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces, CWA, Demos, Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, Economic Opportunity Institute.

Endangered Species Coalition, Equal Rights Advocates, Fair World Project, Family Values @Work, Farmworker Justice, Fiscal Policy Institute, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Friends of the Earth, Futures Without Violence, GoldenHours Consulting, Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch, Indiana Institute for Working Families, Indivisible, Interfaith Worker Justice, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART), International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE), AFL-CIO, International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots.

International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, IUE-CWA, Jobs With Justice, Justice in Motion, Kentucky Equal Justice Center, Labor Project for Working Families in partnership with FV@W, LAANE, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, League of Conservation Voters, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Legal Aid at Work, Legal Aid Society of MFS, Louisiana Budget Project, Main Street Alliance, MANA, A National Latina Organization, Maritime Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Michigan League for Public Policy, Milwaukee Area Service & Hospitality Workers Organization, NAACP.

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National Consumers League, National Domestic Workers Alliance, National Education Association, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Equality Action Team, National Immigration Law Center, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, National Nurses United, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Urban League, National Women's Law Center, National Workrights Institute, NC Justice Center, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, New Jersey Policy Perspective, New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice, Nonprofit Professional Employees Union.

OPEIU, Oxfam America, Patriotic Millionaires, People's Action, People For the American Way, PFLAG National, Policy Matters Ohio, PolicyLink, Pride at Work, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, Public Citizen, Public Justice Center, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Sierra Club, SMART TD, South Florida Interfaith Worker Justice, Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, Transport Workers Union.

UnidosUS Action Fund, Union Veterans Council, AFL-CIO, United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), United Food and Commercial Workers International Labor Union, United Steelworkers (USW), Verite, Voices for Progress, VoteVets, Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy, Women Employed, Workers Defense Project, Workers' Rights Institute of Georgetown Law Center, Working America, Working Families Party, Working Partnerships USA, Workplace Fairness, WV Citizen Action Group.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I once again urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, under current law, which has been in effect since 1935, an employer may voluntarily recognize the union if a majority of employees have demonstrated support through signed cards or a petition to organize.

If an employer decides not to recognize the union based on those signatures, then NLRB will direct a secret ballot election to determine whether the employees will be represented by the union. The PRO Act does not alter these requirements which have been in effect since 1935.

This amendment would limit the workers' and employers' option to enter into voluntary recognition agreements. There is no reason why we should limit workers' options to an election if the workers and employers agree to forego it.

But let's be clear. The PRO Act does not require card check in lieu of elections. Instead, it strengthens current law by requiring an employer to bargain with a union if the union has demonstrated majority support and the employer's interference coerced employees into voting against the union.

The only time the NLRB can order an employer to bargain, absent a secret ballot, is when the employer interferes with the union election after a majority have already indicated support through signed authorization cards or a petition. Again, this is current law, set forth by the Supreme Court, and it has been in effect since 1969.

In fact, the PRO Act actually strengthens secret ballot elections by ensuring they are free and fair, both to the workers and to the employers.

Contrary to the argument that this legislation undermines secret ballots, the PRO Act does make a change because it expands the use of secret ballot elections because current law allows employers to withdraw recognition of a union without an election to decertify the union if the employer has evidence that the union has lost the majority support.

The PRO Act just says that union elections are required for decertification, by secret ballot, that must take place before the employer can withdraw recognition. So this actually expands secret ballot elections and, otherwise, pretty much maintains current law that has been in effect for decades.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

For over 220 years since we have had a Constitution in the United States of America, one of the most precious rights we have is a secret ballot. And I wouldn't know why anybody would fear--if you have a great case to make for the union, fine. Make it.

I think we have a right to be unionized or not be unionized. As I said, I was raised in a union household.

But I think that is one of the most sacred rights that we have, as American citizens, as many people do not have. We ask that same right for our Mexican worker. I think we should treat an American worker the same way.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, only to remind the House that the only time the NLRB can order an employer to bargain with a union, absent a secret ballot, is when the employer interferes with the union election after the majority has already indicated support through signed cards or petitions.

If the employer wants to insist on a secret ballot, all they have to do is not violate the Labor Relations Act.

The other side of it is that if they want to decertify, they have to have an election. So that is a change. But that is more secret ballot elections, not fewer.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First, I want to point out that, by every measure, unemployment, jobs per month, a Dow Jones industrial average, even the deficit were all better under President Obama than President Trump.

We also know that union members get better wages, better benefits, and safer workplaces than nonmembers. But unions have the duty to represent all workers in a bargaining unit, even those who are not members of the union.

In so-called right-to-work States, that means the union must equally represent those nonmembers who are free to avoid paying their fair share of the costs of representation. This obligation to represent everyone is known as the duty of fair representation.

Since all workers receive a benefit from union representation, it is only fair that everyone contribute their fair share. For example, if a worker files a grievance, the union must represent that person with individualized representation, and that could cost thousands of dollars a day.

Likewise, when a union incurs expenses while bargaining for raises or benefits, everyone in the bargaining unit benefits, so it only makes sense that everyone help pay for that representation.

The PRO Act permits unions and employers to negotiate labor agreements, which include a service fee to cover the fair share of the cost of providing services mandated by law. That does not mean political activities or advocacy or holiday parties or Fourth of July celebrations, just those that are required by law. It just ensures that those who enjoy the benefits of union representation pay their fair share.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, this is the last step before we can pass the PRO Act. We know that union members make higher salaries, get better benefits, work in safer workplaces. Nonunion members benefit from the high salaries.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source