Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VARGAS. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to improve the efficiency of the union election process. This amendment will reverse an antiworker rule adopted by the National Labor Relations Board several months after the PRO Act was marked up in the Education and Labor Committee.
The PRO Act strengthens workers' rights to a free and fair union representation election. It does so by preventing unnecessary delays. If we allow these delays to occur, then we are allowing employers more time to engage in antiunion campaigns designed to erode support for the union.
Democracy in the workplace should be a right, not a fight, and the workers who request a union representation election should not be denied their right to vote through unnecessary delay.
In 2014, the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB, updated its union election procedures by enacting reasonable deadlines and preventing employers from stalling elections through frivolous litigation. The PRO Act codifies many of those requirements, including the timelines for pre- and post-election hearings.
The 2014 election rule protected the integrity of the union representation process and was upheld in every court where it was challenged. However, on December 18, 2019, the Trump NLRB rescinded parts of the 2014 rule, burdening the employees with unnecessary delays and giving employers more opportunity to stall a timely election with frivolous litigation.
One important change in the 2014 election rule was that, once the NLRB's regional director decides that a representation election should be held, the director must ordinarily issue the notice of election at the same time as that decision. The notice of election must be posted in the workplace. It is crucial to informing employees of the time and details of the voting process.
However, the Trump NLRB changed this policy to allow delay before the regional director issues a notice which details the election. This amendment removes the delay by requiring the decision directing an election and the notice of an election to be issued at the same time, unless extraordinary circumstances warrant otherwise.
In doing so, my amendment provides clarity to employees so that they may know the details of their election as soon as possible.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, despite my affection for the gentleman offering it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VARGAS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Unnecessary delays in union representation elections enable employers to have more time to campaign against unions through lawful or unlawful means.
Once the NLRB determines that an election should go forward, the details of the election must be settled expeditiously so employees understand their rights as quickly as possible.
Employers engage in all kinds of tactics designed to scare employees out of supporting the union, from holding captive audience meetings, to issuing threats to specific employees.
Unnecessary delays only provide more time for employers to undermine employees' free choice. The choice of whether to join a union belongs to the employee. The PRO Act prevents employers from interfering with employees' freedom of association.
Moreover, the provisions of my amendment apply except under extraordinary circumstances.
When the NLRB created this rule initially in 2014, it found the details of the election, included in the notice, would often be resolved either in a pre-election hearing or in an agreement between the union and the employer.
If there is still an issue with the details of the election after the pre-election hearing, and at the time the regional director issues the direction of election, these would count as ``extraordinary circumstances.''
Minimizing these delays preserves employee free choice by ensuring that their vote is untainted by employer interference.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Americans continue to enjoy substantial economic mobility, despite Democrat claims that the decline in union membership has led to a permanent upper class. 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, a group heavily criticized by the Democrats' class-warfare politics.
In inflation-adjusted 2018 dollars, from 1967 to 2018, the portion of U.S. households earning less than $35,000 a year fell by 25 percent.
The portion earning between $35,000 and $100,000, the middle class, fell by 22 percent, from 53.8 percent to 41 percent of the country. But it did not fall because the middle class is worse off.
The ranks of the poor and middle class are shrinking as the ranks of the wealthy and upper middle class are growing. From 1967 to 2018, the portion of U.S. households making more than $100,000 rose from 9 percent to more than 30 percent of the country.
In 1967, nearly 25 percent of workers belonged to a union. In 2018, that number was just 10.5 percent. That means that while the union membership rate fell by more than half, the share of American households earning six-figure incomes--that is more than 100,000--more than tripled.
And, yes, contrary to another popular Democrat claim, throughout most of the country, these wage gains are outpacing the cost of living.
No one can argue with this good news, yet, in an attempt to score political points and bail out their allies in Big Labor, Democrats claim that the economy isn't working for the poor and the middle class.
As lawmakers, we can always do more to increase opportunities for people to achieve the American Dream. But to suggest the economy isn't working for average Americans, and the way to fix it is to expand forced unionism through coercive socialist schemes like H.R. 2474, is flatly untrue.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VARGAS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Unions created the middle class in our country. And all of the things that we enjoy, the safety that we have in our manufacturing, the 5-day work week, all the opportunities that women have, and people of color, all those came because unions stood up for these rights.
My amendment strengthens the opportunity for people to choose to become a union.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, again, I really respect my colleague from California, and he knows that.
However, it is not the unions who have created the middle class in this country. What has created the middle class in this country is freedom, the capitalistic society, the rule of law, our Judeo-Christian beliefs. We are the most prosperous, most successful country in the world, and it is because of those things.
Did unions help at one time? Yes, they did. But they have outgrown their usefulness. We don't need to force unionism on the American people. We need to preserve their freedom and do everything that we can. That is what grows this country and makes it great.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source