Employee Free Choice Act

Floor Speech

EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT -- (Senate - June 19, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to join my colleague from Massachusetts and thank him for his work. I rise today to voice my support for workers, for their families, and for their right to share in the prosperity the Senator from Massachusetts talked about that they helped create for this country.

As chairwoman of the Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee, protecting workers' rights is a critical priority for me.

In last year's election, we all heard the voice of America's voters calling for change. I am very proud to say that Democrats have been working very hard to help working Americans and their families secure a better future, and we are making progress. We recently, in fact, passed legislation to increase the minimum wage--the first increase in a decade. For the first time in 10 years, many Americans now have the opportunity to begin to lift themselves out of poverty. So we are moving in the right direction.

But our work doesn't end there. Now it is time to help workers by ensuring that their voices are heard in the workplace--voices for better benefits, voices for better wages, voices for better health care, and voices for better pensions. As we all know, unfortunately, today in too many of our workplaces workers who do try to exercise their legal rights are blocked by an unbalanced system that can trap them in unacceptable working conditions. I think it is time for Congress to stand with our Nation's workers and give them their voice back by strengthening protections for our workers so they can freely choose to join a union.

The Employee Free Choice Act will make the promise of employee choice a reality, and it will restore the balance of the relationship between our employers and our employees. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this important and balanced legislation.

So why is this bill necessary? Well, because workers should be able to share in the prosperity they helped to create. This bill is an important step in helping millions of working families get their fair share of the economic pie.

Our Nation's greatest asset is our people. American workers drive our economy. Their determination for a better future bolsters our Nation's prosperity. That is why I was so concerned to learn that workers believe the American dream is slipping away from them today. In fact, according to a poll conducted earlier this year by the Change to Win Federation, 82 percent of those surveyed said they believe working families are falling behind. I find that troubling, given that worker productivity has increased 3.1 percent each year between 2000 and 2004, and that corporate profits have more than doubled since 2001.

To me, it doesn't add up that American workers and American families are the ones who are losing. They are working very hard to help our country prosper, but they are not reaping their fair share of the benefits.

Unions can make a very positive difference. They allow our workers to collectively express their voices to employers on working conditions, health care, pensions, and other benefits, and the benefits we are talking about lead to better lives for Americans. Women who belong to a union earn 31 percent more than women workers who are not union members. That is an extra $179 a week and $9,300 more a year in income. Think about it. An extra $179 could help working moms put more food on the table for their family or help to pay for the education of a son or daughter. It could help her put a little more away for retirement, making she and her family less dependent on Social Security.

Workers who are union members are twice as likely to have employer health care coverage. Union families who pay insurance premiums for their coverage pay 36 percent less than their counterparts, saving them almost $1,300 a year.

With the enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act, it is estimated that up to a quarter of a million workers and their families in my home State of Washington alone would participate in their employer's health insurance plan. That is a step in the right direction for the 866,000 Washington State residents who were uninsured in 2005. They are also more likely to have guaranteed pensions. Sixty-eight percent of unionized workers are covered compared to only 14 percent of nonunion workers--68 percent compared to 14 percent.

The AFL-CIO estimates that up to 250,000 Washington State workers would participate in their employer's defined benefit pension plan with the passage of the bill we are talking about today.

Workers recognize the benefits that unions offer them. In fact, 53 percent of U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could.

Clearly unions empower their members to access better benefits and provide a better life for their families.

But what about other workers, those who don't belong to a union? Are unions beneficial for the rest of us? The answer is an emphatic yes.

Unions have forged the way for millions of working families--union and nonunion--to share in the prosperity they helped create.

Progressive employment policies such as the minimum wage, the 8-hour work day, the 40-hour work week, employer-provided health care and pension plans emerged from the labor movement and have become the standard in today's workplace.

I think we can all agree that unions benefit our society as a whole. I am sure the 60 million U.S. workers who say they would join a union if they could think so, too.

Why is union membership declining when so many workers want to join and unions clearly benefit all of us. As it turns out, exercising your right to organize with other workers isn't an easy task under our current system.

The system is broken. We all know that a fair labor market can only exist when employers and employees have a respected voice in the system. I am sorry to say that is not the case today.

Some unscrupulous employers are silencing employees who try to join a union to better their economic situation for their families, and that is not fair.

Under current law, workers who want to join a union use the majority sign up method to let the union know they are interested.

Then, employers have the power to make a choice.

They can choose to recognize their employees' wishes, and many progressive employers do, or they can demand a NLRB election, stalling the process and silencing the voices of their employees.

During the election process, employers have unlimited access to workers in the workplace. They can require workers to attend mass meetings to hear antiunion messages and even require one-on-one meetings between supervisors and employees. And, under our country's labor laws, these practices are perfectly legal.

I think we can all understand how intimidating these tactics can be. More often than not, employers create an unfriendly work environment where employees don't feel comfortable discussing unions or their benefits. In many cases they fear for their livelihood, and rightfully so.

Unlike the peer relationship between coworkers, employers hold a special position of power over their employees. Employers have power over a worker's wages and benefits and, ultimately, they can fire an employee.

A recent analysis from the National Labor Relations Board shows that one in five union supporters are illegally fired for union activity during the organizing campaign.

Too often, workers who clearly voice their desire for representation have been silenced by their employers.

On the other hand unions do not have access to workers while on the job. They are not allowed to enter the workplace at any time to meet with employees. Employees interested in learning about union membership must meet with representatives and employees on their own time.

The Employee Free Choice Act does nothing to change this relationship. It does not limit the access employers have to workers. And, it doesn't expand the union's access to employees on the job.

If employees make it through this obstacle and elect to form a union, the ordeal is not over yet. Bad faith employers can drag out the initial negotiations process, often for years, using the time and their unlimited access to employees on the job to convince them that unions are a bad idea.

It is easy to see who holds most of the cards in this relationship. Workers shouldn't have to risk their livelihoods to exercise their right to form a union. But it happens all the time.

Hardworking Americans shouldn't have to go through such an ordeal to form a union. The Employee Free Choice Act can help eliminate some of the unfair barriers that workers face and make it easier for them to organize.

How does this bill address the problem?

The Employee Free Choice Act can make a difference. It can help workers gain a respected voice in the conversation with employers, and it can penalize bad faith actors who break the law.

First, the bill ensures that employees who want to organize can do so without interference. By allowing employees to choose majority sign up, the Employee Free Choice Act gives workers their voice back.

Second, this bill ensures there's time for reasonable negotiations, but it does not allow one side to act in bad faith and string employees along in a never-ending process that is designed to block their ability to self-organize.

Third, this bill will hold bad actors accountable if they break the law. According to ``American Rights at Work,'' every 23 minutes in America, an employer fires or retaliates against a worker for their union activity.

We shouldn't tolerate illegal discrimination and retaliation against workers who are just trying to exercise their rights. If an employer violates the rights of its employees and is charged by the National Labor Relations Board, this bill will impose stricter penalties.

It balances the playing field by requiring that the NLRB stop bad faith employers from interfering in a union campaign or contract negotiations.

It puts teeth in the current law by making employers who break the law pay three times back pay and imposes civil penalties for unfairly discriminating against pro-union workers.

This will ensure that breaking the law doesn't just become part of ``the cost of doing business.''

Some would have us believe that the Employee Free Choice Act radically changes the rules of the game or takes away employers' rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, it does not eliminate the secret ballot. I am pleased that this bill gives employees the opportunity to vote by secret ballot if they so choose. For too long, some employers have had control over the balloting process, and this bill gets the balance right by making sure employees have the free choice to use a secret ballot or majority sign up.

Second, it does not create a new process. Some would have us believe this bill upsets the current system by creating a new process for forming a union. But majority sign up has always been allowable under the law. Today, some progressive employers voluntarily recognize their employees' choice to organize.

Third, it does not trap employees into union membership. Opponents of this bill would also have us believe that allowing employees to choose majority sign up as their preferred method for choosing a union would lead to union coercion or would trap other workers into union contracts against their will. That is not true.

Let's look at the facts about coercion and intimidation.

American Rights at Work found that antiunion behavior is widespread among some employers. Among those employers faced with a union campaign, 30 percent of employers fire prounion workers; 49 percent of employers threaten to close a worksite when workers attempt to form a union, although only 2 percent actually do; 51 percent of employers coerce workers into opposing unions with bribery or favoritism--both are illegal; 82 percent of employers faced with an organizing campaign hire union-busting consultants to stop union campaigns; 91 percent of employers force employees to attend one-on-one antiunion meetings with their supervisors.

Some would have us believe that unions can be just as bad, but the data doesn't back that up.

In her testimony before a House committee earlier this year, Nancy Schiffer, an attorney with AFL-CIO, told that they had reviewed 113 cases cited by the HR Policy Association as ``involving'' fraud coercion.

It found that only 42 decisions actually identified coercion, fraud or misrepresentation in the signing of union authorization forms--and that's since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. That is less than one case per year.

Compare that one case a year with the more than 31,000 cases filed in 2005 alone of employers engaging in illegal firings and other discrimination against workers for exercising their right to form a union. Clearly, unions have proven to be good faith actors in this process.

Fourth, it does not change an employer's free speech or property rights. One thing this bill does not change is the access to employees that exists today. Currently, employers have full access to employees during the workday. Unions do not. This bill leaves that relationship unchanged.

Finally, it does not bankrupt or harm businesses. Opponents to this bill would also have us believe allowing workers the free choice of forming a union would be bad for business or would bankrupt employers. Again nothing could be further from the truth.

We know that majority sign up can work for employers and employees because it is already happening for some progressive employers. Take Cingular Wireless, now known as AT&T, for example.

In my home State of Washington, we have seen proof that companies can remain competitive and profitable and still follow the law and respect worker rights.

Cingular Wireless gave its workers in Bothell, WA, the free choice they are entitled to. As a result, nearly 1,000 workers in my hometown decided to organize, and Cingular won praise for its responsible, respectful approach to employee choice.

Today, the company continues to be one of the top wireless providers in the country. Choosing to respect their employees' choice to unionize did not bankrupt them or make them any less competitive.

This bill helps us find the right balance in relationship between workers and management. I hope that my colleagues will join with me in raising our voices in support of workers and their families by voting yes on this bill.

Thank you Mr. President,

I wish to speak to amendment No. 1614 sponsored by Senators Byrd, Landrieu, Webb, Rockefeller, Salazar, and Tester.

The energy bill we have been debating this week is going to bring us greater energy independence and clean up our energy supply to help combat climate change.

The bill is clean and green and will make great strides in developing clean energy sources, and increasing efficiency.

But we must admit that we have done little in this bill to address America's largest energy resource and also one of our largest polluters--coal.

Coal supplies over half of our electricity generation, it drives our industry and manufacturing and can be turned into a liquid transportation fuel to replace foreign oil.

Coal is relatively cheap and easily accessible.

We have enough coal for 250 years if we keep using it at the same rate that we are now.

Not only are we going to keep using coal, but most energy experts predict we are going to use more of it in the future.

But we have to start doing better when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions from coal.

I do not believe that government has been providing the right incentives to move the coal industry in the right direction.

Source