Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2587, which is a misguided attempt to intervene in an ongoing labor case and which has much broader and serious consequences for American workers and American jobs.

Last April, the National Labor Relations Board general counsel issued a complaint in response to a petition alleging that Boeing Corporation had located an aircraft production line in South Carolina. The charge is that Boeing made the move to retaliate against Washington state union workers who had exercised their legally-protected rights.

The April complaint didn't result in a final outcome--it just sent the case to an independent administrative law judge who is now considering arguments and evidence from both sides in the dispute. Even if the judge finds that Boeing did discriminate against workers for exercising their legal rights, Boeing could still argue that it would have made this business decision anyway or that moving production back to Washington state would impose an undue burden.

The bill before us is a response to a case that has not even been decided and where the burden of proof is high. Congress--which passed the laws under which the case is being adjudicated--should not intervene to determine the outcome of this ongoing judicial proceeding. More than that, Congress should not pass a bill with impacts that would go far beyond the Boeing case and allow companies to ignore labor laws by shipping jobs not just to another state but to another country.

In the past, the National Labor Relations Board has acted to prevent companies from shipping jobs to countries like Mexico in order to avoid legal organizing efforts by American workers. Such actions would be impossible if this legislation were to become law. Union workers who want to use legally-protected rights to improve workplace safety or to maintain middle-class wages and decent benefits could see their jobs shipped overseas--away from an American economy that is in desperate need of more jobs, not fewer.

By creating these disincentives, H.R. 2587 would encourage a ``race to the bottom.'' Even the threat of a plant shutdown would be a significant disincentive to workers, who would have no remedy to ensure enforcement of their legal rights. Workers could face a Hobson's choice--either exercise legally-protected rights and risk their jobs being shipped overseas, or forgo those rights and accept jobs that may come with low wages, inadequate benefits, and dangerous working conditions.

Rights are not rights unless they are enforceable. Workers will not have a voice at work if any time they seek to speak out, they can see their jobs disappear to another country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source