OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2015

Floor Speech

Date: June 10, 2014
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Labor Unions

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this purely ideological amendment by my colleague from Georgia, which aims to eliminate the use of official time for representational activities for employees covered by the T-HUD bill before us.

This is yet another attempt to accelerate a race to the bottom and to deny workers their fundamental right to bargain collectively. Specifically, this amendment aims to prevent effective union representation by attacking the use of official time by employees.

Use of reasonable amounts of official time has been supported by government officials of both parties for 50 years.

In exchange for the legal obligation to provide the same services to those who pay as those who choose not to pay, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 allowed Federal employee unions to bargain with agencies over official time.

Under this law, Federal employees who volunteered to serve as union representatives are permitted to use official time to engage in negotiation and perform representational activities while on duty status.

Using official time increases efficiency and is beneficial to both Federal employees and the Federal Government. These types of informal meetings save the government money by allowing the parties to avoid costly arbitration and other less efficient means of dispute resolution.

At the FAA, for example, official time is essential for the collaborative process between employees and management. At a time when we are overhauling our Nation's air traffic control system, eliminating official time is inappropriate, fiscally irresponsible, and an unnecessary violation of workers' basic rights.

At a time when we face so many challenges, when we are in massive need of infrastructure improvements, I wish that the majority would find something more constructive to do than attack the fundamental right to bargain collectively.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source
arrow_upward