Providing for Congressional Disapproval of a Rule Submitted by the National Labor Relations Board -- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with strong
support of the National Labor Relations Board's new effort to make
workplace union elections more efficient and more effective. I come to
the floor today in opposition to Republican efforts to preserve a
broken system. Today, instead of raising minimum wages for millions of
struggling families, or letting people refinance their student loans,
or making sure women get equal pay for equal work, instead of
implementing policies that strengthen the middle class, Republicans are
pressing a bill to stop a government agency from modernizing its
procedures because it might help--yes, help--American workers.

Coming out of the Great Depression, America's labor unions helped
build America's strong middle class. For half a century, as union
membership went up, America's median family income went up. You know,
that was true for families whether they were part of a union or not. As
our country got richer, our families got richer. As our families got
richer, our country got richer.

Since 1935, Congress has required the National Labor Relations Board
to oversee the workplace elections in which workers decide whether to
be represented by a union. According to NLRB data, more than 90 percent
of time this works out just fine. For most of the cases that make it to an
election, employees and employers agree about the process and an
election is held without a dispute. Done.

But in the remaining handful of cases, the rules on how to resolve
these concerns have turned into a mess. Over time, a hodgepodge of
different rules for resolving these dispute has emerged in each of the
country's 26 NLRB regions. To fix this, the NLRB recently finalized one
national set of rules that sets out clear procedures for resolving
these issues. In other words, the NLRB is trying to make dispute
resolution clearer, more efficient, and more consistent from region to
region.

Trying to make government work better should not be controversial.
But it is controversial. Why? Because some employers simply oppose
union votes altogether. They do not want the NLRB to work. They do not
want union elections to happen at all. So they are lobbying against
those new rules, and congressional Republicans are standing up for
them, advancing a proposal to stop the NLRB from implementing its final
rules and doing the job Congress gave it 80 years ago.

Republicans claim they were concerned about workers being able to
ambush their employers with workplace elections. That is just plain
nonsense. Employers are always notified at the beginning of the
election process, and according to Caren Sencer, a top labor attorney
who testified a few weeks ago in the HELP Committee hearing, there is
nothing--nothing--in the new rule that would stop an employer from
having its relevant concerns heard and addressed prior to an election.

Let's be honest. The only ambush here is the Republican ambush on
workers' basic rights. According to a 2001 study from the Berkeley
Center for Labor Research and Education, long election delays
correspond with higher rates of labor law violations. A delay gives any
union employer more time to retaliate against a union organizer, and to
intimidate workers and delay work.

According to NLRB data, nearly one-third of the time when employees
file a petition to request an election, they never actually get one.
Employers who want to keep their workers out of a union prefer a
broken, inefficient system that gives them room to manipulate the
process and to block workers from organizing. But that is not the law.
The NLRB doesn't answer to them. Federal law directs the NLRB to make
sure election disputes can be resolved fairly between employers and
employees, and that is exactly what the NLRB is doing.

Throughout our history, powerful interests have tried to capture
Washington and rig the system in their favor, but we didn't roll over.
At every turn, in every time of challenge, organized labor has been
there fighting on behalf of the American people. Labor was on the
frontlines to take children out of factories and to put them in
schools. Labor was there to give meaning to the words ``consumer
protection'' by making our food and our medicine safe. Labor was there
to fight for minimum wages in States across this country. In every
fight to build opportunity in this country, in every fight to level the
playing field, in every fight for working families, labor has been on
the frontlines.

Powerful interests have attacked many of the basic foundations of
this country--the foundations that once built a strong middle class--
and too many times those powerful interests have prevailed. So it comes
down to a question I have asked before: Whom does this Congress work
for? Republicans say government should keep on working for powerful
CEOs who don't like unions and who have figured out how to exploit a
tangled system. Republicans complain about government inefficiencies,
but then they introduce a bill that is specifically designed so a
broken, inefficient system will stay broken and inefficient, even when
we know how to fix it.

Well, we weren't sent here just to represent CEOs who don't like
unions. We were sent here to support working people who just want a
fighting chance to level the playing field. I urge my colleagues to
vote against this Republican resolution and let the NLRB do its job.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source