Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3094, Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act

Floor Speech

By:  Tim Scott
Date: Nov. 18, 2011
Location: Washington, DC

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Dr. Foxx.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record the following email from Mr. Lafe Solomon, acting chief counsel of the NLRB.

The article gave me a new idea. You go to geneva and I get a job with airbus. We screwed up the us economy and now we can tackle europe.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that there's no question that the NLRB is not under attack. Employees' freedom is under attack. The workplace fairness concept is under attack, but certainly not the NLRB.

There's no question that the NLRB was thought to be an impartial referee for our employers and our employees, but that has not been the case. They have been anything other than impartial. And their email trail will show that in just a few seconds.

But despite the fact that today we have 2 million more unemployed Americans, the NLRB continues to choose sides in the disputes, as opposed to being a referee. Their lack of judgment and common sense has been magnified, and it can be seen clearly in the email conversations within the Department of the NLRB.

Mr. Solomon apparently thought the following was funny, despite his current efforts which threatens more than 1,000 jobs in the great State of South Carolina and in my district in North Charleston. Emailing a colleague regarding criticism from a magazine article, this is what he said. I want you to hear this clearly. I'm going to say it slowly because we need to understand and appreciate that the NLRB has lost their marbles, without any question.

His quote: ``The article gave me a new idea. You go to Geneva and I get a job with Airbus,'' Mr. Solomon said. ``We screwed up the U.S. economy, and now we can tackle Europe.''

Let me repeat that because this is the chief counsel at the NLRB stating very clearly his intentions and his lack of humor. ``The article gave me a new idea,'' saying to one of his colleagues. ``You go to Geneva. I'll get a job with Airbus. We screwed up the U.S. economy and now we can tackle Europe.''

Only in an alternate universe is this funny or does it make any sense whatsoever. It is no secret that the NLRB's reckless actions have a direct impact on my district, without any question. But it is also no secret many on both sides of the aisle have recognized the danger of those actions.

Earlier this year the House passed my bill, H.R. 2587, which removes the ability from the NLRB to destroy jobs because, simply put, they cannot be trusted to do anything other than undermine the fragile recovery here in America. Unfortunately, Senator Reid has done with my bill what he has done with the other 22 job-creating measures: nothing.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Dr. Foxx.

In an effort to appease the President and his union supporters, the NLRB has gone off the tracks and begun proposing harmful rules, left, right, up, down. It is ridiculous.

One of these rules is why we're here today, an effort to allow for quickie union elections. This rule, quite simply, puts the rights of all employees at risk. By allowing as little as 7 to 10 days for employees to decide whether they want to join a union or not, the NLRB is preventing many from having the time to do the necessary research and make a good decision on whether or not they join a union.

Currently, the average time is 35 to 40 days, a reasonable amount of time. This is a significant difference. Going from 35 to 40 days down to 7 to 10 days is ridiculous.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Dr. Foxx.

The new rule also makes it impossible for anyone to challenge the bargaining unit chosen by the union, dividing employees and raising employers' labor costs.

We stand here today with an opportunity. We can either allow the NLRB to continue to create bad policy and bad rules, or we can put America and the job creators back on the right track. The question could not be simpler, and the choice has been made easy because of the inability of the NLRB to do what they were chosen to do, which was to be the impartial referee on issues between employers and employees, and I find that challenging.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT