Providing For Congressional Disapproval Of A Rule Submitted By The National Labor Relations Board

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is interesting, when we get on the topic of unions, how we all come to this with such a different point of view. I come to it as a person who grew up in a household where every member of my family was a member of a union. My father and mother, who each had eighth grade educations, belonged to railroad unions in East St. Louis, IL. Because of that, there was bargaining for their wages and benefits--which I didn't understand as a kid, but I do now--that resulted in the quality of life we enjoy in our family. We weren't wealthy, but we were comfortable. I never went hungry, and I thought we lived a pretty good life. Mom and dad were hard workers. If you were a hard worker in those days and had the benefit of union representation, you could make a decent living. And we did.

If we study history, we will find that is what has gone on in America. Primarily after World War II, we saw two things happening: a rise in unionism--people who belonged to organized unions--and a rise in the middle class. In other words, employees who were able to bargain for their wages and benefits and retirement ended up with enough money to raise their families and to build the middle class in America.

In that period from post-World War II until the 1960s, the United States really took its place on the map in terms of our position in the economy. Exactly the opposite has been true since. Unionism--those who belong to organized unions--has been going down in most sectors except for government employment, and we have also seen a decline in the middle class. I don't think that is a coincidence; I think that is an indication that when workers do not have a voice in the workplace, they lose that bargaining ability to get a just wage, a good wage, a living wage, and the benefits that should come with it.

The irony is that American workers are still the best in the world. If we just look at the issue of productivity of American workers, there is no reason for us to apologize. Our workers know how to create profit for the people they work for. Sadly, though, when it comes to this, we don't find that the companies that employ them reward their productivity with more wages and benefits. They don't. As a result, workers are working harder, making more profits for their company than ever, and yet they aren't seeing any real growth in their wages.

So there comes a time when workers should have the power to make a choice in their lives, and that is when they decide whether they want representation--an election to form a union where they work. That is what this bill is all about.

The National Labor Relations Board came up with a process that said: If you are going to have an election in the workplace so that workers can decide whether they want to belong to a union, let's at least make it fair, make sure that employers and employees and the unions have enough information. They can tell the workers their point of view, and the workers can decide.

I come to the floor today in support of the National Labor Relations Board's rule for modernizing and streamlining the election process for the workers. There is a wide divergence of opinions on both sides of the aisle here in terms of the value of unions. I value them. Some do not. But I think the ability of workers to organize and bargain collectively is about the only way to level the playing field and to create a growing middle class, which we need in America.

Last December the National Labor Relations Board came up with a rule, after a long process, to modernize the election process--the first time in almost 50 years. Fifty years ago they wrote the rules, and they said: You know, there are a few things that have changed in 50 years.

Here is what they said: The rule moves preelection problems, such as the 25-day waiting period and review, and consolidates options for delay and appeal into a single appeals process. In a nod to modern communications, the rule says employers and unions can file election petitions electronically rather than by fax or mail. This does not strike me as radical thinking. Think of all the things we do electronically today, from paying our bills each month, to communicating with one another, to gathering information. Bringing this to the labor situation, the choice of a union, is certainly not radical. And it requires employers to provide unions with the employees' personal email and phone numbers in addition to the existing requirement for names and addresses--personal email and phone numbers. When is the last time you filled out an application on the Internet when they didn't ask you for your email address or your phone number? It is routine, and we want to make this routine part of the process for unions and employers to get in contact with employees.

Republicans have called this an ``ambush rule.'' They say it deprives employers of the time they need to explain why the worker should vote against a union. They also claim the rule limits an employer's ability to pursue adequate representation. But that is not a fair claim. Union elections are only triggered when 30 percent of the workers sign a petition favoring an election. Almost one out of three needs to sign it saying: We want an election. Employers talk to their employees all the time when the employees are being asked whether they want to sign up to be part of the 30 percent, so the employers have constant access in the workplace. And employers can still require workers to meet one-on-one with supervisors, and about two-thirds of the employers actually do that. Nine out of 10 employers require workers to watch anti-union videos before an election. The new rule doesn't change that at all.

Under the new rule employers have time to talk to their workers; they just have fewer options to delay the actual election. It looks to me as if it is an advantage to employers going in, and the changes by the NLRB are really not that substantial.

Last year at this time workers at the Rock River Academy and Residential Center in Rockford, IL, wanted to form a union. Rock River provides mental health and educational services for young girls with emotional disabilities. The workers didn't like the working conditions in the workplace, the short staffing and stagnant wages. They wanted to work together to address these problems and to do a better job. They quickly signed up a majority of their coworkers and filed a petition with the NLRB office in Peoria. From the outset, the workers felt the employers at the facility were trying to do everything they could to stop this election. The delay in finalizing a union gave the residential center time to wage an aggressive anti-union campaign.

There was a hearing eventually at the NLRB, but it was nearly 3 weeks after the petition was filed. On the first day the employer's attorneys claimed that all the workers at the residential center were nonprofessional, even though they included registered nurses, licensed special education teachers, and licensed therapists and social workers. The following day they reversed their position and argued that all the employees at the facility should be considered professional--this was the next day--even though many employees lacked a college degree. That stretched the hearing out for 4 days. When it comes to these elections, delay is really the tool that is used to stop a final decision.

The regional director at the NLRB ruled in favor of the union's position and ordered an election held 82 days after the petition was filed in which more than a majority of the workers said they wanted an election. Eighty-two days later they actually got an election. During that time the employer hired two anti-union consultants to wage an anti-union campaign that included threats and interrogation and even the installation of a video surveillance system to monitor employees at all times throughout the workplace. Pro-union workers saw their hours cut, while non-union workers were given all the overtime they wanted. Worst of all, the employer terminated or laid off six employees in what they believe was retaliation.

Despite the delays and discomfort the employers created, a slim majority of employees still voted to form the union. But the employer continues to raise objections and intimidate the workers. Is that really what we want to see--the majority of the workers want the election, it takes 82 days to have the election, and then the recriminations and problems that follow? It doesn't seem as if this is workplace democracy, the way it was designed.

So I support this NLRB rule, and I am going to vote no on the efforts on the other side of the aisle to overturn it. This brings the election process into the 21st century and lets employers and unions communicate with employees. It doesn't encourage or discourage unionization; that is still up to the workers.

Some Republicans take offense to these changes and call it an ambush. Instead of standing up for workers, they have chosen to challenge these commonsense reforms. This rule is about reducing unnecessary delay and litigation and giving the workers the last word. That is what we are supposed to do.

This case in Illinois isn't unique. In some extreme cases, workers have been forced to wait 13 years for the simple right to organize. In many others, the delays have eventually led do a situation in which there was never a vote. Fifty-eight percent of workers want representation in their workplace, but the delays and challenges to the election process through NLRB discourage organizing.

These proposed changes by themselves neither encourage nor discourage unions. The proposed rule will apply the same way to workers attempting to decertify a union as it does to workers trying to form a union. The only real impact of the rule changes is, after 50 years, to recognize the existence of email and telephones, for goodness' sake. That is considered radical business by some on the other side of the aisle, but for most it is just common sense.

So oppose this effort to overturn this NLRB rule. Give the workers a chance to vote one way or the other on whether they want a union.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source