Providing for the Expenses of Certain Committees of the House of Representatives in the 114th Congress, and Providing for Consideration of S.J. Res. 8, Providing for Congressional Disapproval of a Rule Submitted by the National Labor Relations Board

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I hope you are feeling better soon, also.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of both the rule and Senate Joint Resolution 8, which would overturn the National Labor Relations Board's ambush elections rule. I was proud to join my friend, Chairman John Kline, in introducing the House version of this resolution.

We are here today because the Obama administration is trying to fix a problem that does not exist, claiming that expediting elections on whether to form a union is needed because of delays in the process and supposed unfair advantages to employers.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that I grew up in a union household. My father worked for B.F. Goodrich Company. He was a longtime union member after World War II. I have seen many things that the unions have done that have been good. Unions are legal in America. Employees have a right to hear all the information. They can decide whether they want to be in a union or not be in a union.

There is no big hurry. Look, the National Labor Relations Board--and this is March Madness, so I will use a basketball metaphor. I played basketball, and other people do; you expect the referees to just be a fair arbiter of the game. When you go in someone else's home court, you expect to get a fair call.

That is all we expect the NLRB to do, and that is not what is happening now. Here are the facts.

In reality, under the current procedures, 94 percent of elections are held within 56 days. The median is 38 days from a petition's being filed. Furthermore, unions won 60 percent of those elections, so they win more than half--or two-thirds, I should say. Given the importance and consequences of the decisionmaking being made by workers, this is an entirely reasonable period of time.

Under the NLRB's radical new policy, union elections could be held, Mr. Speaker, in as little as 11 days after a petition is filed. As an employer myself of not a large business, I don't know if I could find a labor attorney in 11 days to go through this very complicated legal issue. This is not nearly enough time for employers to present their side to employees or for those employees to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, for workers, the NLRB rule doesn't stop here.

Of grave concern to me is the threat posed to workers' privacy. Currently, employers are required to turn over a list of employees and their home addresses to union organizers within 7 days after an election is ordered. So you have a week. The ambush election rule, instead, would open the door for greater harassment and intimidation by requiring employers to turn over each employee's name, address, phone number, email address--all within 2 days of an election order.

It is for this reason that I introduced the Employee Privacy Protection Act in the last Congress. This bill would have required only the names of the employees and one piece of contact information of the employee's choosing. The employee gets to decide how he is contacted and to have that be provided to union organizers. I think that is very reasonable. This will allow communications to happen but on the workers' terms.

Choosing whether to be represented by a union is a big decision with ramifications in the workplace and at home. Instead of ensuring a fair process for unions, employers, and workers, this NLRB is trying to rig the game in favor of union bosses, and that is not fair to workers or to employees.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source