Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chair, H.R. 3094, is a bill more aptly named the Election Prevention Act--not the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. There is nothing particularly fair about a bill intended to diminish the right of private-sector workers to organize union elections, promote delays for the sake of delays, and encourage unnecessary litigation. At a time when American workers are suffering from layoffs, unemployment, and stagnant wages it is quite simply irresponsible to rollback basic labor protections. This bill does nothing to put the country back on a track of sustained economic growth. Instead of preserving the ability of workers to unionize and demand fairer wages, this legislation will keep wages low and economic recovery stagnant.

We should be working together to identify ways to keep people employed and providing more Americans with opportunities to return to work. We should not be spending valuable time contemplating measures that make workers weaker and more vulnerable to unemployment or unfair compensation for their hard work. In the state of New York, which has the highest rate of union membership, the 7.9 percent rate of unemployment is well below the national average and the latest statistics show it is decreasing. Nation-wide, between 2004-2007 unionized workers enjoyed wages 11.3 percent higher than workers with similar characteristics who did not belong to a union. The more money workers have, the more they spend, and the more consumer demand grows. And yet, here we are considering a measure designed to prevent union elections across the nation and depress wage growth, instead of contemplating legislation to create teacher jobs, construction jobs, and economic reforms to address the deep structural causes of persistent unemployment.

There is a good reason why people do not want to see their labor rights trumped. Our rights in the workplace are the basis for the middle class. These rights were essential to securing higher paychecks for everyday people, and obtaining health and retirement security for the average worker. At a time when we are facing the possibility of deep cuts in health, education, and social security it is all the more imperative that we keep in place whatever power people have to demand a fair compensation and a fairer share of the wealth we create through diligent work. Workers should be empowered to bargain for a bigger share of the wealth they create; they have earned it. But this is not what this legislation is interested in doing. It would rather protect employers at the expense of employees, which history has shown will not distribute the wealth created by the workers.

The main purpose of H.R. 3094 has nothing to do with democracy and fairness in the workplace. Making elections difficult or almost impossible, whether it be in society or the workplace, is neither democratic nor is it fair. The Election Prevention Act preemptively blocks the National Labor Relations Board's proposed rules to streamline the election process and use modern administrative measures to improve communication between all parties involved--the workers, employers, unions, and the Board. It does this because the more protracted the delays during an election process, the greater the chance workers will give up demanding a union and the power to bargain collectively.

A basic American value is that we should all be able to choose how and with whom to form into an association for the purpose of voicing our interests and views. This same idea that we ought to be able to choose how and with whom to form a community of interests is enshrined in the National Labor Relations Act. The bill before us seeks to deprive workers of this basic right so fundamental to our understanding of democracy by giving employers the power to determine who should be included in an ``appropriate'' bargaining unit instead of allowing people to decide for themselves. This is unacceptable.

Supporting this bill means contradicting our basic values about fair representation, ignoring the message that Americans have sent regarding their wish to retain their rights in the workplace, and putting ideology above the need to create employment. Voting for this bill will not only hurt our chances of an economic recovery--it is equivalent to cutting people's rights and preventing them from securing a fair portion of the wealth they have created.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source