Employee Free Choice Act

EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT -- (House of Representatives - March 01, 2007)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act to allow America's workers to make their own free decisions about whether or not they want to freely associate and form unions.

H.R. 800 is designed to tighten rules and regulations and close labor law loopholes that have been either manipulated or exploited by those seeking to stifle or defeat organizing efforts through methods other than open and transparent debate. Employers have increasingly hired consultants to file motions and appeals aimed at delaying elections that could be easily certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). These delays have frequently resulted in denial of workers' rights. If the system were not in disrepair; if the NLRB was working as intended, this legislation would not be necessary. Unfortunately, the system is broken and we must act to repair it.

Accordingly, H.R. 800 will replace the current two-step process that now requires 30-percent of employees to sign a card followed by an NLRB election, with a simpler, fairer single step process. Under the bill, a majority of employee signatures, 50 percent plus 1, on an authorized card establishes a designated union as the official bargaining unit. My state of New Jersey has already implemented an Employee Free Choice Act for its public employees; H.R. 800 would do so for everyone in the Untied States.

Employers utilize union busting consultants more than 80 percent of the time, and use delaying tactics that can prevent any final decision for years. Moreover, the NLRB is less prepared to handle the legal dealings than it was 20 years ago. At last count, the staff is only about one-third the size of what it was in the early '80s.

In addition to reforming the process, H.R. 800 would also impose new and increased penalties for unfair labor practices, including higher civil penalties such as a $20,000 fine for each violation of coercion.

Recently at Rutgers University in New Jersey attempts were made to discourage the organization process. For example, emails sent from the Human Resources Department for the employees stated in part ``we believe the facts strongly support the conclusion that union representation would not benefit you, and we will be providing important information that supports our belief.

Fortunately, a neutrality agreement, currently in force, was signed on January 25, 2007. It forbids all anti-union campaigning on behalf of the University and prevents the University from making disparaging remarks about the union, and discussions on the question of unionization are permitted at work as long as they do not disrupt educational functions. I want to commend President Richard McCormick for signing a comprehensive neutrality agreement.

Coercion of any kind is now expressly forbidden by either the University or the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Rutgers is forbidden from holding captive audience meetings, one-on-one meetings, and the University can't question or monitor employees about unionization. The organization process at Rutgers is now working. One study shows that 91 percent of employers force employees to attend anti-union briefings and meetings. This is not expected to happen at Rutgers.

Pursuant to the neutrality agreement and relevant law, no employee can be subjected to any intimidation, threats or reprisals, promises of benefits or other offers, or subjected to speech designed to influence his or her decision to join the union.

None of these actions, as well as others, are permitted as of the date of the neutrality agreement and mechanisms are also now in place to adjudicate any infractions. These protections are essential, necessary, and justified.

Amazingly, it is the research done in part by Rutgers Professor Adrienne Eaton and the Eagleton Institute that has suggested that ``while pro-union workers and union organizers can attempt to make their case persuasively, it is the employers who control the workplace and frequently use their power to hire, fire, and change work schedules to pressure workers during the weeks leading up to an NLRB election.'

Another long labor organizing effort in New Jersey involves nurses and other employees at South Jersey Healthcare. While these healthcare workers finally got their union several weeks ago, organizing was not easy. Michele Silvio, a registered nurse for 13 years, who spent her last eight years in the emergency room, was told ``like it or leave it' when she and other employees tried to make their concerns known. According to Michele, problems began after the consolidation of several facilities into one large medical center. Up to three times the patient volume was being experienced and Michele and her other co-workers felt they needed a voice to make their concerns about quality patient care known.

During the process, however, management used the tools of a captive workforce to try to ``persuade them' to change their minds. Nurses were forced to sit through mandatory meetings on work time where management gave anti-union presentations. Workers were also interrogated and sometimes intimidated by management during one-on-one meetings.

When faced with organizing drives, the research has found that 30 percent of employers fire pro-union workers; 49 percent threaten to close a worksite if the union prevails, and 51 percent coerce workers into opposing unions with bribery or favoritism.

This is not free or fair, and the right to associate and form labor unions must be protected. The Employee Free Choice Act will level the playing field and bring fairness to the organizing process.

http://thomas.loc.gov