Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the subcommittee, Mr. Hare.

Mr. ANDREWS. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a new Member making quite an impact, the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Chairman, I would like the Record to reflect a couple of points. First of all, with respect to this continued phrase about a public ballot. The card is not a public document. When the card is collected by the organizers it is turned in at some point to the Labor Board for certification. Second, this public opinion poll that keeps being referenced, or these polls that keep being referenced, none of the respondents to these polls were party to the information about the systemic pattern of coercion that has taken place in the workplace and asked questions, I believe, that were rather loaded. And finally, on the issue of decertification, the fact of the matter is that the law today gives an employer the right to refuse to bargain with and recognize a union if there is a manifestation by a majority of the workers that they no longer wish to be recognized. There doesn't need to be a vote before an employer can choose not to recognize the union. Madam Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York City, Brooklyn, more specifically, Ms. Clarke.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds and, once again, point out that a group that is opposed to this bill has scoured the record and over 60 years of history has found only 42 instances of illegal behavior by union organizers. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of our time in opposition to the amendment to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Madam Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary. It is unfair, and I believe it is unconstitutional, and it should be opposed. If there are practices where union employees are coercing workers to sign cards or sign a petition, those practices are illegal and will remain illegal after this bill is passed. Under section 6 of this bill, if there are circumstances where union organizers are coercing or intimidating people to try to get them to sign a card or cards, the labor board would presumably find those efforts to be invalid, and the card would be invalid, so the amendment is unnecessary. It is unfair in this respect. It is rather remarkable, the ranking member of the full committee just talked about adults being able to protect themselves against certain circumstances. I see no amendment from the minority that says that workers could be free from going to one-on-one meetings with their supervisors. I see no amendment from the minority that says that workers could be free from being forced to attend captive meetings where their employer has all the say and the union has none of the say. I see no amendment that indicates there would be a strengthening of protection against firing people during an organizing drive for which there is a strong record that this is happening on a regular basis. I further believe the amendment is probably unconstitutional. The amendment says that it outlaws efforts to ``communicate with individuals with respect to questions of representation.'' As I read this, if the union took an ad in a newspaper that encouraged people to sign a card and join a union, that is an attempt to communicate with an individual about the question of union representation. We have a principle and constitutional interpretation in this country, where overly broad prohibitions against speech are presumptively invalid. This is an overly broad, and, I believe, presumptively invalid prohibition against free speech. The amendment is unnecessary, it is unfair, it is unconstitutional. It should be defeated. Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of our time in opposition to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Miller.

Mr. ANDREWS. We would continue to reserve our time.

Mr. ANDREWS. I would ask the gentleman if he has further speakers. We will reserve our right to close debate on the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. I think my characterization is accurate. Madam Chairwoman, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. ANDREWS. I am yielding to the gentleman from Indiana who made the point.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. I oppose the amendment. First of all, let's make it very clear that salting, the practice the gentleman addresses, is legal. What is not legal are disruptive practices if one is working for an employer, as they should be illegal. The gentleman's amendment frankly offers a breathtaking introduction of a discriminatory practice in the statutes of the country. If I read the amendment correctly, an employer could refuse to hire someone simply because someone is in a union. So let's think about the facts that would be involved here. Let's say a person works part-time for a grocery store, and as a part-time worker they become a member of the union at the grocery store. Then they go to apply for a job at a telecommunications company. As I read the amendment, the telecommunications company could refuse to hire the individual who worked in the grocery store, who is a member of the union, simply because the person was a member of a union. This is a remarkable precedent. It basically suggests that by being a member of an organization, you subject yourself to discrimination. I think if the gentleman would think about someone else's ox being gored, he would understand what's wrong with this. If an employer said we won't hire someone because you have been in the chamber of commerce, you have a pro-business attitude, we would be offended by that. If someone said we are not going to hire you because you have been in the National Rifle Association, we think there is something wrong with that, I think we would be offended by that. There is no functional difference between what the gentleman is proposing and those discriminatory scenarios. The purpose of our law is to prohibit discrimination, not sanctify it. I believe that this would be a breathtaking departure from the tradition of American law where we discourage discrimination rather than make it a part of our statutes. Salting is legal. Disruptive behavior is illegal. It stays ``illegal'' under the bill before us. But if the gentleman's amendment were adopted, discrimination against someone simply because the organization he or she is a part of, would become legal. That is a very, very unwise policy. I oppose the amendment. Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, can the gentleman reserve the balance of his time?

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a new Member of Congress who speaks with authority on this issue and many others.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure at this time to yield to someone who has walked in the shoes of the people who will be best helped by this act, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), 2 minutes.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to an individual who has turned the direction of this institution and the country towards the forgotten middle class, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, this bill has the potential, I believe, to do great good for the working people in this country. I believe it has the potential to reenergize the middle class of our country. But I believe the opponents of the bill have grossly overstated the severity and magnitude of the changes that are proposed. We repeatedly hear the phrase that we are ``doing away with the secret ballot.'' This is false. The bill sets up two mechanisms for people to organize and join a union. The first is to get a majority of those eligible in the bargaining unit to sign a card, at which time there will be an investigation by the National Labor Relations Board. It will determine the validity or invalidity of the cards. If the board determines that a majority of the bargaining unit has signed a valid card, then there is a union recognized. There is one key difference between this provision in the bill and the law under which we have lived for the last 6 decades-plus. We have had the majority sign-up procedure for more than 60 years, but present law says even if a majority sign valid cards, the employer can arbitrarily veto that choice of a majority. This bill transfers the power from the employer's veto to the employees' majority. Secondly, if the employees instead wish to organize by pursuing the election path, by getting at least 30 percent to manifest their intention to have an election, then there is an election. It is very important, and we have heard different points about who the union leadership is. In my district, I will tell you who the union leadership is. They coach baseball teams. They read the epistle at mass. They volunteer in fire companies. They sign up and recruit people for the United Way. They are the first people to show up if there is a fire or a flood. They are the hardworking, basic core of this country. I know there have been instances of intimidation on both sides, but it is important we look at the record. A group that is strongly opposed to this bill scoured over 60 years of court cases, and in those 60 years, they could find only 42 examples which they chose to highlight where there was a finding of coercion by a union person in an organizing job. By contrast, in 2005, more than 31,000 workers in 1 year were awarded back pay because it was found that their rights had been violated. Yes, there is coercion on both sides, but the record shows that the coercion has been disproportionately on the management side. That is why this leveling of the playing field is needed. This bill replaces the employer's arbitrary veto with a valid expression of majority will. It does not eliminate the secret ballot. It eliminates the systemic coercion under which we live today. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, since we have only one speaker at this point, I would reserve my time. I will tell my friend that the majority leader is en route to the floor. We are waiting for him as well, but we simply have the majority leader and the chairman of the full committee left on our side. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will yield, I will yield to the majority leader, yes. Madam Chairman, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the House who has brought this consequential legislation to the floor, my friend from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield the balance of our time to someone whose diligent efforts are about to pay off with a victory on this vote, the chairman of our committee, the author of the bill, our friend from California, Mr. Miller.