The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“INTRODUCTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS FOR UNION MEMBERS (DRUM) ACT OF 2000” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1333-E1334 on July 27, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
INTRODUCTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS FOR UNION MEMBERS (DRUM) ACT OF
2000
______
HON. JOHN A. BOEHNER
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 26, 2000
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Democratic Rights for Union Members (DRUM) Act of 2000. The DRUM Act is a pro-union member bill that helps rank-and-file workers achieve greater democracy within their labor organizations. The bill amends the 1959 Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), also known as the ``Landrum-
Griffin'' Act. Landrum-Griffin is the only federal statute which deals directly with the relationship between union members and union leaders.
Four decades have passed since the LMRDA became law. There is no doubt this important bill from the 1950s has improved the American workplace. Many of the workforce benefits that Americans take for granted have come from union input representing the views and wishes of hardworking American union members. However, similar to many of our other federal labor laws, there is an antiquated side to Landrum-
Griffin that reduces its effectiveness. In many cases, we have seen the law manipulated or ignored by union leaders who have used their power and the financial resources of their labor organizations for personal gain. In the 105th Congress, under the direction of then-Employer-
Employee Relations Subcommittee Chairman Harris Fawell, and continuing during the 106th Congress, the EER Subcommittee has held seven hearings examining in-depth the strengths and failings of Landrum-Griffin. I am happy to report that in the vast majority of American unions, ``union democracy'' as envisioned by the authors of Landrum-Griffin is thriving. Unfortunately, there are some cases in which union leaders have exploited the current system to the detriment of rank-and-file members.
Following the subcommittee's first four hearings, Representative Fawell introduced the Democratic Rights for Union Members (DRUM) Act of 1998 to begin the process of updating Landrum-Griffin to enhance the democratic rights of union members. The legislation I introduce today builds on Representative Fawell's bill by adding several new provisions addressing additional problems the subcommittee observed during this Congress.
Landrum-Griffin Background
Few Members of Congress or rank-and-file union members are even aware of Landrum-Griffin's ``Bill of Rights.'' It is important to understand the foundations of union democracy before one can discuss necessary changes.
Today, Landrum-Griffin covers some 13.5 million members, in more than 30,000 unions having more than $15 billion in assets. Congress passed the LMRDA as a response to public outcry resulting from revelations of corruption and racketeering in the labor movement. This corruption came to light in the late 1950s, during three years of hearings in the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor and Management Field, chaired by Senator John L. McClellan. The authors of the LMRDA believed that promoting democracy within unions would reduce corruption and strengthen the labor movement by providing union members more control over their own union affairs.
Clyde Summers, Jefferson B. Fordham Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, who sat on a panel of experts convened by then-Senator John F. Kennedy to draft a union members' Bill of Rights (the basis for Title I of Landrum-Griffin), eloquently summarized the intent of the law in testimony before the EER Subcommittee on March 17, 1999:
The whole focus of the Landrum-Griffin Act was to protect the democratic rights of members as an instrument of collective bargaining. There was a guiding principle to limit governmental intervention to the minimum, to limit intervention in terms of union decision-making, to leave unions free to make their own decisions. But this was to be accomplished by guaranteeing the democratic process inside the union on the logic, the philosophy, that if the union members made these decisions on their own, that if these were democratically made, this gave a legitimacy to these decisions.
Landrum-Griffin contains six titles. The first title, the foundation upon which the rest of the legislation is constructed, contains a union member Bill of Rights mandating various rights: to information, to free speech, to free association, and to protection from undue discipline. Title II governs reporting and recordkeeping by labor organizations. Title III provides a framework for trusteeships. Title IV lays out requirements for elections of union officers, including specific time frames within which elections must be held. Title V outlines the fiduciary duties of union officers. Title VI provides a variety of additional requirements, and grants general investigatory powers to the Department of Labor.
The Amendments
The bill I introduce today includes several amendments to Landrum-
Griffin. Each of these changes will have a positive impact on the everyday lives of union members. Those unions that treat their members fairly will not be affected at all. The legislation introduced today is not an exhaustive list of reforms. There are other changes that Congress may want to consider in the future, but the DRUM Act represents a very productive starting point.
My bill provides: enhanced notification to union members of their rights under the LMRDA; increased authority for the Department of Labor to enforce the notification rights of union members;
Enhanced Notification Rights
The DRUM Act addresses real problems that have come to the subcommittee's attention during our hearings or through recent court rulings. For example, the legislation requires unions to periodically notify all members of their Title I rights. Some unions, as incredible as it may sound, have argued that a one-time notification of rights under the LMRDA given decades ago satisfies the current law requirement to ``inform its members concerning the provisions of'' the Act (29 USC Sec. 415).
This issue was the subject of a recent Fourth Circuit case. (Thomas v. Grand Lodge of Int'l Ass'n of Machinists, 201 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2000)). In Thomas, union members sued the International Association of Machinists to require the union to distribute to each member a summary of their rights under Landrum-Griffin. The union claimed that they had fulfilled the notification requirements in 1959 when they distributed the text of the recently-passed law. Incredibly, the district court had agreed with the union leadership despite the fact that most, if not all, of the members were not members in 1959. Fortunately, the Fourth Circuit overruled the district court, and determined that the one-time notification was not sufficient, but stopped short, however, of enumerating what ``sufficient notification'' entails. My bill clarifies the notification obligation, by requiring the Secretary of Labor to promulgate regulations that provide enhanced guidance to union organizations on how best to inform their members of their LMRDA rights. After all, if union members are not aware that they have rights, they will be unable to exercise them.
``Reasonable Qualifications'' in Union Elections
An additional line of court cases prompts another provision in DRUM. There is conflicting appeals court precedent on the issue of what constitutes a ``reasonable qualification'' (29 USC Sec. 481 (e)) in order to be eligible to run for elected union office. Earlier this year, the First Circuit ruled against the Department of Labor, after the Department sued a local union over an election rule which barred 96 percent of the local's members from running for office (Herman v. Springfield Mass. Area, Local 497, American Postal Workers Union, 201 F.3d (1st Cir. 2000)). The court held as reasonable a requirement that union members attend three of the previous nine union meetings in order to run for office. This court decision contradicts a ruling from the D.C. Circuit in 1987, in which a union's election rule was considered unreasonable primarily because it disqualified a large percentage of union members (Doyle v. Brock, 821 F.2d 778 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).
In Herman, the Majority all but requested that the Department of Labor adopt a regulation using a specific percentage standard. I believe it is the responsibility of the Congress to enact such a requirement, rather than to require the administration to take on the nearly impossible task of interpreting Congressional intent and balancing that intent with contradictory court opinions. As such, the legislation introduced today lays out a clear standard by which election rules will be judged as reasonable or unreasonable. The legislation simply says that any rule excluding more than half of a union's members from running for office is not reasonable. This bright line will benefit union members, candidates for union office, and incumbent union leaders equally, because by removing ambiguity, we will enhance union democracy and reduce potential internal strife.
Conclusion
The workplace of the 21st Century is vastly different from that existing 40 years ago. Workers and employers are working together toward a common goal, rather than continuing the adversarial relationship which characterized the last century. This evolution in the workplace has reduced industrial strife, and has increased productivity, profits, and, most importantly, the satisfaction and pay of workers.
This same collective strategy is key to the effective operation of internal union affairs. The days of well-heeled union bosses, using their members to enrich themselves at the expense of worker advancement are quickly ending. Unions, which provide workers with camaraderie, personal support--both inside and outside the workplace--and a means to improve their lives, are enriched as members achieve true democracy within their labor organizations. Enhancing the ability of rank-and-
file members to take a greater responsibility for how their union operates solidifies the positive impact unions have on the workplace and the lives of working men and women.
____________________
