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 WORKER PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1493-E1494 on July 1, 1999.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
INTRODUCTION OF THE WORKER PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT
______
HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 1, 1999
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Worker Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill provides a workable, reasonable mechanism for dealing with the issue of organized labor taking dues money from rank-and-file union members--from members who have to pay dues or they cannot keep their jobs. The legislation in no way changes the manner in which unions can spend money, it simply provides union workers the dignity of being able to give their up-front consent to their union before funds having nothing to do with collective bargaining are taken out of their paychecks.
In the six hearings my Committee held the past few Congresses on the issue of compulsory union dues, we heard from worker after worker telling us about the one thing they each want from their union: the basic respect of being asked for permission before the union spends their money for purposes unrelated to labor-management obligations. Most of these employees were upset over finding out their hard-earned dollars were being funneled into political causes or candidates they did not support. However, most of these workers supported their union and still overwhelmingly believe in the value of organized labor. A number of witnesses were stewards in their union. All they wanted was to be able to give their consent before their union spent their money for activities falling outside collective bargaining and which subvert their deeply held ideas and convictions.
The Worker Paycheck Fairness Act, similar to legislation reported to the House last Congress after passing my Committee on Education and the Workforce by voice vote, simply gives workers this right to give their permission and the right to know how their money is spent. This legislation creates a new, federal right implementing the spirit of the Supreme Court's 1988 Beck decision.
In Beck, the Court held that workers cannot be required to pay for activities beyond legitimate union functions. After hearing testimony from dozens of witnesses, including 14 rank-and-file workers, it is clear to the Committee that Beck rights have remained illusory. The witnesses described problems with lack of notice, the necessity under current law of resigning from the union, procedural hurdles, and notably, the incredible indignities they often endure, including harassment, stonewalling, coercion, and intimidation, when they attempt to exercise their rights granted under Beck.
This legislation applies only where unions require workers to pay dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. This mandate is called a
``union security agreement,'' and such agreements are currently legal in 29 states. Simply put, a union security agreement forces a worker to pay an agency fee to the union, or the worker has no right to work. This bill is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because unions are taking money from the pockets of employees working under such security agreements and spending it on activities having nothing to do with a union's legitimate activities.
In addition to requiring consent, the Worker Paycheck Fairness Act requires employers whose employees are represented by a union to post a notice telling workers of their right under this legislation to give their consent. It also amends the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 to ensure that workers will know what their money is being spent on. Under this change, unions would have to report expenses by ``functional classification'' on the LM-forms they are currently required to file annually with the Department of Labor. This change was proposed by the Bush administration in 1992 but eliminated by the Clinton administration.
This legislation also puts real enforcement into place, as those whose rights are violated would be entitled to double damages and attorney's fees and costs--similar to relief available under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill includes a common employment law provision making it illegal for a union to retaliate against or coerce anyone exercising his or her consent rights. This applies to all employees--union members and non-members alike--and under the provision, a union may not discriminate against any worker for giving, or not giving, their consent.
This bill is all the more necessary, Mr. Speaker, because there are those in Congress who are pushing campaign finance reform legislation which purports to codify Beck, but which actually represents a step backwards for working men and women.
Section 501 of the Shays/Meehan reform bill, H.R. 417, entitled
``Codification of Beck Decision,'' does nothing of the sort. Section 501 is a sugar-coated placebo that diminishes the Beck decision and does nothing to correct the current injustices in our federal labor law relating to unions' use of their members' hard-earned paychecks. My Committee's many hearings have shown that the current law in this area does not work because it does not adequately protect workers. A close reading of Section 501 shows not only that the provision does not codify Beck, but that it is in fact a step backwards from codifying current law. Section 501 is so favorable to unions that organized labor could not have done a better job drafting it themselves.
First, Section 501 provides absolutely no notice of rights to members of the union--it applies only to non-members. Second, Section 501 redefines the dues payments that may be objected to, by limiting such to ``expenditures in connection with a Federal, State, or local election or in connection with efforts to influence legislation unrelated to collective bargaining.'' This definition not only infers that there may be other types of political expenditures to which workers cannot object--a perversion of Beck--but it also ignores Beck's holding that workers may object to any dues payments for any union activities not directly related to collective bargaining activities. Section 501 would cut back even further on the already illusory rights workers supposedly have today under Beck.
If Congress is truly going to try to deal with the issue of organized labor taking dues money from rank-and-file members laboring under a union security agreement--taking funds without permission and spending it on causes and activities with which the workers disagree--then let us not fool around with Section 501 of the Shays/Meehan bill. Section 501 is a fig leaf that falls woefully short of addressing the problem.
What we have today is a broken system that allows unions to raid workers' wallets, forces workers to resign from the union, requires workers to object--after the fact--to their money being removed from their paycheck, and then requires workers to wait for the union to rebate those funds, if they get around to doing so.
The Worker Paycheck Fairness Act is a proper and reasonable fix that truly implements the spirit of the Supreme Court's Beck decision. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
____________________
