WASHINGTON, DC-Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), senior member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee made the below following statement at today’s hearing on the National Labor Relations Board’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget request. It can also be viewed here.
“Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman [Mark] Pearce and thank you General Counsel [Richard] Griffin, for joining us to testify here this morning. 2015 marks the 80th anniversary of the National Labor Relations Act, a landmark law that secured the freedom of workers to represent themselves in the workplace and designated the National Labor Relations Board to defend it. The NLRB’s role is to ensure that workers can form or join a union, be represented by that union in collective bargaining, and be free from retaliation for doing so. These are basic rights.
“Today, the NLRB continues to do its job as outlined by the law. It considers unfair labor practice charges filed by individuals, by businesses, and by unions, works to find fair remedies in workplace disputes, and prosecutes violations wherever they occur. Quite frankly, I find it a bit peculiar from a budgetary perspective that we are having this hearing at all. Only four years ago, this subcommittee held a hearing to analyze the NLRB’s $274 million operating budget, which amounts to less than one-fifth of a percent of the total budget authority under our jurisdiction.
“In the intervening four years, this subcommittee has not held budget hearings for many of the agencies under our purview with much larger, multi-billion-dollar budgets. Moreover, since our last hearing on the NLRB, this agency’s budget has actually been cut by 12 percent in real terms. But I doubt some of my colleagues are here this morning to express concern about budget cuts to the NLRB. Instead, I fear that this morning’s hearing is simply an opportunity for yet another assault against workers’ fundamental freedoms.
“In recent years, we have seen Republican governors roll back labor rights in Wisconsin and Michigan, among other states. Some groups are even pursuing this attack on the county level. Just last week, the House Majority voted to overturn a modest set of updates to the NLRB’s union election procedures. Those procedures have not been revised for several decades, and many of the updates were needed because of the way the internet has changed how we communicate and access information. These revisions are designed to clear away unnecessary barriers, excessive delays, and frivolous litigation that make it more difficult for workers to exercise their basic right to a free and to a fair choice. Some would have the barriers remain.
“I am pleased to say that none of my Democratic colleagues voted for what I view as a partisan attack, and I am encouraged that President Obama has announced that he will veto it.
The truth is that many on the Majority side are not just opposed to unions. They are opposed to the basic right of workers to bargain collectively for better wages and benefits. Let me be clear. The freedom to form or join a labor organization and to bargain collectively, in my view, is sacrosanct.
“The NLRB’s updated election rule favors neither employees nor employers. It simply enables workers to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union - without endless delays, litigation, and intimidation before they can cast a vote. We know why we need these reforms. A study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that, among workers who openly advocate for a union during an election campaign, one in five is fired. Other research suggests that as many as 25 to 30 percent of union organizers lose their jobs during these campaigns.
“The longer an employer is able to delay the election process, the more likely it is to engage in illegal and unfair labor practices to block or influence the election. Even if an employer’s actions are later found to be illegal, they can still be an effective intimidation tactic. Many employers are more willing to pay fines and back wages if it means they can deter a fair union election.
“I know that we will hear a lot in this morning’s hearing about so-called “activism" by the NLRB, so I want us to be clear about the actual content of the reforms that some find so objectionable. All they are designed to do is to modernize and streamline the union election process. For example, parties may file election petitions and voter lists electronically, rather than by mail or in person. Employee contact information, which previously included only names and home addresses, will now include phone numbers and email addresses, if those are available to the employer. Employers will be required to provide more detailed and complete information to their employees on the petition. Employers will be required to identify issues with the petition at least one business day before the pre-election hearing. Litigation that is not necessary to determine whether to hold an election will be deferred until the post-election stage.
“These in my view are common-sense reforms. In truth, there is nothing radical about the mission of the NLRB or the way it goes about its job. Mr. Chairman, if I might, there is a I would like to have inserted into the hearing record. As I said at this hearing four years ago, attacks on workers’ rights are not serious attempts to restore jobs, to boost economic growth, or to address budget deficits. Instead they are designed, purely and simply, to accelerate a race to the bottom. They can only do further harm to middle-class families who are already struggling with a tough economy. Thank you and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Source: U.S. Department of HCA
