|
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Congressman David Wu today voted for legislation that will strengthen America's middle class by allowing workers to more freely form unions and bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions.
H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, reforms a broken union election process that inhibits workers' ability to form unions. H.R. 800 originated in the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions of which Congressman Wu is a member.
"The last Congress failed to address this issue. Today, this Congress decided to stand up for America's middle class and strengthen their ability to determine their own future," stated Congressman Wu. "This is important legislation because America has entered a period of time where in essence we have a lottery economy with just a few winners. Median wages actually have declined in five out of the last six years. So while a few superstars are getting a lot more pay, most are seeing their wages decline."
Data show that the freedom to form unions increases salaries and benefits for American families. On average, a union worker earns 30 percent more than a nonunion worker in a given week. The difference is even greater for women and minorities who are union members. Women earn 31 percent more; African Americans earn 36 percent more; and Latinos earn 46 percent more than nonunion members in their respective categories.
Congressman Wu continued, "And because wages are decreasing, middle-class Americans feel greater pressure to afford the things we normally associate with a middle-class life: health care, owning a home, and a college education for children. The Employee Free Choice Act will bring fairness to this NBA economy."
Under the Employee Free Choice Act, if a majority of workers in a workplace sign cards authorizing a union, then the workers would get a union. This majority sign-up process is permitted under current law, but only if the employer allows it. Many employers instead force employees to undergo a drawn out election process administered by the National Labor Relations Board.
In addition to allowing workers to form a union through majority sign-up, the Act would:
Stiffen penalties against employers that illegally fire or discriminate against workers for their union activity during an organizing or first contract drive, including requiring employers to pay treble back pay to workers whom they are found to have illegally fired; and
Allow employers and newly formed unions to refer bargaining to mediation and, if necessary, binding arbitration if they are not able to agree on a first contract after 90 days of bargaining.
---
THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT
MYTH VS. FACT
(Provided by the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor)
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's "secret ballot" election process.
FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board election process. That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice - whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up - a majority choice of the employees, not the employer.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act will increase intimidation and harassment by labor unions against workers.
FACT: Research has found that coercion and pressure actually drop - from both sides - when workers form a union through a majority sign-up process. Beyond this, harassment by unions is not the problem. In a study of a more than 60-year period, the Human Resources Policy Association listed 113 NLRB cases which they claimed involved union deception and/or coercion in obtaining authorization card signatures. Careful examination of those cases, however, reveals that union misconduct was found in only 42 of those 113 claimed cases. By contrast, in 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers received back pay from employers that illegally fired or otherwise discriminated against them for their union activities.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act would require a secret ballot election in order for workers to get rid of a union.
FACT: Under current law, if an employer has evidence, such as cards or a petition, that a majority of workers no longer supports the union, then the employer is required by law to election is pending. Under current law, the employer can and must withdraw recognition unilaterally, without the consent of the NLRB. The Employee Free Choice Act would not change this.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act would require "public" union card signings.
FACT: Under current law, employees must sign cards or petitions to show their support for a union in order to obtain an election. And, under current law, when an employer agrees to a majority sign-up process, employees must sign cards to show the union's majority status. Signing a card under the Employee Free Choice Act is no different from these card signings under current law. The union authorization card under the Employee Free Choice Act is treated no differently than a petition for election or a card under a majority sign-up agreement. As with petitions for an election, under the Employee Free Choice Act, the National Labor Relations Board would receive the cards and determine their validity.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act's sponsors support secret ballot elections for workers in Mexico, but not in the United States.
FACT: Members of Congress wrote to Mexican authorities in 2001 arguing in favor of a secret ballot election in a case where workers were trying to replace a sham incumbent union with an independent union. The Employee Free Choice Act is consistent with this: it would require an NLRB election in cases where workers seek to replace one union with another union. Indeed, the original framers of the National Labor Relations Act intended elections for precisely those cases where multiple unions were competing - particularly where one was a sham company union and another was a real independent union.
###
|
