NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS | February 21, 2020 | PAGE 3
...U.S. House passes
labor law reform
From Page 1
An identical bill, S. 1306, was
introduced in the Senate last
May by U.S. Sen. Patty Murray
(D-Wash.) and has 40 cospon-
sors.
The bill is an attempt to roll
back decades of laws and court
decisions that weakened work-
ers’ union rights, and thereby re-
store the power and rights that
workers had when the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
was first passed in 1935.
To understand what the PRO
Act does, it helps to know what
the law says now, and why it’s
so weak.
The NLRA is the basic labor
law that addresses the union
rights of most private sector
workers. It says that workers
have a right to form unions, and
it makes it illegal for employers
to interfere with that right by
disciplining, surveilling, or co-
ercing workers. A stand-alone
agency, the NLRB, administers
elections to determine if unions
have majority support in a
workplace. When they do, the
law requires an employer to rec-
ognize the union as the workers’
representative and negotiate in
good faith.
But the NLRA was always
weak, because it provides no
HOW YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS VOTED
(ON THE MOST IMPORTANT LABOR LAW REFORM IN 80 YEARS)
FOR
Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.)
Suzanne Bonamaci (D-Ore.)
Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.)
penalties. When employers
break the law, they’re required
to post a notice saying they
won’t do it again. If they fire
workers for supporting a union,
at worst they must reinstate
them and pay back wages they
missed (minus wages the
worker earned since being
fired!)
Court cases and subsequent
laws weakened the law further.
In the 1938 Mackay Radio case,
the U.S. Supreme Court said
workers have the right to strike,
but employers also have the
right to permanently replace
them if they do! And then Con-
gress passed the anti-union Taft-
Hartley law in 1947, which
weakened union rights severely.
The union movement has
tried ever since to improve the
law. In 1965, a bill to repeal
Taft-Hartley’s “right-to-work”
provision passed the House 221-
182. In 1978, a pro-union labor
law reform bill passed the
House 257-163. A bill banning
striker replacement passed the
House 247-182 in 1991 and
again by 239-190 in 1993. In
2010 a labor law reform bill
called the Employee Free
AGAINST
Jaime Herrera-Beutler (R-Wash.)
Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.)
Greg Walden (R-Ore.)
The 7 anti-union Democrats
Henry Cuellar (Tex.)
Joe Cunningham (S.C.)
Kendra S. Horn (Okla.)
Ben McAdams (Utah)
Lucy McBath (Ga.)
Stephanie Murphy (Fla.)
Kurt Schrader (Ore.)
The 5 pro-union Republicans
Brian Fitzpatrick (Penn.)
John Katko (N.Y.)
Chris Smith (N.J.)
Jeff Van Drew (N.J.)
Don Young (Alaska)
Choice Act passed the House
241 to 185. In every single case,
supporters couldn’t get enough
support to overcome the Sen-
ate’s undemocratic filibuster
rule, in which three-fifths of
senators must agree to end de-
bate and allow a vote on a bill.
The PRO Act goes well be-
yond each of those previous
proposed labor law reforms. It’s
a total reset. If it ever becomes
law, it would profoundly change
the balance of power by putting
workers and employers on more
equal footing.
WHAT THE ‘PROTECT THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE ACT’ WOULD DO
Real penalties when employers fire workers for
supporting a union Today, employers face no penalty when
they illegally fire workers for supporting a union. At worst, they
must pay back the wages fired workers lost–minus the wages
they went on to earn elsewhere! That’s no deterrent. The PRO
Act allows civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation plus
actual damages, gives wronged workers themselves the right to
sue, and provides for swift temporary reinstatement of fired
workers (while their cases are being adjudicated). And if an
employer’s unlawful conduct changed the outcome where a
union previously had majority support, the PRO Act requires the
employer to recognize and bargain with the union.
Ban captive audience meetingsToday a standard feature of
the employer anti-union campaign is the “captive audience”
meeting, in which workers are required to attend demoralizing
hours-long meetings where managers and consultants berate
the union and intimidate its supporters. The PRO Act bans
those, bringing America into line with the labor standards of
most of the rest of the world.
End employers’ ability to delay union elections with
legal maneuvers Anti-union employers want as much time
as possible to use their power in the workplace to talk workers
out of unions. The PRO Act would restore an Obama-era rule
change that says employers’ legal and procedural challenges
can be dealt with AFTER workers vote.
Codify 21st century contact information For more than 60
years, the law has required an employer to provide a union
workers’ names and addresses before a scheduled union
election. In 2014, the NLRB updated that to include job
classifications, telephone numbers, and email addresses. The
PRO Act locks in that new rule.
Strengthen workers right to strikeThe PRO Act makes it clear
that if workers have the right to strike, that means they’re
allowed to strike intermittently, and can’t be permanently
replaced by an employer.
Legalize solidarity Current law says union workers can only put
pressure on their direct employer, not another company —
even if that other company holds real sway over their employer
and could help settle the dispute. The PRO Act would lift the
ban on so-called “secondary boycotts.”
First contract mediation/arbitration More than half the time,
workers who vote to unionize still don’t have a collective
bargaining agreement a year later. To end employer stalling
tactics and help workers get a first contract, the PRO Act would
allow either side to initiate mediation and binding arbitration, in
which the contract is decided by neutral arbitrator if the two
sides can’t agree.
Invalidate “right to work” Federal labor law requires private
sector unions to represent all workers in a bargaining unit, but
27 states have passed laws saying that the one thing they can’t
negotiate in a union contract is a requirement that all
represented workers to share union’s costs to negotiate and
enforce the contract. These so called ‘right-to-work’ laws are
meant to keep unions poorly funded and weak. The PRO Act
would strike them down.
Union rights for more workers Employers routinely classify
workers as independent contractors, temps, or supervisors to
deprive them of their union rights. The PRO Act would stop that.
A debate in Congress
For hours leading up to the vote on the Protect the Right to Or-
ganize (PRO) Act, members of Congress alternated speaking for
and against. It wasn’t a real debate: There was no audience in
the chamber, not even fellow Congresspeople, and no minds
changed. But it was a way to take sides on the record.
“Democrats are trying to claim, falsely, that the economy isn’t
working for average Americans, and the only way to fix it is to
expand forced unionism through coercive socialist schemes like
the PRO Act.…the PRO Act is all about serving the interest of
union bosses at the expense of workers and business owners.”
—Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.)
“The lesson from the last 40 years is clear: It is our current labor
laws that are too weak to protect workers rights to join a union
and collectively bargain with their employer … Democracy in
the workplace should be a right, not a fight.”
—Bobby Scott (D-Virg.)
“My colleagues have a choice before them: They can stand with
Americans and President Trump to keep America great and free
by voting no on the PRO Act, or they can join the radicals who
have seized the Democratic Party and put America on a path
of socialism.” —Rick Allen (R-Ga.)
“More workers would join a union if given the choice, but many
fear retaliation for supporting or engaging in organizing efforts.
Under current law tactics to intimidate, coerce or fire workers
involved in organizing a union are illegal but the penalties aren’t
strong enough to deter employers .… Under this bill employers
who break the rules will finally be held accountable.”
—Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.)
“How can we entertain overhaul of labor laws when union lead-
ers are golfing, drinking top shelf liquor and smoking ci-
gars?“—Tim Walberg (R-Mich.)
“Unions are the backbone of our economy and for too long con-
gress has watched as unions are trampled on in the name of
shareholder value. For far too long, the Democratic Party has
treated unions as if they were fully owned subsidiaries talking
to them only during time of elections. For too long, the Demo-
cratic Party sat on the sidelines.”—Max Rose (D-N.Y.)
“What might seem like an insignificant change would actually
result in the labor union mafia taking our booming economy
in a one-way ride.” —Mark Walker (R-N.C.)
“The bill essentially debugs all the outdated gaps and loopholes
which a cottage industry of unscrupulous lawyers and consult-
ants have exploited over the last 50 years to delay and deny
Americans the right to organize for a better standard of living.”
—Joe Courtney (D-Conn.)
“Americans aren’t rejecting union membership because current
labor law acts as a barrier forming one; they’re declining to join
because they’re sick of seeing union leaders harass and coerce
their colleagues and line their own pockets with dues.”
— Lloyd Smucker (R-Penn.)
“All of this talk about union bosses disgusts me. Unions are or-
ganizations that workers build themselves to advocate for their
interests. They are nonprofits. They are not businesses. In an
economy where the real bosses are making 300 and 400 times
what the regular workers make, that is something that would
be an obscenity to the people in the manufacturing sector, to
CEOs in the manufacturing sector, decades ago.”
— Andy Levin (D-Mich.)