HEARING ON OPEN SHOPS IN THE 21ST CENTURY WORKPLACE Wednesday, May 3, 2000 House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Education and the Workforce Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 2175 Rayburn Present: Representatives Hoekstra, Schaffer, Tancredo, Roemer and Scott. Staff Present: Faith Cristol, Professional Staff Member; Stephen Settle, Chairman Hoekstra. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Good afternoon. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony in exercise of its capacity to conduct oversight inquiries. Under Rule 12(b) of our Committee rules, any oral opening statement at this hearing is limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. This allows us to focus on hearing from the witnesses sooner and helps members to meet their schedules. If other members have opening statements, they will be included in the record. I ask unanimous consent that the record of this hearing be held open over the next 14 days for the submission of additional statement information or testimony relevant to this hearing. Mr. Roemer. Without objection. Chairman. Hoekstra. Without objection, so ordered. I would like to make an opening statement, after which Mr. Roemer will also have the opportunity to do the same thing. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETE HOEKSTRA, Today's hearing is a continuation of our commitment to review existing Federal labor policies as we begin the 21st century. The focus will be to objectively review and discuss the subject of union security agreements. Federal law provides for these agreements for private sector employees under Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act and Section 2 Eleventh of the Railway Labor Act. Union security agreements are prohibited in Federal employment. Closed shop agreements, which require employers to hire only union members, have been prohibited for employees in the private sector since 1947, when Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act with amendments to the NLRA. Today, only three forms of union security agreements remain legal for private sector employees. The first is union shop agreements, which require employees to join a union within a specific number of days after they are hired. The second is agency shop agreements, which do not require employees to join the union, but require those employees who choose not to join to pay the equivalent of union dues and agency fees to the union. And, finally, the maintenance of membership agreements, which require employees who choose to join a union to maintain their membership during the term of the collective bargaining contract with the option to withdraw from the union within a specified period of time after the contract, expires. There are obviously differing views with respect to the benefits of union security agreements. I know that many Members are reviewing legislation that has been introduced and reintroduced by Congressman Bob Goodlatte, H.R. 792, which would repeal the above-mentioned sections of the NLRA and the RLA. Welcome, Congressman Goodlatte. Thank you for attending our hearing and speaking to us on this issue. Given the importance of ensuring that our country remains the best and most productive work environment in the world, it is necessary to explore the relevance of older workforce paradigms. Although an examination of union security agreements is certain to raise strong opinion both pro and con, holding a public dialogue on the issue will help us to evaluate our workforce values. For this reason, I look forward to this afternoon's discussion. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETE HOEKSTRA, Mr. Hoekstra. Mr. Roemer? Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to provide additional information or testimony relevant to this hearing. Chairman. Hoekstra. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Roemer. I would appreciate it, sir. OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER TIM ROEMER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGAIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am deeply disappointed that we are having this hearing this afternoon. The issue of whether we should have a so-called national right to work law has been around for 50 years. It is a subject well understood by most Members. There have been no recent developments that would change anyone's views on this issue, and the chances of this Congress passing such legislation is simply nonexistent. A so-called right to work law gives no meaningful rights to workers other than the right to work for lower wages. What it does do is determine the ability of working people to improve their working conditions and wages through the collective bargaining process. What Harry Truman said almost 50 years ago is true today, and I will quote from what he said. "You will find some people saying that they are for the so-called right to work law, but they also believe in unions. This is absurd,” Truman said. “It is like saying you are for motherhood but against children." Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to believe I am a supporter of both motherhood and children, and I know that I support both unions and collective bargaining. Some people complain that in Washington it is just one bad idea after another. This seems to be more of a case of history repeating the same bad idea over and over and over again. Mr. Chairman, in an effort to be brief, and to bring an end to this hearing, I will yield back the balance of my time. Chairman. Hoekstra. Thank you for your comments. Before I introduce our witnesses, let me remind everyone that they have been invited to speak before the Subcommittee for approximately five minutes. As I mentioned earlier, each of our panelists may submit additional copy or information for the record, as they see fit. We are pleased to have Representative Bob Goodlatte begin today's discussion. Mr. Goodlatte is an attorney by trade, who has served Virginia's 6th District since 1992. Although Mr. Goodlatte has many areas of expertise, given his assignments on the Judiciary and Agriculture Committees, today he will discuss his experience with his right to work bill. Our second witness is Colorado State Representative Mark Paschall. Mr. Paschall is a former union member who will discuss his experience with that State's right to work initiative that recently passed the Colorado House but failed in its Senate. Welcome to you, Mark. Our third witness is Mr. Reed Larson, who is President of the National Right to Work Committee, a 2.2 million-member organization that he has served for 40 years. Mr. Larson has headed State and Federal legislative initiatives on this issue, including testifying before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee in March of 1996 on the proposed National Right to Work Act. Mr. Larson, thank you for being with us today. Finally we also welcome Mr. Jeremiah Collins, who is a labor attorney with the firm of Bredhoff & Kaiser, located in Washington, D.C. Thank you, Mr. Collins, for joining our discussion today. I think everybody is pretty well familiar with the procedures. We will hear the testimony, and then we will open it up for questioning by from the Members. Mr. Goodlatte, we will begin with you. Welcome. Good to see you. STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, 6TH DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this hearing, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak before your Subcommittee regarding this very important issue. U.S. labor law is in serious need of reform, and you should be commended for beginning this debate. Let me begin by recalling the words of the founder of the American Federation of Labor and grandfather of the American Trade Union Movement, Samuel Gompers. Mr. Gompers said that, "The workers in America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are not only impractical but a menace to their welfare and their liberty." That is what today's hearing is about, beginning the debate on whether the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act and Railway Labor Act, which authorize compulsory unionism, have indeed been impractical and a menace to workers' welfare and liberty. I believe unequivocally that the answer to that question is yes. Compulsory unionism blots the American tradition of individual liberty by stripping working Americans of their right to join, or not join or financially support a union. No other private organization in America possesses such power. By forcing independent employees to join or pay fees to a union, labor officials have embraced collectivism based on coercion, and discarded individual liberty. As Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." The coercive powers that union officials wield courtesy of Federal law not only rob individual employees of fundamental freedoms but also exert a damaging and corrupting influence on workplaces, the economy, and other aspects of everyday American life. As this Subcommittee's hearings on union democracy and your investigation of the 1996 Teamsters election have shown, individual employees who decide to stand up for their beliefs frequently find themselves the targets of orchestrated campaigns of harassment, intimidation, and physical violence. The antidote to compulsory unionism is Right to Work, the principle that Americans must have the right, but not be compelled, to join or financially support a labor union. I agree with the Ranking Member, Mr. Roemer, that individuals should have the right to join a labor union, should have the right, with regard to private employment, to collectively bargain and, in appropriate cases, to strike. But that is not the issue here. I am sponsoring the National Right to Work Act, H.R. 792. This legislation is co-sponsored by 134 of our colleagues, and polls show that nearly eight out of 10 Americans support it. |