FEDERAL EMPLOYEE UNIONS

On 2018-07-25, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) delivered a floor speech titled "FEDERAL EMPLOYEE UNIONS" in the House. The speech addressed immigration and also covered taxes, trade policy.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE UNIONS

Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 125 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018) [Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)] [House] [Pages H7679-H7681] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] FEDERAL EMPLOYEE UNIONS The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Garrett). Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2017, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. General Leave Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia? There was no objection. Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to speak to two issues. One, is the dagger thrown at the heart of the right of Federal employees to organize. The second will be ICE raids that randomly rounded up residents of the District of Columbia without a warrant and without any cause. Let me proceed first to the gang-up on Federal employees by the executive and Republicans in the House to undermine the rights of Federal unions to represent Federal employees. We have seen Republicans for years try to weaken the rights of Federal employees. Certainly, we have seen them go at unions before. But this time, they have gone even further. The intention to destroy the right of a union to represent Federal employees is the clear intent of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I shall explain why that intent is so obvious this evening. The American Federation of Government Employees had a rally today. Attending also were many other employee unions, but the AFGE led the rally because of the acute danger that the current work of the Republican House and the President present to the right to organize and to be represented. Federal employees are represented in virtually every category of work by the AFGE. If we look at what the President and the House Republicans are doing, it is clear that they have declared war on their own Federal employees. They have done it by striking at the heart of the right to be represented by a Federal union. I will explain how they have moved against that right, but, first, let me explain where that right comes from and why there is any such right at all. You certainly don't have that kind of right in the business sector. You can't [[Page H7680]] go to the business sector and say: Hey, look, I have a right to have a union here. You have to fight for it, and I might add, so do Federal unions have to fight for it. They have to get their cards and the Federal employee votes. But there is an important trade-off here. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, recognizing that the Government did not want to allow Federal workers the right to strike--which is a constitutional right--designed a system which is indeed a trade-off. You will give up the right to strike, and, in return, you, Federal employees, will have the right to be represented by a union if you win a union election and the Federal Government will not oppose your right to organize. That is very important because employers in the private sector, of course, do oppose. I don't mean to say that Federal agencies don't try their best to see that an agency doesn't get representation, but they cannot simply keep that from occurring. That is the trade-off from the Civil Service Reform Act. One of the most important aspects of the right to represent Federal employees is to use official time-on-the-job to represent employees to settle matters with a Federal agency. That is the whole reason that this right was given in the first place. Even apart from a right to strike, if you have an employee who has a grievance, there has got to be some way to make sure that grievance is attended to. Official time use, by another Federal employee operating as a volunteer, allows such matters to be settled in a peaceful way without a strike. What the official time means is, an employee says: With no pay, I agree to help other employees through the system to have their matter brought to the agency and somehow dealt with. They either win or they lose or they settle. Employees often don't understand the system. They don't use the system every day, so a volunteer works to help them use the official time. Now, official time only means that that volunteer employee is given time from his or her work to represent this person. Does that mean the person doesn't have any work? It does not. It is a real sacrifice, Mr. Speaker. That person isn't given a lesser workload, that person has to find a way to get that done and to represent employees as well, or to trade off with another employee who will also represent employees. Remember, this is to keep labor peace and to keep the Federal Government working so that there is a civilized way to settle a matter between the Federal employer and an employee. But the AFGE has had to turn to the courts in order to get this right enforced. Why in the world would that be necessary given the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978? It is going to be necessary because what is being proposed in this House is in violation of that act. I shall explain. Republicans today are so intent on destroying unions--understand, unions are not nearly as powerful as they once were decades ago--but Republicans are so intent on destroying unions that in the case of Federal employees, they are using the two branches of Government at once--remember, they control three--the two political branches of Government to destroy the representation of a union. They control the executive, they control the House, they control the Senate. So they pull all stops, using all of their energy and all of their power against their own Federal workers. I think of it as a two-fisted approach. One fist is pending on this House floor, as I speak. Indeed, it is due to come to the House floor in September. It is a bill I fought in committee along with many other members. You can't just abolish official time to represent employees, because the Civil Service Reform Act gives them that right. This is why I think that what the House does in this bill cannot stand, because what it does is to so reduce the amount of time, so- called official time, that you can help many employees get through the system. You are like a lawyer. The employee is fresh to the system, so he or she needs somebody to tell the employee how to get through the system. But if there is so little time, while you are helping one employee who may be using up all the time that the House Republican bill would give, which is one-quarter of the time that is now being allowed. Where did they get that figure from? Nowhere. {time} 1945 It is just a matter of not being able to wipe it all out, so let's wipe out almost all of it. It gives so little time to represent all those who need to go through the system with the help of a volunteer employee that I do not believe, for a moment, that this matter will stand. That is why I think the AFGE was right to go to court now. I will tell you in a moment why it has gone to court, even though this bill has not passed the House, as I speak. Not only is so little time given that you couldn't possibly handle all of those who have issues or grievances--it is only a quarter of the time an employee has, that has been previously spent helping other employees to get through the process. There also is an enforcement mechanism in the House bill that is truly vicious. If you go into overtime in helping another employee, you will do so at your own risk, because you will lose your pension credits if you devote more than the amount of time prescribed in this bill. That loss of pension credits is also without due process and arbitrary. That also is why I believe this bill can't stand. But my Republican friends are so anxious to cripple Federal employee unions that they also have asked for the other fist, a Trump executive order. If you look at this executive order, which is essentially the same thing as the pending bill, you can't help but ask: Why two fists on these Federal workers? Why get the President and the Republican House to promise to do the same thing? How many branches, how many arms of government do you need to try to stamp out the rights of Federal employees? I believe I know why the House has turned to President Trump. The House bill is so extreme, so clearly illegal, in my judgment, that it will be difficult to get it through the Senate. So, the President, who obviously has control over the workforce, is being asked to do the same thing by executive order. I don't believe he can do it. I don't believe he can just wipe out official time, if not all of it, so much of it, so that employees cannot be served. But the President may have preempted the House bill, that may come on the floor in September, by his executive order against official time. If you play chess though, watch out, because he has hopped right into it. Now that he has signed an executive order, now that he has come forward with an executive order, he has allowed the AFGE to make a brilliant move. Before the ink was dry on the executive order, the AFGE had gone to court, in a brilliant chess move. And I have no doubt that they will win in court because the flaws of the bill are so clear. I think courts will agree with AFGE. Had the Republicans tried to kill official time and the Senate or to get the same thing through an executive order, you have the same problem, even perhaps worse. The executive order is a clear violation of the Civil Service Reform Act. Understand why the act has worked for so many decades. It is because of labor peace, to use a word that is often used to describe why unions have been important in the Federal sector. You need labor peace. You don't need strikes or