Yesterday the U.S. House approved H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. The bill seeks to reverse proposed National Labor Relations Board actions that could make it easier for organized labor to win union elections. Although the bill has no chance of clearing the U.S. Senate, yesterday’s vote could reverberate in some of next year’s Congressional races in Iowa.

The Congressional Research Service summarized the main points of H.R. 2094 here. The idea is to undermine certain National Labor Relations Board decisions taken since President Barack Obama took office. One proposed rule would speed up the union election process. Republicans and their allies have been railing against so-called “ambush elections” that, they claim, would leave employers insufficient time to defend against organizing efforts. Supporters of the legislation include corporate groups such as the National Retail Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Associated Builders and Contractors. For obvious reasons, labor unions oppose H.R. 3094 and support the labor relations board’s proposals.

This blog post on an October 12 committee hearing on the bill laid out some of the main arguments for and against the legislation:

[House Committee on Education and the Workforce] Chairman Jon Kline opened the hearing saying that the NLRB “is wreaking havoc on the nation’s workforce and it must be stopped.” Kline pointed to the board’s “ambush elections proposal,” which would require a hearing on election petitions within seven days of a filing. He argued that the proposal would give employees as little as 10 days to consider all the consequences of joining a union and suggested that, when combined with the Board’s recent Specialty Healthcare decision, the proposal is intended to promote unionization. Kline did say that he was open to ideas that would modernize the election process, but said that ideas as far-reaching as the Board’s should be argued and decided by Congress. Such a debate, Kline said, is the purpose of the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, which would give employers at least 14 days to prepare for the election hearing. […]

Phillip Russell, an attorney and expert on combating unionization campaigns, argued that the WDFA would “protect the rights of all employees in a workplace to vote on unionization and the right to information from all sides before being forced to vote.” Cohen said that the law will guarantee the privacy of employees because it gives employees the choice of how they shall be contacted by a union. Under questioning by Democratic lawmakers, Cohen acknowledged that the WDFA would require the Board to review any election petition that came before it, a process that could greatly delay representation elections. Cohen also said that if the Board drops its election reform proposal and rescinds Specialty Healthcare, he would see no need for the passage of the WDFA.

Witnesses also discussed whether the WDFA will protect employers. Many of the witnesses focused on the bill’s eradication of the requirement that the Board’s election proposal would impose on employers to present their case to the Board within seven days of the filing of an election petition. Cohen said that most employers, especially small employers, simply lack the time, resources, and knowledge to prepare to defend against a unionization campaign within seven days. Robert Sullivan, a spokesman for the Retail Industry Leaders Association seconded that concern, saying that businesses need, at minimum, ten days in which to respond. […]

Although most of the witnesses supported the WDFA, Phillip Hunter, an attorney representing unions, argued that the Board’s recent actions and decisions are necessary to level the playing field. Employers, Hunter contended during the hearing, have “unfettered access to employees from the employees’ first day on the job.” The Board’s election proposal, insisted Hunter, puts the employer and union on more equal footing in terms of the opportunities available to each side for persuasion. Hunter also sought to alleviate concerns that the Board’s election proposal would result in lawsuits by employees against employers for giving their information to unions. Employers who are simply following the law in handing over employees’ contact information, averred Hunter, would not be liable for privacy lawsuits.

Very few House members crossed the aisle during yesterday’s votes on this bill. It passed by 235 to 188 (roll call), with support from all but eight Republicans present. All but six Democrats voted against the bill on final passage. Iowa Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted for the bill and against all four amendments proposed by House Democrats to mitigate the bill’s impact. Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) offered one of the rejected amendments, which would “prevent employers that have paid any executive compensation bonuses in excess of 10,000 percent of the annual compensation of the average employee from engaging in open-ended litigation. Such parties are required to state their issues or positions at the outset of pre-election hearings, and prohibited from raising new, frivolous issues as a dilatory tactic.”

Boswell and fellow Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted for all of the proposed amendments to H.R. 3094. Boswell and Loebsack also opposed the bill on final passage. Braley missed that final vote, but he clearly would have been in the “no” column.

Iowa is not a heavily unionized state, but Boswell, Braley and Loebsack have all relied on support from organized labor in past election campaigns. Boswell is facing his toughest re-election test next year against Latham in the new IA-03. Union support could be crucial for him as he tries to run up a large enough vote margin in Polk County to overcome Latham’s advantage in more conservative parts of southwest Iowa.

I have not seen any public comments from members of the Iowa delegation about this bill, but if I see any statements or press releases, I’ll add them to this post.

UPDATE: On December 1, Boswell’s office uploaded a YouTube video containing his floor statement in support of his amendment to H.R. 3094 and against the bill as a whole: