BECK RIGHTS 2001: ARE WORKERS’ RIGHTS 

BEING ADEQUATELY ENFORCED? 

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 14, 2001 

Serial No. 107-39 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2002 

80-043 pdf 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 FAX: (202) 512-2250 

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

ERNEST L. FLETCHER, Kentucky DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois SUSAN DAVIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

 RIC KELLER, Florida 

 TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

 JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia, Chairman

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Vice Chairman MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

RIC KELLER, Florida HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................ 1

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE ............................................................................................... 2

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MAJOR OWENS, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE ............................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BUTCHER, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON ... 6

STATEMENT OF MARK SIMPSON, NEW WILMINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA...... 9

STATEMENT OF JAMES B. COPPESS, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, AFL-CIO, 

WASHINGTON, D.C..................................................................................... 11

STATEMENT OF W. JAMES YOUNG, STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIONAL RIGHT TO 

WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC., SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA........ 13

STATEMENT OF KENNETH F. BOEHM, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL LEGAL AND 

POLICY CENTER, FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA ................................ .... 15

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT HUNTER, MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC 

POLICY .......................................................................................................... 17

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR F. ROSENFELD, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL 

LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, WASHINGTON, D.C. .............................. 19

APPENDIX A - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE 

NORWOOD, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE..................................................... 49

APPENDIX B- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS KUCINICH, 

SUBCOMMITTTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE............................................................................. 55

APPENDIX C- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BUTCHER, SEATTLE, 

WASHINGTON ............................................................................................. 61

APPENDIX D- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MARK SIMPSON, NEW WILMINGTON, PA 

......................................................................................................................... 69 
iv

APPENDIX E- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JAMES B. COPPESS, ASSOCIATE 

GENERAL COUNSEL, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, D.C........................... 77

APPENDIX F- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF W. JAMES YOUNG, STAFF ATTORNEY, 

NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, SPRINGFIELD, 

VIRGINIA ...................................................................................................... 83

APPENDIX G- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KENNETH F. BOEHM, CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY CENTER, FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA........ 97

APPENDIX H- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT B. HUNTER, 

MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN...............111

APPENDIX I- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ARTHUR F. ROSENFELD, GENERAL 

COUNSEL, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, WASHINGTON, D.C...... 123

APPENDIX J- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HILDA L. SOLIS, 

SUBCOMMITTTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE............................................................................. 133

Table of Indexes.............................................................................................. 136 
1

BECK RIGHTS 2001: ARE WORKERS' RIGHTS BEING 

ADEQUATELY ENFORCED? 

____________________

Wednesday, November 14, 2001 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Hon. Charlie Norwood, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

 Present: Representatives Norwood, Biggert, Ballenger, Isakson, Owens, Kucinich, 

Woolsey, and Solis. 

 Also Present: Representatives Tancredo and Hoekstra. 

 Staff Present: Stephen Settle, Professional Staff Member; John Cline, Professional Staff 

Member; Travis McCoy, Legislative Assistant; Ed Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy; JoMarie St. Martin, General Counsel; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Scott Galupo, 

Communications Specialist; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Peter 

Rutledge, Senior Legislative Associate/Labor: Maria Cuprill, Legislative Associate/Labor; and, 

Brian Compagnone, Staff Assistant/Labor. 

Chairman Norwood. With a quorum being present, the Workforce Protection Subcommittee, 

of the Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order. Good morning to one and 

all. Under rule 12(b) of our Committee rules, any oral opening statement at this hearing is 
2

limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. This allows us to focus on hearing 

from our fine panel of witnesses sooner, and helps Members to keep to their schedules. 

Therefore, if other Members have statements, they will be included in the record upon request. 

 I would like to make an opening statement, and then we will refer to Mr. Owens who will 

be here. Good morning. Welcome to all of you. We are grateful for you being here. This is a 

fine panel of witnesses who have volunteered their time to help us understand what this 

Subcommittee found in previous hearings on Beck rights, and we found it to be a very serious 

problem. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE

 Since enactment of the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, and other related labor 

laws, progress has been made in framing the permissible scope of the authority given to the 

unions by Congress under the labor laws; for example, the union's ability to force members of a 

collective bargaining unit to pay dues as a condition of continued employment even from 

employees who object. The law limiting a union's authority in this area is vague, however, and 

as such has required a series of legal clarifications. 

 In light of reports of widespread abuse of the union's permissible scope of authority, at 

issue is whether further clarification remains necessary and appropriate; for example, whether 

the law is adequately being enforced, and, if so, whether this is attributable to a defect in law or 

simply a failure to use existing authority. 

 A review of this issue reveals that there are many possible incentives for unions to skirt 

or abuse the rights extended to them in this area of the law. The main incentive for such abuse of 

law, however, is certainly financial. In general, unions collect approximately 6.3 billion from 

their 9.3 million members, an average of $688 per member annually. Because union members 

are a diverse group, many people argue that a significant portion of these union members would 

object to the unions about their dues money if they were fully aware of their right to do so. In 

theory as much as 80 percent of the dues money extracted from unions is spent for purposes not 

related to the collective functions. 

 In sum, because of the political diversity of union memberships, it is estimated that even 

if a small portion of the union dues-paying base objected to the union's spending habits, that 

union might be forced to refund and therefore cease collection of billions of dollars in dues. 

 One group, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, and I emphasize one 

group, estimates that this number would be about 1.43 billion. With the strong financial 

incentive in place for unions to resist refunds of this magnitude, complaints from workers 

concerning their union's refusal to provide reliable financial information about spending have 

been frequent and they have been regular. Many complaints have detailed what appear to be 
3

intentional efforts made by local unions to misinform their members regarding the law and their 

spending.

 Lastly, even when armed with accurate information, workers have reported a number of 

requirements being put in place by unions in practice, forcing workers to undertake an agonizing 

struggle to force their unions to recognize their rights. 

 The subcommittee will seek to determine whether these alleged abuses are accurate, and, 

if so, whether there is a systematic problem requiring government intervention. The 

subcommittee's inquiry will be exercised under its oversight authority and therefore will focus on 

addressing alleged abuse of our laws rather than legislation to correct these abuses. 

 Last May, this subcommittee heard from four individuals who had provided testimonial 

evidence concerning their attempts and failures to exercise their most fundamental legal rights. 

The individuals I refer to were not lawyers or paid union organizers, but rank and file workers 

concerned only with making a living. The stories we heard were deeply moving from a personal 

standpoint. From a legal standpoint, however, what the subcommittee heard from these workers 

strongly suggests a systemic problem that today largely has been ignored. The testimony we 

received was compelling because it came from men and women who, as I said, were interested in 

just making a living. The last thing they wanted in their lives was trouble. These individuals, 

however, refused to abandon their rights, and instead stood up and battled for what they were 

legally entitled to. 

 Testifying under oath, this subcommittee learned from these men and women that in their 

attempts to exercise their rights, a seemingly endless sequence of obstacles was encountered.

Much like a steeplechase, once one hurdle was overcome, another then seemed to appear. The 

subcommittee learned that the process was so grueling that many individuals chose to abandon 

their sacred rights rather than endure what appeared to be an endless fight. The hurdles they 

faced ranged from refusal to provide basic information needed to exercise these rights, to 

incidents of personal and social intimidation, to a range of procedural delays and legal 

runarounds. What we heard from these individual workers led some of us on the subcommittee 

to suspect that the hurdles had been intentionally placed before these people and were calculated 

to basically deprive the workers of their rights. 

 Unmistakably, the testimonial evidence received by this subcommittee last May suggests 

a problem, because if just one individual is being intentionally deprived of his or her legal rights, 

that is too many. 

 How can this subcommittee make judgments of this type based on evidence gathered 

from one hearing? The answer is we are not going to. In fact, what we heard last May was 

totally consistent with evidence of disregard that has been taken by the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce during the 104th, 105th and 106th Congresses. 

 In sum, the House Education and Workforce Committee has conducted seven hearings in 

which individual workers presented similar or even more egregious evidence. In total, I am now 

personally convinced that the problems we have heard about from the rank and file are not 
4

isolated instances of legal breakdown, but rather a systematic problem that will be repeated over 

and over again if not fixed. 

 That brings me, then, to the purpose of today. Today we want to explore what the 

Federal Government has been doing to help these workers with their legal rights. Has the 

government been placing obstacles in the way of workers who are trying to exercise their Beck 

rights, question mark? Or, has the government been vigorous in making sure that the Beck rights 

of workers are indeed honored? These are the questions that we are here to explore today. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE – SEE APPENDIX A 

Chairman Norwood. Now with what I said, I yield now to the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. 

Owens, for whatever statement he may wish to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MAJOR OWENS, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's hearing is the sixth hearing held in this committee on 

the right of workers to refuse to join a union since the Republicans have been in control of the 

committee. We have yet to hold a single hearing on the thousands of workers who are 

unlawfully discharged for trying to exercise their rights, since we have used the word "sacred" 

several times, their sacred right to form the union. 

 As I stated at the last Beck hearing, Beck was decided in 1988. Since that decision, there 

have been less than 100 cases, total, pending at the NLRB concerning Beck rights. In a single 

year, the NLRB issues more than 1,000 complaints alleging unlawful discharge of a worker by 

an employer. Yet a worker has more protection to refuse to pay a few dollars a month to a union 

than a worker gets when he or she is fired for supporting the union and his or her entire 

livelihood is at stake. In my view, the priorities of the committee are clearly distorted. 

 That said, I want to welcome today's witnesses. I look forward to your testimony. I 

especially want to welcome the general counsel, Mr. Rosenfeld, who is appearing before this 

committee for the first time. As a former labor counsel for the Senate Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor and Pensions, Mr. Rosenfeld has had extensive experience participating in 

hearings from this side of the desk. Over the next 4 years he will gain extensive experience in 

what it is like to participate from that side of the desk. While I suspect it is somewhat more fun 

to be on this side, my hope, Mr. Rosenfeld, is that you do not find the other side to be too 

uncomfortable.
5

 Finally, I want to thank Mr. Coppess for his time and especially his patience for once 

again undertaking, this time single-handedly, the role of explaining and defending union 

practices.

I yield back to the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 

enter into the record the opening statement of our colleague Representative Kucinich from Ohio. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE 

DENNIS KUCINICH -SEE APPENDIX B 

Chairman Norwood. So ordered. Thank you, Mr. Owens. 

Today we have an excellent panel of witnesses who collectively are quite capable of 

helping us understand how we can better protect individual rights. In fact, I can think of no 

group of experts better qualified to try to begin the process of repairing this system. 

 I have one housekeeping item, however. As I mentioned earlier, each of our panelists 

may submit additional copy or information for the record up to 10 days after this hearing if they 

see fit. 

 With that said, I would like to welcome the Honorable Arthur Rosenfeld, general counsel, 

National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Rosenfeld was nominated to serve as the NLRB's general 

counsel by President Bush and was confirmed to serve in this post in May of 2001. While Mr. 

Rosenfeld is obviously still getting his feet wet at NLRB, it can certainly be said that he is not 

new to the issues that now face the Board. 

 Many of us in Congress know Mr. Rosenfeld because of his previous experience as 

senior labor counsel for the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. His 

qualifications also include service in the private sector as a practicing attorney, a tenure with the 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and time with the U.S. Department of Labor, where he served in 

the Solicitor's office. 

Mr. Rosenfeld, we are delighted to have you here. Thank you for being here. I would 

like to now yield to my good friend, Chairman Hoekstra, who would take this opportunity to 

introduce the Honorable Robert Hunter. 

Mr. Hoekstra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce the Honorable Robert 

Hunter, who is currently the director of labor policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in 

Midland, Michigan, a nonpartisan research and educational institution. Some of us would 

describe the Mackinac Center as the leading State-based think tank in the Nation. Mr. Hunter 

earned his title as Honorable through his service as a member of the National Labor Relations 

Board, a position to which he was appointed in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan. So, Bob, 

welcome and thank you for being here this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
6

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Chairman Hoekstra. And Mr. Hunter, we welcome you to the 

panel today. 

 Appearing with these gentlemen is Mr. Kenneth Boehm, currently chairman of the 

National League and Policy Center located in McLean, Virginia. Like Mr. Hunter, Mr. Boehm 

has an extensive mix of policy and practice background that leads to his understanding of these 

issues that we seek to be educated upon. 

 Joining them is Mr. James Young, representing the National Right to Work Legal 

Foundation. Mr. Young is experienced and has handled cases before the Board of the nature we 

are here to discuss, and we look forward to his testimony. 

 Next we have Mr. James Coppess. Mr. James Coppess currently serves as associate 

general counsel to the AFL-CIO. Like each of these gentlemen I previously introduced, Mr. 

Coppess has direct experience in handling Beck-related litigation. 

 Next, we have Mark Simpson from New Wilmington, Pennsylvania, who is here 

representing himself. Mr. Simpson will share his personal experiences in the area we are 

interested in investigating. 

 And finally, we have Michael Butcher, from Seattle, Washington; is that correct? 

Mr. Butcher. Yes. 

Chairman Norwood. Like Mr. Simpson, Mr. Butcher is representing himself as one who has 

direct experience in this area. 

 Before I ask the panelists to begin, I would like to remind each that they have been 

invited to speak for approximately 5 minutes and we will hold off on questions until all of our 

panelists have had the opportunity to speak. I will ask Mr. Butcher to go first, followed by Mr. 

Simpson, Mr. Coppess, Mr. Young, Mr. Boehm, Mr. Hunter and finally Mr. Rosenfeld.

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Butcher, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BUTCHER, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Honorable Members of the House of Representatives. My 

name is Michael Butcher. I appreciate the opportunity to share with the members of this 

committee my experiences as a professional employee that have recently required me to start 

paying an agency fee to a union as a condition of my employment. I am an engineer with the 

Boeing Company in Seattle, Washington, where I have been continuously employed since 

shortly after receiving a bachelor of science in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from 

Purdue University in 1986. Presently I am the lead engineer, responsible for structural analysis 

of the engine installations in the Boeing triple 7. 
7

 In August of 2000, Boeing made an agreement with the Society of Professional 

Engineering Employees Association requiring, for the first time in the 85-year history of the 

company, that its professional employees pay dues or an agency fee to a union as a condition of 

employment. The agency fee agreement, which was secured by SPEEA as part of the settlement 

of a strike that occurred earlier in the year, affects approximately 19,000 engineering and 

technical employees that work in two separate Puget Sound-based SPEEA bargaining units.

More importantly, the agreement imposed agency fees upon approximately 6,700 Boeing 

employees who were not dues-paying members at the time of the agreement. 

 Four months after SPEEA signed the agency agreement with my employer, I became the 

primary charging party in a complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Board against 

SPEEA for failing to provide the information and procedural protections required under CWA v. 

Beck. The purpose of this statement is to describe the SPEEA actions that led me and dozens of 

my colleagues to pursue Federal charges against the union and to describe the union's response to 

those charges. Additionally, I will discuss the NLRB's handling of our case, as well as the 

current status of our charges. 

 Before I begin discussion of my legal complaints against SPEEA, I think it is important 

to briefly discuss my reasons for objecting to union membership. Like many engineers at 

Boeing, I was recruited from outside the State of Washington. I did not learn that the 

engineering community had a union until my first day on the job. It was never part of my 

professional expectations to be part of a union; therefore, I quickly declined the opportunity to 

join SPEEA. Nothing has happened during my career to change my initial impressions 

concerning the benefits of union membership. In fact, it has been my experience that the union 

has only been a detriment to my career and that the services they provide are of no value to me. 

Furthermore, I find the nonrepresentational activities of the union and its AFL-CIO affiliates to 

be inconsistent with my values and beliefs. Therefore, I have no interest in funding those 

activities. 

 Last December, with the assistance of the National Right to Work Defense Foundation, 

we filed the first of two charges against SPEEA. The facts supporting the first of our charges 

against SPEEA are fairly straightforward, as I will now discuss. 

 During the implementation phase of the agency agreements, SPEEA distributed a series 

of notices that clearly explained the right by law to belong to a union and participate in its 

affairs. However, several of these notices were also very misleading with respect to explaining 

the rights of those who wished to remain nonmembers. Here is a summary of these notices: 

 On two separate occasions, SPEEA distributed informational bulletins that unlawfully 

indicated that Beck objections were subject to approval by the union. It should also be noted that 

the second of these two notices was published after I personally notified a member of the union's 

executive staff that the original notice was not right. 

 The union mailed a letter to thousands of nonmembers' homes that unlawfully established 

an objection procedure that required Beck objectors to state the reasons for their objections. I 

was also informed of this when I called the union to inquire about to whom I should send the 
8

letter. They informed me to state my reasons for objection. 

 The union unlawfully notified bargaining unit employees that non-membership 

constitutes a full waiver of the rights and benefits of SPEEA membership, which, according to 

the union's notice, included staff assistance with contract questions, job classification appeals, 

clearance issues and other items covered by the collective bargaining agreement. 

 SPEEA further discourages non-membership and violates the rights of objecting 

nonmembers by refusing to allow Beck fees to be paid by payroll deduction, although that option 

is available for full dues paying members. 

 Finally, the breakdown of expenses that SPEEA originally provided to Beck objectors in 

November 2000 was not verified by an independent audit as required by law. I learned that the 

union's original breakdown was not verified by an audit when I spoke to the accountant that the 

union claimed had calculated the fee. He informed me that he would not verify the union's 

expenses because he had not done an audit. 

 The original breakdown that was prepared by SPEEA was incomplete and inaccurate. In 

addition, the SPEEA breakdown charged 100 percent for a number of activities that were either 

non-chargeable, such as legislative and public affairs activities, or were so vague in the 

description that a potential challenger could not tell what the expense was for. 

 The issues I have just discussed form the basis of the first of the two charges that we have 

filed against SPEEA within the past year. Shortly after I met with, and presented these facts to, 

the NLRB, the investigating Board agent informed us that SPEEA had notified him that they 

were going to fix the problems identified in our charge. I want to discuss now these "fixes." 

 SPEEA's first action to address our charges was to send a notice to the company e-mail 

accounts of all bargaining unit members, explaining that it had come to their attention that there 

may be some confusion among bargaining unit members regarding the newly negotiated agency 

fee clause and your right to object for paying of expenditures not related to collective bargaining 

under Beck. Without admitting their responsibility for the confusion, the note further explained 

that it was not necessary for Beck objectors to state the reasons for their objections nor was there 

an approval process. 

 Next, the union distributed a second note to bargaining union members that explained 

that any letter they may have received from the union indicating that nonmembers would not be 

eligible to receive basic services from the union was in error. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BUTCHER, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON – SEE 

APPENDIX C 
9

Chairman Norwood. Sorry, Your time has expired. Your written statement, however, is 

available to all of us in the record and I encourage all of you to read it. 

Gentlemen, your testimony is very, very important to us. We want you to understand the 

5-minute rule is in effect and try to summarize your testimony, but we do have your written 

statements. The other thing is that it is important that you pull that little microphone close to you 

because what you have to say today is vital to this subcommittee and we want to hear every word 

of it. 

 With that, Mr. Simpson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARK SIMPSON, NEW WILMINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. Simpson. Chairman Norwood and members of the committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to tell my story today. When I finish, I think you will understand the plight of 

American union workers across the country maybe just a little more than before you saw me 

today.

 I am a very simple man. I am not outspoken, nor am I one to tell tales or to embellish. I 

go to work every day at my job at Shenango Presbyterian Seniorcare. It is a nursing home in 

New Wilmington, Pennsylvania. Working there are about 60 other men and women. Our 

exclusive bargaining agent is the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 250. 

 I consider myself a typical American. I work hard for my money and when I have to 

spend it, especially when I am forced to spend it, I believe it is my right to know what it is being 

used for. It is particularly important to me that it not be used for purposes with which I 

thoroughly disagree. Now the last thing I wanted to do was cause any problems at my job. But 

when the Teamsters Union Local 250 treated me the way they did, I felt obligated to act. And 

now I feel obligated to speak to you about it, so that hopefully you will be able to take some 

steps to fix this problem. 

 You see I used to be a union loyalist. I began working at this job in 1993. I joined the 

Teamsters, of course, not knowing there was a choice, and loyally paid my dues for over 6 years.

In fact, I was a union shop steward. But it was this inside view of the union operation that drew 

my first concerns about the union spending and exactly where my hard-earned money was going. 

 After I looked, I discovered that the Teamsters Union and others across the country were 

using my dues and those of many like-minded workers to win elections for candidates and 

promote causes I completely disagree with, with my money. I knew this was wrong and I 

couldn't believe our laws would allow this to take place, so I decided to check for myself. I 

remembered having heard once about the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, 
10

from whom you have already heard today. I heard a vague recollection that they had something 

to do with protecting union workers' rights, so I decided that that would be a good place to start. 

 Not owning a computer, I went to the library to research the Foundation and what my 

rights were in my situation. I discovered the landmark Supreme Court's Beck decision, won by 

the Foundation's attorneys in 1988. As I understood it, the Beck decision means that unions can 

only force workers who object, to pay certain costs directly related to their role as an exclusive 

bargaining agent. That means all of that money they spend on candidates I don't like or causes I 

disagree with is due back to me. 

 I was thrilled. The highest Court in the land had agreed that it was just plain wrong for 

my union to force me to have to pay my dues to causes and candidates I disagreed with. In fact, 

as I now know, the Court even looked at the finances involved with the unions, and their audit 

showed that only 21 percent of union dues were being used for collective bargaining costs.

Therefore, up to nearly 80 percent of my money should have been refunded to me by resigning 

my membership and asserting my Beck rights. 

 This right was an individual right I was not aware of, probably because my union never 

bothered to tell me. It was one of those moments when you find your way out of being lost in 

the dark. The unions cannot use my money for political purposes if I object. At least that is 

what is supposed to happen, ideally. 

 I gave my notice to my union in June 2000, assuming that they would promptly comply 

with my wishes and would act to remove me from their membership. Was I in for a surprise? 

By October I still had not heard a single word from the union. That is when I filed an unfair 

labor practice charge with the NLRB, hoping to force my local to act on my letter and release me 

from my union dues. This was the beginning of why I am here today. 

 It wasn't until November of last year, nearly 6 months after I first contacted my union and 

attempted to exercise my Beck rights that I finally belatedly heard from my union. Their answer 

was insulting to me, my fellow workers, and to the intent of the Supreme Court's Beck decision. 

After my many years of paying dues to them, you would think they would owe me a complete 

and thorough explanation of my dues in justification for the collective bargaining costs they 

intended to continue forcing me to pay. But when I looked at the list of expenditures, I was 

shocked to say the least. 

 Their response said that only 1.3 percent of their spending was eligible to be rebated.

The other 98.7 percent were bargaining expenses chargeable to me as agency shop fees, even 

after exercising my Beck rights, and if I didn't pay them I was fired. 1.3 percent. So they took 

19 cents off my dues. 

 This, ladies and gentlemen, is an insult. And I am sure that if it were you in this position, 

you would not stand for it either. Do any of you sitting here today believe that a typical 

Teamsters local spends 98.7 percent of my dues on bargaining? I have read reports that the 

unions as a whole spent nearly $1 billion on politics alone in the last election cycle. Where did 

this money come from? From me and other workers. Yet they claim with a straight face that 
11

they are obligated to only send back 19 cents of my dues each month. I can hardly believe it. 

 I should also note when the union finally answered my letter after 6 months in an unfair 

labor charge against them, they also resorted to their usual strong-arm tactics. They threatened 

my job. So first they insisted their agency fee was 98.7 percent of the full dues. Then they 

threatened to have me fired if I don't comply with their unsubstantiated claims for payment. Not 

once, but three times they threatened my job, all this in a four-paragraph letter. 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Simpson, you have done a great job, and your written testimony will 

be in the record and is available to all of us. Your time has expired. And I know 5 minutes 

passes fast and I apologize to all of you. I hate it, but we have to move on. Thank you. You did 

a great job. 

 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MARK SIMPSON, NEW WILMINGTON, PA– SEE 

APPENDIX D 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Coppess, I think you are recognized next for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES B. COPPESS, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, AFLCIO, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Coppess. I will attempt to be very brief. I submitted written testimony and I will 

summarize the points that I would like to make. 

 As Mr. Owens noted in his opening remarks, the NLRB enforces many rights that are of 

crucial importance to employees and employers alike. The NLRB seeks to remedy unlawful 

discharges, workers who have lost their livelihood entirely and been thrown out of work in 

violation of the act. It seeks to protect innocent employers who are being swept into labor 

disputes that are of no concern to them by unions attempting to exert secondary pressure. 

 The Beck right is not of that nature. No one is losing his or her job. No one is going out 

of business. No one is being materially hurt in any economic way at all. What we are talking 

about are disputes over, at most, one-half of 1 percent of income. 

 Nevertheless, I think it is worth considering the NLRB'S enforcement actions with 

respect to this right because I think important lessons can be drawn from what the NLRB has 

done in this area for enforcing other rights under the act. First of all, the NLRB has announced 

and enforces vigorously a requirement that unions notify all employees of their rights under 
12

Beck. This right and requirement of the notice could well be extended into other areas of the act. 

 More than half of the workers, I would say well over three-quarters of the workers are in 

unorganized workplaces where they have no way of learning about their rights under the act at 

all. The NLRB could quite well extend the notice requirement into those workplaces, for 

example, by requiring employers who encounter employee complaints to inform those 

employees they have a right under Federal law to get together and engage in group protest or to 

organize a union to redress those complaints through collective bargaining. 

 Likewise, employees in all workplaces, union or not, have the right to be accompanied by 

a representative of their choosing into any investigative interview that could lead to discipline. It 

is a virtual certainty that employees don't know of that right and that when they are called into 

such an interview by their employer, they wouldn't feel they have a right to resist and ask for a 

representative.

 The employers, in much the same fashion as unions have been, could well be required to 

notify those employees that they do not have to go into that investigative interview alone; that 

they could ask for a representative to accompany them. That would certainly assist in enforcing 

that right and making it more widely known. 

 Moving on from the notice requirement that the NLRB has adopted and enforced, the 

NLRB requires unions to provide detailed, audited, financial information to support the union's 

assertion about the amount of agency fee that has been charged. And keep in mind, these fees 

are equal to dues and they are set by membership votes, so they are a very small percent of 

income. And the area of dispute we are talking about is just fractions of that 1 or 2 percent of 

income. Nevertheless, unions are required to support their assertions on the chargeable amount 

by providing detailed, audited, financial information. 

 Employers make similar assertions all the time. They tell employees who are organizing 

that they face competitive pressures and that the business is in dire straits. And they do the same 

thing once the workers are organized in collective bargaining. If the NLRB were to extend the 

back rolls into this area, they would require employers to generate financial reports that they 

already wouldn't have on hand, have them audited by a certified accountant, and provide them to 

all the workers. That would be very helpful in effectuating some very important rights affecting 

a much larger portion of the income than is involved in the Beck disputes, and it should be 

seriously considered in terms of enforcing these other rights. 

 Finally, the NLRB requires unions to provide a prompt neutral method of resolving 

disputes over the amount of the fee. The workers aren't required to go to this method of 

resolving the dispute but the union is required to provide it. Such disputes often arise in 

organizing campaigns with respect to discharges, which are assuredly in retaliation for 

organizing. And it would be equally helpful if employers were to be required prompt, neutral 

arbitration in that context to put workers back to work who claim they have been unlawfully 

discharged.
13

 And with that, I will give whatever seconds I have left back to the committee. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very, Mr. Coppess. 

 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JAMES B. COPPESS, ASSOCIATE GENERAL 

COUNSEL, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, D.C. –SEE 

 APPENDIX E 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Young, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF W. JAMES YOUNG, STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIONAL RIGHT TO 

WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC., SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 

Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Norwood and members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to participate in these important hearings. My name is James 

Young and I am a staff attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation just 

beyond the Beltway in Springfield, Virginia. Since the Foundation was founded in 1968, it has 

provided free legal aid to the plaintiffs in almost every case litigated concerning the rights of 

workers to refrain from subsidizing union political and other non-bargaining activities. 

 The most famous of these cases, and the subject of these hearings obviously, is 

Communication Workers of America v. Beck. I have worked as a Foundation staff attorney for 

12 years, and in that time I have provided free legal representation to literally tens of thousands 

of individual employees nationwide seeking through litigation to vindicate their fundamental 

constitutional and civil rights against compulsory unionism abuses perpetrated by both unions 

and employers. In addition to representing public sector employees and a wide variety of 

Federal civil rights cases dealing with the abuses of compulsory unionism arrangements, I have 

spent a considerable portion of my professional life litigating cases under the National Labor 

Relations Act. 

 Today is not the first time Mr. Coppess and I have appeared together. I commend you for 

investigating the NLRB'S inadequate stewardship of this country's labor laws, particularly as it 

regards Beck. The failure to implement Harry Beck's victory in the United States Supreme Court 

is a serious problem. Individual workers throughout America are forced, by virtue of the unique 

privilege granted to unions by Congress, to contribute their hard-earned dollars to political and 

ideological causes, which they oppose. And when they seek to exercise the rights that they have 

won under the Supreme Court's decisions to stop the misuse of their money for partisan, 

political, and ideological activities and other nonrepresentational activities, they are often 
14

stymied by both the unions and the National Labor Relations Board itself. 

 Let me make clear that I am not talking about contributions to candidates from union 

political action committees. That is often used to change the subject away from the Beck issue. 

I am talking about union dues and fees collected from workers under the threat of the loss of 

their job or under the actual loss of their job, a threat that is authorized by current labor law. 

 There have been some suggestions already that people don't lose their jobs. That simply 

is not the case. Bob LaFrance in Denali Park, Alaska lost his job 2 months ago because he 

refused to knuckle under to a threat by Teamsters Local 959 to pay dues or else. And this was a 

union that did nothing to comply with the requirements Mr. Coppess discussed that are 

purportedly imposed by the Board. 

 In testimony before a House committee 1996, Leo Troy from Rutgers University 

conservatively estimated that the in-kind union political expenditures amount to between 300 and 

$500 million in a Presidential election year. That is, of course, in addition to the uncountable 

millions, and perhaps over a billion dollars more that labor organizations spend on State and 

local elections and lobbying at all levels of government. 

 Under the National Labor Relations Act and Railway Labor Act, employees who have 

never requested union representation must accept as their monopoly bargaining agent the union 

that the majority of the employees of their bargaining unit select. Then, if their employer and 

that union agree, and in 80 percent of the cases they do, the law forces these employees to pay 

dues or fees for fear of loss of their job for representation they may have never wanted. 

 The evil inherent in compelling objecting employees to subsidize a union's political and 

ideological activities is self-evident. As Thomas Jefferson put it so eloquently, "To compel a 

man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is 

sinful and tyrannical."

 Preventing that evil is not an easy task under current law. In his dissent from the 

Supreme Court's first ruling on the problem in 1961 in Machinists v. Street, the late Justice Hugo 

Black articulated well the difficulty in preventing use of compulsory dues and fees for political 

and ideological purposes. To avoid constitutional questions, the Court held that the Railway 

Labor Act prohibits the use of objecting workers' forced dues for political purposes, including 

lobbying. However, the Court's majority held that the employees' remedy was merely a 

reduction or refund of the part of the dues used for politics. Justice Black immediately 

recognized that this remedy was fatally flawed. As Justice Black stated: 

 "It may be that courts and lawyers with sufficient skill in accounting, algebra, geometry, 

trigonometry, and calculus will be able to extract the proper microscopic answer from the 

voluminous and complex accounting records of the local, national and international unions 

involved. It seems to me, however, that this formula with its attendant trial burdens promises 

little hope for financial recompense to the individual workers whose first amendment freedoms 

have been flagrantly violated."
15

 The situation has gotten no better under current Board law. And here I depart somewhat 

from my prepared remarks. The Beck notice that Mr. Coppess touts in his testimony is a notice 

published in a union political magazine in general. And the case he refers to is California Saw. I 

would respectfully suggest that the readership of such a magazine by an objecting nonmember is 

no more likely than William F. Buckley's regular perusal of The Nation or Mr. Novotny's regular 

perusal of The National Review. 

 The independent audit to which Mr. Coppess has referred is an audit by union members, 

not certified public accountants, in patronage positions for the international Secretary-Treasurer. 

That was California Saw. So let us not overstate the Board's activity in this area. In many cases 

they have merely rubber-stamped unions to put a patina of responsibility on their efforts to force 

employees to support the propagation of opinions which they disbelieve. 

 I respectfully submit the balance of my statement and thank the committee for its 

attention.

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Young, very much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF W. JAMES YOUNG, STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIONAL 

RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA-SEE 

APPENDIX F 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Boehm, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH F. BOEHM, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL LEGAL AND 

POLICY CENTER, FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 

Mr. Boehm. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be 

invited here today as you discuss the current status of workers' rights under the Beck decision.

My name is Ken Boehm and I am chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center Response to 

the Organized Labor Accountability Project. And one of our activities under that is the 

publishing of a fortnightly publication, a union corruption update that goes into news and cases 

of union corruption that took place in the ensuing 2 weeks. 

 In 1988, the Supreme Court decided Beck. But Supreme Court decisions are not selfenforcing. The history of Beck since 1988 is of two sides. On the one hand, you have very little 

government enforcement of the Beck decision. On the other hand, you have a history of very 

creative attempts to frustrate Beck by unions. 
16

 Taking first what government has done to enforce it, or what it has not done to enforce it, 

would be more accurate. Congress has not passed any law codifying the Beck rights. President 

George H.W. Bush did issue an Executive order in 1992 requiring Federal contractors to post 

Beck rights. However, in the opening days of the Clinton administration, that Executive order 

was canceled. 

 Similarly, there was a Department of Labor proposed rule stipulating how to report 

expenditure of funds, and that proposed rule did not survive the opening days of the Clinton 

administration. 

 Then, fast-forward to February of this year, President George W. Bush also issued an 

Executive order similar to his father's, saying that Federal contractors must post workplace 

notice informing employees of their rights under Beck. And that is now being challenged in the 

court by three unions and a union-established corporation. 

 In the absence of congressional codification of Beck, the National Labor Relations Board 

has had the authority to enforce Beck rights. But any examination of the NLRB's action shows 

that on the one hand their first ruling, California Saw and Knife, already referred to in this 

hearing, didn't even take place until 1995, some years after the 1988 decision. 

 The problems that have faced workers wishing to enforce their Beck rights are of several 

types:

 First, there are accounting schemes. Workers are not able to get accurate accounting 

information as to how much they are owed, thus frustrating their ability to get a proper refund.

There has been much documentation of that. 

 Secondly, there has been a lack of information on workers' Beck rights. There have been 

two national polls. Both show the overwhelming majority of workers are not informed of their 

Beck rights. That is not a surprise. Unions have no incentive to inform them of their rights. To 

the extent that they do, and they exercise them, unions have less money to work with. 

 Then there is intimidation. This committee has held hearings in the past on intimidation, 

and Congressman Goodling went on to state after the testimony of many workers that these 

workers often describe stonewalling, harassment, coercion, intimidation of workers who try to 

recover what is rightfully theirs. 

 Then there are the procedural hurdles. These are various schemes that have been set up 

by unions to frustrate those who want to enforce their Beck rights. Among those tactics 

employed are one-sided arbitration requirements, limited windows of time each year for workers 

to enforce their rights, delays, and outright refusals of union officials to respond appropriately to 

requests by workers. There are many NLRB complaints where people, often in handwriting, 

describe how they have been misled, harassed, intimidated, misinformed. 
17

 Enforcing the Beck rights I think would also serve a collateral good purpose, and that is 

help stem the tide of union corruption. 

 The New York Times recently said there is a tidal wave of union corruption. A lot of it 

deals with the fact that workers don't have the right to accurately find out how their own funds 

are being spent. I think both problems have the greatest impact on workers. Those problems 

involve millions of dollars. Both problems persist despite poor decisions underscoring the rights 

of workers. 

 What are the meaningful remedies? Four principles I think must be followed to ensure 

them. I think workers have to have reliable information about their Beck rights. Workers must 

have easy access to independently audited union financial information. Workers must have 

readily available legal protections against intimidation of any type. And, finally, the burden of 

proof shouldn't be on somebody trying to exercise their Beck rights. The burden of proof should 

be on those who wish to frustrate those rights. 

 There are a number of proposals. One of our staff members has done a Law Review 

article in depth, analyzing what should go into some of these reforms. Here are several annual 

audits and quarterly reports. This is similar to what shareholders face. They require improved 

enforcement; civil money penalties; prior approval of workers; and civil action and remedial 

relief.

 If first amendment rights of workers are not worth protecting by legislation, what is? 

Thank you. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you. Your full statement is available to us and it will be in the 

record and I encourage everyone to read it. 

 WRITTEN STATEMENT OFKENNETH F. BOEHM, CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONALLEGAL AND POLICY CENTER, FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA-SEE 

APPENDIX G 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Hunter, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT HUNTER, MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC 

POLICY

Mr. Hunter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. It is 

indeed an honor to appear before you this morning to discuss, I think, one of the most significant 

labor law cases in the history of the Supreme Court's adjudication, Communication Workers v. 

Beck. Despite the importance of this case to the freedom and liberty of individual workers, I 

believe the National Labor Relations Board, which is the primary enforcing agency of the 

government on Beck-type matters has misapplied the Supreme Court's Beck doctrine to the 
18

detriment of those workers who rely on the Board for the protection of their rights. I think it is 

high time now for the new Board coming into being and the general counsel, recognizing that he 

is newly appointed, to now rethink their Beck enforcement responsibilities and to guarantee the 

full promise of the Beck doctrine as the Supreme Court has envisioned. 

 About 4 years ago, I appeared before this full committee on this general subject of Beck, 

but I must report to you that not much has changed in Michigan concerning worker knowledge of 

Beck rights or the exercise of those rights. At that time, I told the committee that Beck rights 

were not having much impact, for many reasons; the prime of which is worker lack of 

knowledge that these rights even exist, or how to take advantage of them when they do learn of 

them. 

 While there are several problems related to Beck enforcement, chief among them are 

inadequate notice and communication to eligible union employees, as Mr. Young has just 

indicated. If a worker never learns of a Beck right in the first instance, all the other Beck 

protections talked about by all the other witnesses on this panel really are meaningless as to him 

or her. We are aware that many unions will not divulge the rights of their union members to the 

Beck process for fear of losing union income, membership, and political clout in the process. 

 Because of these considerations, I have to give large applause to President Bush in the 

issuance of Executive order 13201, which is going to require some notice posting in the 

workplaces of employees who are employed by Federal contractors doing business with the 

Federal Government. This is certainly a step in the right direction, providing maximum notice to 

people of these rights. But again, even when fully implemented by the Labor Department, it will 

have very limited significance because of the numbers of employees employed by Federal 

contractors versus all the employees employed by other private sector business. 

 While other colleagues on the panel have suggested ways to enforce Beck, I will address 

my comments to the NLRB itself. And I am often circumspect about commenting about the 

Board and its decisional process, because I have been in the seat of contentious labor issues, in 

fact before this very committee, from time to time. And it is not an easy job to decide these 

cases, nor is it easy to appear on this side of the desk. And yet, the Board is the primary enforcer 

of Beck, rather, is the primary enforcer of the Beck doctrine, so they cannot escape scrutiny. 

 In the area of Beck rights, in my humble opinion, the Board has completely dropped the 

ball and let workers down in the process. Again, when you look at the tortured issuance of Beck 

cases, three observations occur to me: 

 One, the Board's seminal decision explaining its Beck doctrine was slow in issuing some 

7 years after the Supreme Court's decision in Beck. And related cases explaining other facets of 

Beck doctrine have been trickling out of the Board ever since. 

 Two, the body of case law in Beck seems to have spawned ambiguous flexible union 

rules, which have established a policy, but not necessarily clearly established comprehensive 

employee rights. Previous committee witnesses in the past, and those today, have correctly 

testified that the Board itself has given workers inadequate protection and relief when it finally 
19

does decide Beck cases. 

 And number three, I think in the process the Board has created an incorrect balance in our 

labor laws versus the statutory rights of union members exercising the Beck rights from the 

derivative interest of a labor organization in demanding financial support from its nonmembers 

for its services. 

 I believe the Board has erred in Beck cases by distancing itself from the Court's 

controlling Railway Labor Act precedent as announced in the Beck case by applying a rationale 

which distinguishes the NLRA Beck cases from the substantial, unified, and broader body of 

Federal law involved in other union objector cases. In my mind, there is simply no compelling 

reason, either analytically or grounded in policy, to treat NLRA private sector workers 

substantially different than workers working in other industries under other statutes and/or the 

U.S. and/or State constitutions. 

 Again, what can the Board do about it at this point? Well, it can continue to muddle 

along and issue these cases at a rather slow pace, or it could engage at this point in informal 

rulemaking. That option is my choice, because I believe the policy revisions called for in the 

Beck doctrine can be more quickly resolved through rulemaking than through the a judicatory 

process.

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Hunter, for your insightful testimony. 

 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT B. HUNTER, 

MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN- SEE APPENDIX H 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Rosenfeld, you are now recognized, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR F. ROSENFELD, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL 

LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am honored to appear before 

you as general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. I am also grateful to President 

Bush for the confidence that he demonstrated in nominating me to this important position. I 

would like to briefly summarize my testimony but ask that the entire statement be made a part of 

the record. 

Chairman Norwood. So ordered, Mr. Rosenfeld. 
20

Mr. Rosenfeld. As you know, the Office of General Counsel is involved in a great number of 

labor disputes each year, a few high-profile, most low-profile, but all of extreme importance to 

the involved parties. The general counsel supervises the regional offices, and the staffs of those 

offices do an excellent job of investigating and deciding unfair labor practice charges on behalf 

of the general counsel. Year in and year out, whether the general counsel is a Republican or 

Democrat, acting or permanent, he or she has done the job efficiently and with a commitment to 

quality and fairness that I don't believe can be matched anywhere in the executive branch. 

 The regions find merit; that is, they find probable cause in about one-third of the charges 

filed. And they either dismiss or obtain withdrawals in the other two-thirds. The significance of 

this statistic is that it means that parties to NLRB cases get an answer in their cases very early on.

If it is a dismissal, it is a final answer subject only to the internal appeals process in the Office of 

the General Counsel. All of this is done in a brief period of time. In fact, over 90 percent of 

Board cases are investigated, dismissed, or settled in about 100 days. 

 This is an extraordinary record. We receive about 30,000 cases a year, not to mention 

approximately 170,000 inquiries to our information officers. And about two-thirds or 20,000 of 

the cases fall in the dismissal or withdrawn category. For some, it is easy to discount as 

insignificant what these dismissals mean, but it is not insignificant. What they mean is that we 

resolve 20,000 labor disputes a year, quickly and finally. In other words, a neutral agency, the 

Office of the General Counsel conducts an independent investigation and analysis and concludes 

that there has been no violation of the NLRA. Of course, the charging party may not like that 

answer, but the important thing is that it is an answer and a final answer. It settles the dispute 

between the parties over whether what went on or is going on violates Federal law. And best of 

all, they find out very early on. They don't have endless and expensive litigation, only to find out 

years later that there is no case in the first place. 

 In my short term as general counsel, I have had confirmed what I believed to be true 

before coming to the agency, that is, the NLRB is one of, if not the finest agency in the Federal 

Government in the executive branch. It is and should serve as a model for other Federal 

agencies. Its employees are true public servants. They are not pro-union and they are not antiunion. They are not pro-employer. They are not anti-employer. They are pro-section 7 rights. I 

am proud to be part of this agency. 

 And I will be happy to try to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Rosenfeld. 

 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ARTHUR F. ROSENFELD, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, WASHINGTON, D.C.- SEE APPENDIX I 
21

Chairman Norwood. I would like to thank each of our fine witnesses for their insightful 

testimony. The subcommittee is grateful for all of your time and energy. We will now begin our 

questions and proceed in 5-minute rounds disbursed in order according to our committee rules. I 

will start with myself. 

 “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions in 

which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson. That is why we are meeting. 

That is what this hearing is all about. 

Mr. Coppess, I want to add that I do agree with you that there are other labor laws that need to be 

looked at. There are other union rights that need to be looked at. But as you know, in this town 

it is very, very difficult to get everybody focused. And today for this hearing, we want to be 

focused on Beck. 

Mr. Rosenfeld, I have some hard questions to ask, but they are easy to answer. Yes or no, really.

And the reason I am going to ask you some of these questions is that in your new job, you have a 

tremendous responsibility and a great deal of power in making certain that the rights of union 

members are taken care of. 

 So with that in mind, I am just sort of curious where you are going to be coming from. 

Do you believe that it is the right of unions to coerce dues from workers in unions in which there 

are collective bargaining representatives, do the unions have the right to coerce dues from union 

members? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I believe the statute prohibits that. 

Chairman Norwood. Is a union authorized to spend an objecting employee's money to support 

political causes? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I am not sure that the Board has decided that, but I would again say no. 

Chairman Norwood. What about the law? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. The law would prohibit that. 

Chairman Norwood. The Court has stated that only expenditures that were germane to 

collective bargaining could be charged to objecting employees. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Yes. 

Chairman Norwood. The Court has held that expenditures germane to collective bargaining did 

not include organizing expenses. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I agree that has been so held. 
22

Chairman Norwood. The answer is yes? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. The Board has a different opinion. 

Chairman Norwood. Do you believe that language concerning these particular issues, the 

relevant language in the NLRA, is nearly identical to the language in the Railroad Labor Act? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I would have to take a look at the comparative language, but I believe they are 

at least very similar. 

Chairman Norwood. Do you believe that Congress intended that these laws have the same 

meaning on these points? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. No. I believe that Congress and the courts have found that the same policies 

underlie both of the laws. But, again, the Board has found that some of the railway_. 

Chairman Norwood. The language is nearly the same, and you don't think Congress meant or 

intended that these laws have the same meaning? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Let me clarify my position. I am not sure what Congress intended, nor would I 

opine on that. I would opine on the fact that the Labor Board itself has found the underlying 

approaches to be the same, but the cases in the Railway Labor Act area and in the public sector 

are not precedent. 

Chairman Norwood. In view of your new position, I think it would be helpful if you would 

think about that and give us your opinion. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I would rather not opine on that, because my job is to enforce the Board's 

decisions and the Board has opined on that in California Saw, if I am not mistaken. Now 

whether or not I agree to that is something that I shouldn't publicly state. 

Chairman Norwood. In view of our agreement on the questions that I have asked, for which 

you do agree, why do you suppose the Board has refused to apply Supreme Court rulings in 

NLRA cases to National Labor Relations Act cases? Why has the Board looked at that different 

than the Supreme Court? And to be specific, the Board has refused to apply court rulings on the 

non-chargeability of organizing expenses and the illegality of requiring Beck objectors to renew 

annually their objections in order to recover the part of their dues to which they are legally 

entitled. What is going on? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer that question. You have to ask the members of 

the Board. 

Chairman Norwood. Okay. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. And, of course, I am not sure who the members of the Board are going to be. 
23

Chairman Norwood. I guess I am probably more interested in your opinion than theirs right 

now, because we don't know who they are. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I would refrain from offering my opinion, because as a public prosecutor I think 

it might create some conflicts if I am called on to rule on or enforce or attempt to prosecute in 

these areas. 

Chairman Norwood. Do you agree that the NLRA, the Act, assigns the duty of enforcing the 

rights provided to workers under the act to the Board? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Yes. 

Chairman Norwood. That makes you a player, doesn't it? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Yes. I like these simple questions with the yes or no answer. 

Chairman Norwood. The Congress, I think, and I hope you will agree, created the NLRB to 

support workers' exercise of rights that Congress has given them. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Yes, sir. 

Chairman Norwood. Then, from your experience, would you agree that the Board and the 

general counsel basically have been undermining these rights over the last few years? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I honestly don't have an opinion on that because, again, I am the Board's 

lawyer, not only the prosecutor but also the Board's lawyer, and it would be best directed to the 

Board members. 

Chairman Norwood. Do you have an opinion about what the different courts have been saying 

about it? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I think there are conflicts in the different courts on these issues. The law is still 

under development even though the Supreme Court case was decided in 1988. And I will play a 

role in the development of the law, and I will not be shy in issuing complaints, which is the way 

that these problems get to the Board so that we can see what the Board thinks, and then of course 

to the courts. 

Chairman Norwood. Does it help you to believe that the Board and the general counsel has 

been undermining these workers' rights when I talk to you about the Ninth Circuit case that 

reversed an NLRB decision that allowed unions to charge Beck objectors for organizing 

expenses? Judge Noonan in there quoted “this is just amazing to me, the Board does not have 

the power to reverse the Supreme Court.” Is that a bad judge? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I think that is a true statement. 
24

Chairman Norwood. What about the case with Penrod where the D.C. Circuit reversed, again, 

an NLRB decision that held that a union had met its obligations under Beck when it provided a 

dues objector a one-page summary of his expenditures which contained no notes or other written 

explanations concerning how that union's overall 93.6 chargeable, 6.4 non-chargeable, 

calculation was made? Now again, the judge in this case, and this judge was appointed by 

President Clinton, stated that he found a portion of the Board's decision-making unsupported by 

reasoned decision-making, and the remainder in conflict with the Supreme Court and Circuit 

precedent. The Board's decision reflects a classic case of lack of reasoned decision-making. 

That is strong language. 

 And again in another case, the D.C. Circuit reversed an NLRB decision that held that “a 

union had met its obligations under Beck if it provided a dues objector with a calculation that 

was only explained by a breakdown of his expenditures that was not independently audited. The 

Board's rejection of the independent auditor requirement was not rational because any rational 

interpretation of the NLRB's duty of fair representation will necessarily include an independent 

audit requirement,” end quote. 

 What is wrong with these judges? How are you going to treat these kinds of findings? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I would suppose that the Board would at least take note of these decisions and 

the approaches of the various circuit courts. As to what the Board would ultimately decide, I 

couldn't even speculate. 

Chairman Norwood. All of this is one-third of a question that I will get to other two-thirds in 

the next round. Keep this line of thinking in mind. 

Mr. Owens, you are recognized for whatever time you might consume. 

Mr. Owens. Whatever time, sir, or just 10 minutes like you? 

Chairman Norwood. That is fair. 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Rosenfeld, I congratulate you on your professionalism. I hate for you to be in 

a position to have to recuse yourself on certain cases because of things you might say here. Do 

you have information as to how many Beck cases are pending before the NLRB today? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I believe so, sir. And by the way, it is more fun on that side. 

Chairman Norwood. 38. 

Mr. Owens. How many? 

Chairman Norwood. If the gentleman would yield, there are 32 cases that are older than 5 

years old and six cases that are between 3 to 5 years old. 
25

Mr. Rosenfeld. Okay. I was looking for the answer in the letter. 

Mr. Owens. Is that your answer, sir? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Yes. 

Mr. Owens. How many total are pending? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I'm sorry? 

Mr. Owens. What is the total pending? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. There are 71 pending cases. 

Mr. Owens. How many cases? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I apologize, Member Owens. I just want to verify exactly what this is, to be 

careful about what my answer is because I am being questioned here. It is a total of 169 cases. I 

am sorry. I was reading the wrong paragraph. 

Mr. Owens. How many? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. 169 cases. There are currently pending in the Office of the General Counsel in 

Washington and in the field a total of 169 cases raising issues under Beck. 

Mr. Owens. Could you tell us how many cases are pending in which a worker is alleging that he 

or she has been discharged by the employer due to anti-union animus? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I do not have that figure. 

Mr. Owens. Do you have any estimate on that? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I do not. 

Mr. Owens. You don't keep those statistics? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. We do. 

Mr. Owens. Can you get it for me, sir? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I can get that for you, yes, sir. At least I hope we keep those statistics. 

Mr. Owens. Somebody has them here? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. No, they are not here. I can get those for you. 
26

Mr. Owens. Isn't it true, Mr. Rosenfeld, that it is more than 1,000? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I would venture to say it is more than 169, sir. 

Mr. Owens. Is it true that if you dismiss a Beck case, the worker still has the option of suing the 

union directly for breach of a duty of fair representation? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Owens. So you said before that you made final decisions on this. They are not so final in 

the case of a Beck decision, right? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. The final decision under the National Labor Relations Act; yes, sir. 

Mr. Owens. Does an employee who has been fired for trying to form a union have an equal 

ability to sue his employer or the general counsel, which dismisses his or her case? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. No sir. There is no private right of action, if that is your question. 

Mr. Owens. They are final. Your decision is final. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Right. Subject to an appeal process to the general counsel. 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Coppess, do bargaining units' employees have any rights with regard to the 

settling of union dues? 

Mr. Coppess. Yes. The Langham-Griffin Act requires that union dues be set by a vote of the 

membership. 

Mr. Owens. The vote of the membership is a majority vote at least. 

Mr. Coppess. That is right. They can't be increased without approval of the membership. 

Mr. Owens. Can an agency fee be imposed against the will of a majority of the bargaining unit 

employees? 

Mr. Coppess. The statute gives employees the right to vote to de-authorize the union security 

agreement while still maintaining union representation. Also, these union security obligations 

arise in the contract, and most of those are subject to ratification by the members. 

Mr. Owens. It must pass by a majority vote. 

Mr. Coppess. A majority vote again. 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Young, you use the term "evil" and you quoted Thomas Jefferson. 
27

Mr. Young. It was Jefferson's words. 

Mr. Owens. Are you against the principle of majority rule in general, or only in the case where 

unions are concerned? 

Mr. Young. Well, I am against the principle of tyranny of the majority, Member Owens. 

Mr. Owens. Tyranny of the majority, whether it is a church congregation voting in the majority 

or a union. Any group that has a majority vote might be guilty of tyranny? 

Mr. Young. My church doesn't have the authority, Congressman Owens, to force me to put 

money in the collection plate. Labor unions do, by an act of Congress. And I believe, in fact, 

that what Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison were corresponding about in the correspondence in 

which the quotation appears was about forced coerced monies for churches in Virginia, and that 

was the root of their discussion. But I think it is equally applicable, sir. 

Mr. Owens. So you suggest you are against principle majority rule in any matter related to dues. 

Mr. Young. Related to union dues, yes, I am. 

Mr. Owens. Bar Association dues, any dues? 

Mr. Young. As a principle of keeping or holding a job, I am against the principle that people 

should be forced, as a matter of personal opinion, should be forced to support ideas which they 

disbelieve, or a bargaining agent that the majority imposes. 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Boehm, in your statement, you state that the Justice Department alleged that 

the Chicago mob controlled the Hotel Workers Employees Union, while Mr. Hanley was present.

Isn't it true that the same Federal monitor later who said that, you said, forced Mr. Hanley to 

resign, the same Federal monitor later found no evidence of mob control of that international 

union? 

Mr. Boehm. I don't know what he said subsequently, sir. 

Mr. Owens. You don't know that they found later that there was no mob control? 

Mr. Boehm. I don't know that for a fact. No, I don't. 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Butcher, for the record, is it not true that the majority of workers who are 

represented by SPEEA supported and support implementation of an agency fee? 

Mr. Butcher. It is true that the majority of the workers who voted did agree to improve the 

arrangement that my employer made with the union. 

Mr. Owens. You said the union had been of no value to you. 
28

Mr. Butcher. Correct. 

Mr. Owens. Is it not true that the majority of your fellow employees disagreed with you? 

Mr. Butcher. I don't know the majority of my fellow employees. 

Mr. Owens. They continue to vote for the union and they continue to support the dues structure. 

Mr. Butcher. At this point they have no choice. 

Mr. Owens. You stated that you have been employed for 13 years, and during that time you 

never joined or supported the union. Over those 13 years, how many contracts have been 

negotiated? And do you know how many grievances the union handled over that period? Do 

you know what changes have been made in negotiating wages and fringe benefits over that 13 

years? Is that of any interest to you? 

Mr. Butcher. There have been roughly half a dozen agreements. Typically in the past, all the 

union would negotiate would be to document the same benefits and raise pool that nonrepresented employees got. Typically I would receive raises based on merit. Since we now have 

compulsory dues, I no longer receive raises on merit. I receive the same dues as everyone else in 

the bargaining unit, and I typically received above average raises prior to the last agreement. 

Mr. Owens. Do you support the principle of majority rule in every other aspect of life, but not 

in the case of the union? 

Mr. Butcher. Majority rule is okay for some things, but for other things, when it pertains to the 

rights as set forth in the Bill of Rights, the very purpose of that is to put beyond the reach of any 

majority the rights of any individual. And I support that and believe I could quote a Supreme 

Court justice on that, but I don't happen to remember the name. 

Mr. Owens. So the people who want to stop the bombing in Afghanistan should be able to 

deduct a portion of their taxes that finance the bombing in Afghanistan. Do you support that? 

Mr. Butcher. I am sorry. I don't understand the relationship to Afghanistan. 

Mr. Owens. People pay taxes. 

Mr. Butcher. Right. These aren’t taxes. 

Mr. Owens. Should they be able to deduct the portion of their taxes that goes to activities that 

they disagree with? 

Mr. Butcher. I don't see the relationship to taxes and union dues. 

Mr. Owens. Thank you. No further questions. 
29

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Owens. I am now pleased to recognize Ms. Biggert for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

 Question for Mr. Simpson. According to your testimony, the Teamsters stated that 1.3 

percent, or 19 cents per month, is owed back to union nonmembers after all the collective 

bargaining expenses. That is a whopping $2.28 a year. And you stated that during your tenure 

as shop steward for the union, you learned that the union had financed political campaigns with 

union dues. So how much do you think that it was more than 19 cents that you paid a year that 

would be going to political campaigns, or how much do you really think went to those 

campaigns? 

Mr. Simpson. Well, I understand there was a study done by the National Right to Work 

Foundation, I believe, back in the late eighties that indicated, on the average, about 80 percent of 

workers dues go to, you know_. 

Mrs. Biggert. Collective bargaining. 

Mr. Simpson. Is that correct? 

Mr. Young. If I may, Congresswoman, in the Beck case itself, the Court found that 21 percent 

of union dues went toward collective bargaining purposes, where 79 percent went to political, 

ideological, and other non-chargeable activities. 

Mr. Coppess. If I may, as one of the lawyers in Beck, the finding was not that 79 percent went 

for non-collective bargaining but, rather, that because the union hadn't maintained timekeeping 

records, it couldn't prove what it spent with respect to that amount of money. Those findings 

were later vacated and the union implemented a timekeeping system that passed with the very 

same judge who had implemented the first findings on which they are relying. And those 

records show that upwards of 75 percent is spent on collective bargaining, very narrowly 

defined. That excludes charitable activities. 

Mrs. Biggert. I would like to go back to Mr. Simpson. Why weren't you able to find out 

exactly how much of your dues went to collective bargaining versus other such as political 

campaigns? 

Mr. Simpson. The information that was finally after a long wait and a long effort provided to 

me from the union, I found very vague and confusing, and it really was not something that I was 

able to verify and it really provided me more or less nothing, really, to verify the figures they 

gave me. I believe it did not even include the money that went to the International Brotherhood 

of Teamsters. So there wasn't really anywhere I could go with that. 

Mrs. Biggert. Well, it seems that since the Beck decision has been around quite a while, most 

unions would keep track of this in case they needed to know. Did the NLRB do anything to help 
30

you, or did they dismiss your case? What happened after you? 

Mr. Simpson. My case is still in the works. There have been several appeals necessary. I am 

not really acquainted with the language, the legal language involved in these matters, but they 

did dismiss it and it is before the general counsel at the moment, I guess. 

Mrs. Biggert. The NLRB dismissed it? 

Mr. Simpson. Yes. 

Mrs. Biggert. Okay. And then it is before the general counsel, Mr. Rosenfeld? 

Mr. Simpson. Yes. 

Mrs. Biggert. How about you, Mr. Butcher? Did the NLRB do anything to help you, or did 

they dismiss your case also? 

Mr. Butcher. The case is dismissed. It is currently on appeal to the general counsel. 

Mrs. Biggert. And then what happens when it goes there? I suppose we can ask Mr. Rosenfeld, 

but what do you believe happens once it has been dismissed? 

Mr. Butcher. I believe we file an appeal with the general counsel at some point who will 

respond to our appeal. I don't know what happens at that point. 

Mrs. Biggert. Okay. Well, I certainly have heard from scores of my constituents who are union 

members also, and they certainly oppose paying dues to their unions as well; those dues that do 

support parties or candidates. And they certainly have similar stories to you. So I thank you for 

your testimony at this time. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Ms. Biggert. Ms. Woolsey you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Butcher, is it Butcher or Boucher? 

Mr. Butcher. It is Butcher. 

Ms. Woolsey. Butcher. Thank you. Do you own any corporate stock, part of anything for 

Boeing, or do you know anybody that does? 

Mr. Butcher. I own stock in the company through my company's 401(k) plan. 

Ms. Woolsey. Well have they ever asked you if it is okay for their political arm to contribute to 

a party or a political candidate? Have you gotten to vote on that? 
31

Mr. Butcher. I choose to purchase stock in the company at my own discretion, and as a 

shareholder I am allowed to vote on shareholder matters on an annual basis. 

Ms. Woolsey. But they have never asked you whether you would support a candidate or a party 

that they may? 

Mr. Butcher. No. But if I disagreed, I would sell my stock and not invest in the company. 

Ms. Woolsey. But you also get to choose whether or not you are a full member of the union, 

right?

Mr. Butcher. Yes. 

Ms. Woolsey. Yes. Mr. Coppess, once a union is ratified, the workers that didn't vote for the 

ratification or the members who aren't paying full dues, how are they affected by collective 

bargaining, their wages, their conditions, working conditions, and their ability to be covered for 

grievances? Are they treated any different than the people who pay full dues? 

Mr. Coppess. No, ma'am. They have to be treated equally under the law. The union has a duty 

to represent them and to listen to their views, just as it does to represent and listen to the 

members. 

Ms. Woolsey. Okay. And even if they paid no dues, I mean? 

Mr. Coppess. That's right. If there is no union security agreement, the union has to represent 

them even if they pay nothing. 

Ms. Woolsey. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. And do you have any idea, or not, of course, you do. Tell us 

how these same people could nullify the union agreement if they chose. What would they do? 

Mr. Coppess. Well, the bargaining unit members could vote the union out. They could file a 

de-certification petition and vote the union out if they decided the union wasn't doing an 

adequate job. 

Ms. Woolsey. And what would be the percentage of membership would that be and they would 

be considered members whether or not they paid full dues, right? 

Mr. Coppess. In that election they would have voting rights, yes. 

Ms. Woolsey. Yes. Voting rights. So would it be 50 plus 1. 

Mr. Coppess. It would be a majority among the voters would determine whether the union was 

in or out. 

Ms. Woolsey. Is that a very common happening? 
32

Mr. Coppess. It happens that people petition for de-certification elections. I think, by and large, 

people realize that they benefit by having a union representative, and don't want to get rid of the 

union. But it does happen on occasion if the union is not doing its job adequately. 

Ms. Woolsey. Well, thank you. Mr. Young. 

Mr. Young. Yes, ma'am. 

Ms. Woolsey. I want to continue to take what Congressman Owens was talking about. And that 

is, we live in a democracy; we elect people to represent us, or we vote locally for local taxes, say, 

for a school, to support our school, a school bond or a school district. If you voted against that, 

you still have to pay for it if it was passed. What, I mean, what is the good of all. 

Mr. Young. Congresswoman, I would first say, in our Republican form of government, we 

protect the rights of individuals. I would also echo Mr. Butcher's statement that unions aren't 

government. However, they have been granted a special privilege by government to provide 

representation for an entire bargaining unit and individuals, whether or not those individuals 

want or need that representation. 

Ms. Woolsey. Well, wait a minute now. Let me take some of my time back here and take that 

question further. You are here talking to the representatives of government, asking us to do 

something that the majority of the people have supported, to undo something that the majority of 

workers like, for a union. Would you ask us up here to nullify the union agreement that at least 

50 plus 1 percent of the people voted for? 

Mr. Young. To correct the record, ma'am, I don't think I am here advocating any particular 

repeal of either the monopoly or bargaining privilege, although I would lend my support to the 

proposal of a national right to work act. What I am asking this panel to do, and what I would 

advocate strongly, is seeing the enforcement of existing rights as found by the Supreme Court in 

Beck. The NLRB processes as they are currently constituted do not adequately protect those 

rights.

Ms. Woolsey. Well, could I take back my time. 

Chairman Norwood. Your time has expired, Ms. Woolsey, but we will have another round. 

Ms. Woolsey. Oh, thank you. 

Chairman Norwood. I would like to recognize Chairman Ballenger now for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Ballenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Butcher, in your testimony I was reading and 

trying to figure out, were you employed by Boeing in this deal that they made with the union; did 

you ever have a chance to vote on that? 

Mr. Butcher. Yes, we did. 
33

Mr. Ballenger. And you ended up in the minority, I guess? 

Mr. Butcher. Correct. 

Mr. Ballenger. And that, therefore, it appears to be that maybe you ended up in a union shop 

where you have to belong or you can't be employed there. 

Mr. Butcher. We have to pay dues or an agency fee to the union. 

Mr. Ballenger. In other words, it is a closed shop. You don't have any right to not pay dues. 

Mr. Butcher. Correct. There were four people fired for refusing to pay dues to the union. 

Mr. Ballenger. I am just questioning in my own mind, you are located in Washington State. 

Mr. Butcher. Yes. 

Mr. Ballenger. I am just curious. Are they moving to Illinois to get away from the union? 

Mr. Butcher. No. 

Mr. Ballenger. Please pardon my needle. I am sorry about that. 

Mr. Rosenfeld, Congressman Owens mentioned that there are only little over 100 cases were 

brought to the NLRB. I guess he was talking about Beck cases. But do you have any idea how 

many actual Beck cases were submitted but never accepted by the Board, whether they decided 

to hear them or not to hear them? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Well, if a complaint issues, they would have to hear that complaint. It would go 

through litigation. If you are asking how many cases that were dismissed by the regional 

directors of the general counsel, I am not sure if I have that figure. 

Mr. Ballenger. Mr. Young may even know that; I don't know. 

Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I would not. 

Mr. Ballenger. It would be a large majority, let's put it that way, a substantial majority. 

Mr. Young. I would say a substantial majority. I cannot probably even remember at this point 

in my career how many of what I thought were meritorious Beck charges were simply dismissed. 

 However, I would also point out on the record the issue of the outstanding general 

counsel memorandum 9450 that could be revoked today if Mr. Rosenfeld had a mind to do so, it 

was put in place in 1994 by a general counsel appointed by the former President, that gives 

regional directors the authority to dismiss all charges that they don't find meritorious, but 

demands that even charges found meritorious by a regional director be submitted to Washington 
34

for advice, which is further delay. 

 It is one of the issues that came up that individuals who are trying to exercise their Beck 

rights have an opportunity to file a DFR case if the general counsel dismissed their charge. A lot 

of these charges that survive go into a black hole. 

Mr. Ballenger. Let me interrupt you because you are going to blow my 5 minutes real quickly 

here.

Mr. Young. Certainly. 

Mr. Ballenger. How much it would cost an employee to get his Beck rights and go forward 

when he sees that he is going to have to fight it. 

Mr. Young. In a Federal district court under a DFR, duty failure representation suit, many orders 

of magnitude more than the money that would be involved. A few years back, we had a case in 

circuit court in Virginia in which we represented some members of the Redskins who had to pay 

$5,000 in union dues; 16 players, $80,000 annually. I think I sat down and figured out the 

lawyer time we put in to win that case, and it was approaching $200,000.

Mr. Ballenger. The point I am bringing up, and you are backing me up on it, is that it is so 

damned expensive that no individual member is going to try to go to the NLRB and try to win 

his case. If not for the existence of your organization and Mr. Boehm's organization, nobody 

would go to the Supreme Court. 

Mr. Young. Thank you for not forcing me to point that out Mr. Ballenger. 

Mr. Ballenger. And, Mr. Boehm, one question, sir, I would like to ask is you recommended 

some things that would be worthwhile. And I am a business man myself and I have fiduciary 

duties as an officer of the company, and unless I am mistaken, if I get caught stealing or not 

having a proper audit, my company, the stock would disappear, all my rights and would be 

shrunk. Does the union not have to keep books? 

Mr. Boehm. They keep books, but the requirements are far short of what you find, for example, 

with companies covered by the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Mr. Ballenger. The 10(k), who enforces the 10(k)? 

Mr. Boehm. That is the Securities and Exchange Commission for listed companies, and it is a 

night and day difference. The records that unions keep are hodgepodge. The LM-2 forms, for 

example; you can look at that and not be able to tell basic things like how much travel a 

particular union officer undertook, because if he used the union credit card, it wouldn't be listed 

next to his name. There are lots and lots of things. 

Mr. Ballenger. Let me interrupt one more time before he cuts me off completely. I can't see 

that anybody would even complain about forcing people to keep books that would guarantee they 
35

were doing their fiduciary duties and would have civil penalties and could be taken to court for 

that. I can't see anything wrong with that, can you? 

Mr. Boehm. Not only nothing wrong with that, I think that is the single most important reform 

that can be done. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your insightful questions. Ms. 

Solis, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is to Jim Coppess. My question is, as I 

understand it, those who support the Beck rights generally hold that union dues should not 

support union-organizing activities. And the AFL-CIO counters by saying that unions' 

organizing ability greatly enhances their power to improve working conditions. My natural 

assumption is that the promise of the continued existence of a certain union would indeed 

strengthen labor's position in collective bargaining. I also imagine that the AFL-CIO would not 

take such an argument without having first done some statistical research. 

 Could you tell the committee and me if in fact the AFL-CIO has indeed initiated a survey 

of this kind; and, second, could you tell me what the results of the study were? 

Mr. Coppess. Yes. And this goes to the point that the Chairman was making earlier in talking 

to Mr. Rosenfeld. There are numerous academic studies, not ones that we have commissioned 

but ones that industrial relations professors have undertaken on their own, demonstrating that 

there is a positive relationship between organizing and achievement and collective bargaining. 

And the Board so found in the case the Chairman was talking about. Judge Noonan in his 

opinion agreed with that finding. He said there was substantial evidence supporting the Board's 

finding.

 The area of dispute in the case was over what Congress intended, and that is where you 

got into the point that the Chairman was talking about, about the Ellis decision. And I think that 

is a point that really goes to something this committee would understand, that the Supreme Court 

in all of the cases has said that the same germane to collective bargaining standard applies. But 

then the question is what sort of collective bargaining system did Congress enact? And in 1947, 

Congress addressed the issue of the relationship between organizing and collective bargaining 

and defeated a proposal that would have outlawed unions representing employees at competing 

employers. And the argument that Congress accepted was that you can't effectively represent 

employees at one employer if the nearby competitor is allowed to pay substantially lower wages. 

 There is nobody who doubts that as an empirical fact. The dispute is over the legal issues 

and what Congress intended, and there is very strong indication supporting the Board's decision. 

Judge Noonan's decision on the legal issue about whether Ellis controlled was vacated, so it is no 

longer the law in the Ninth Circuit. The case is on rehearing en banc, and that will be the center 

of debate, you know, what Congress intended in 1947. And I think the Board's position will be 

sustained. 
36

Ms. Solis. Okay. My next question is for Mr. Rosenfeld. President Bush recently issued the 

Executive order forcing businesses to post notices informing employees of their right not to join 

a union and not to pay for union activities. Is there a similar law requiring employers to inform 

workers of their right to join a union? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. That was an Executive order I believe was directed at Federal contractors if I 

am not mistaken. Is that what you are asking? 

Ms. Solis. Yes. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. No. 

Ms. Solis. And so are you saying we are informing individuals of their rights not to do 

something, when they were never even informed of their right to do something? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Well, there is no Executive order extant that I am aware of, with the exception 

of the recent Executive order of President Bush regarding, again, Federal contractors and their 

employees. 

Ms. Solis. And don't unions have a role to play in today's workplace? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I believe they do. 

Ms. Solis. And haven't they done a tremendous amount to improve the working conditions of 

men and women in the workplace? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I think you would have to ask those men and women. 

Ms. Solis. Pardon me? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I think you would have to ask those men and women. 

Ms. Solis. Thank you. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Ms. Solis. Mr. Hunter, I noticed you wanted to make a 

comment to Mr. Coppess, and we have the time to do so. 

Mr. Hunter. Just briefly, on the question that the Congresswoman raised initially which 

concerns organizing, I would point out to the committee that the Supreme Court has already 

decided that organizing expenses are not properly chargeable to an objecting nonmember in the 

Leonard case. That is a public employee case, but yet the rationale should be clearly applicable 

to private sector work. There is really no difference in terms of rationale of that as to the 

chargeability of those expenses. 

 So the Supreme Court has already spoken to that issue, and here we are debating this 

under the National Labor Relations Act, which demonstrates the point that this fragmentary 
37

approach that the Board is taking, and contrary to what the Supreme Court has already dictated, 

seems to be the delay and frustration of Beck rights for individual workers. 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Rosenfeld, do you have any thoughts on that? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Well, my first thought would be that if Mr. Hunter ever gets back on the Board, 

we would have a pretty sure understanding of where he might want to go on that. But I think it is 

probably definitely inappropriate for me to comment on that because of my role of public 

prosecutor, and also the agency administrator might be conflicted by me commenting on that. 

Chairman Norwood. Oh, I understand that difficulty. But it makes it pretty hard for us to 

know where you are coming from, and you have a very powerful position. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I would suggest, sir, that months from now the world will know where I am 

coming from, because I will be either issuing or deciding to dismiss complaints in this area. But, 

again the bottom line from my perspective is to give the Board a chance to consider these 

developments of the law. But ultimately it is going to be the Board. 

Chairman Norwood. I don't think we would take disagreement with what the Board does if a 

normal person had any opportunity to appeal that. But because of the expenses related to appeal 

to a Federal court, you end up with in fact extraordinary power. 

 Thank you, Ms. Solis, for your questions. I now recognize Mr. Isakson from Georgia. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you will be brief, I think Mr. Coppess wanted to 

make a comment, so if you make it brief. 

Mr. Coppess. Thank you, that is very considerate. I just wanted to point out that in light of 

what Mr. Hunter was saying about Leonard and Ellis, that what we are in that area is the 

meaning of the Supreme Court decisions, and that is best left to the judicial process, which is 

where the case is. Mr. Rosenfeld has to deal with the Board, has to defend the Board's decision 

on that posture. He is their lawyer in court, and the courts will decide what the Supreme Court 

meant. Thank you. 

Mr. Isakson. Okay, reclaiming my time. I apologize that I was unable to hear everybody's 

testimony, and yours was one, but I read it and I wanted to ask a couple of questions. You go 

into a good deal of detail to explain how CWA notifies their members of their rights both in 

terms of membership as well as the use of their dues. And, further, that annual March notice 

which is attached to their constitution that is handed out. In the next paragraph you say this 

requirement that a private party personally notify employees of their rights under the NLRA is 

extraordinary. 

 Would you tell me what notice you are talking about? 
38

Mr. Coppess. The notice of the NLRB requires that unions inform people of their rights not to 

be members and to object to paying full fees. 

Mr. Isakson. And you think it is extraordinary that it requires that? 

Mr. Coppess. It is extraordinary in the sense, in the literal sense that it is not ordinary. There is 

no other requirement in the law like that that I am aware of. 

Mr. Isakson. What about Miranda rights? 

Mr. Coppess. Well, yeah. I mean that is not under the NLRA. That is a constitutional right. 

Mr. Isakson. Well, yeah. But my point is I do understand the redundancy of the twice 

providing written notice. But I also understand how, although that may appear comprehensive, it 

sometimes can slip through the cracks in terms of the actual awareness of the employees. And I 

was just wondering why personal notification to an employee of their rights was egregious. 

Mr. Coppess. Well no, I didn't mean egregious. I meant extraordinary. And I actually think 

your Miranda point is very well taken, because if you were to bring Miranda over under NLRA, 

what you would require is that when employers call people in to the investigative interviews that 

they warn them that they have the right not to speak without a representative present. That 

would be exactly like Miranda. And there is an NLRB right to have such representatives, but the 

employers are not required to warn the employees, in either a union or nonunion setting, before 

they call them into those interviews. 

 So my point was that if we are going to start doing this under the NLRA, it should go 

across the board. I didn't mean it was egregious. In fact, I guess it didn't come through in my 

written testimony as much as I hope it did in my oral testimony. What I was advocating was use 

of these enforcement mechanisms as models. Let's start doing this in other areas. Let's have 

notice of rights in all the nonunion workplaces. Let's have employer accountability let's have 

employer-mandated arbitration of disputes. So I wasn't trying to denigrate what they are doing. 

Mr. Isakson. Well, on that point I am not by any means an expert on this and the business that I 

ran for two decades did not deal with union versus management issues so I am not an expert, but 

I would tell you, American employers are required about everywhere they turn around to provide 

notice, and if they don't, it is usually an escape for whoever might have an issue with them. 

 And further, I guess this is an opinion and not a question, so you certainly don't have to 

comment on it. But I think the statement made earlier about the cost of redress to an employee 

through the legal system is a valid one; and, I assume from reading your statement, about what 

CWA does by immediately reducing or refunding dues when a question is raised by the amount 

that is set aside for political activities. Did I read it right? 

Mr. Coppess. Yeah. It is more than political activity, but that is right. 
39

Mr. Isakson. Does it include the cost of the legal counsel to the union? 

Mr. Coppess. It includes legal counsel for the union advising the union on political matters. 

Mr. Isakson. Well, my point being, that burden of cost and that threshold for an individual 

employer is high, and I don't think it is extraordinary to ensure that employees are fully advised 

of their rights in a satisfactory way. That was my point. 

Mr. Coppess. Well, on the legal cause point, the thing that I think should be pointed out is that 

Mr. Rosenfeld's staff very energetically represents employees for free who come to them. They 

don't have to have their own outside counsel to represent them. It is only if they choose to take 

the alternative route that Mr. Owens talked about of going into court, which they are free to do, 

that they have to hire their own lawyers. And attorneys' fees are recoverable in DFR cases in 

certain circumstances, and that is just the way, you know, court enforceable rights are under Title 

7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Mr. Isakson. My time has expired. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Isakson. 

Mr. Tancredo is visiting from the full committee, and with the permission of the Minority, will 

now be recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Tancredo. I thank the Chairman. Thank you very much for allowing me to sit in here 

today and observe and listen to the comments. It is sometimes difficult to do so, but it is 

important to do so. Most of the questions that I had have been asked. I only now think to myself 

of a problem that may be there that I had not anticipated before, and that was one that was 

referenced by Mr. Young. Specifically, when he talked about the situation that evidently exists 

with the regional directors of NLRB and what their responsibilities are or are not, vis-à-vis a 

complaint that arises, and then they are given two options. One, as I understand it, if they 

dismiss it, that is the end of it. If they do not, then it then goes on to the national. Is that correct? 

Mr. Young. What happens under G.C. Memorandum 9450 is that a regional director can 

determine that a Beck charge has no merit and dismiss it by himself. However, if under existing 

precedent, the regional director determines that in fact a Beck charge does have merit, it is sent 

to Washington so that the general counsel or his office can deal with it. 

Mr. Tancredo. I understand. And, Mr. Rosenfeld, please if you could help me then understand 

the logic here. It was not your directive, as I understand it? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Well it is not only not my directive, but it also has been superseded. 

Mr. Tancredo. Who superseded it? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. It was superseded by a later mandatory submissions list. And it was also preCalifornia Saw, so it is not correct. What is expected now to be submitted to Washington, to the 
40

Division of Advice, are Beck issues regarding the chargeability of expenses and this is subject to 

change, also, because I am reviewing the mandatory submission list Beck issues regarding the 

chargeability of expenses for organizing employees beyond the competitive market of union 

employees or implicating the type and level of audits unions must give Beck objectors. So just 

because the memorandum was not withdrawn does not mean it was not superseded. 

Mr. Tancredo. Well, to the extent that it superseded the most significant aspect, I am still kind 

of confused. First of all, let me ask you something about these regional directors. Who is their 

supervisor? Who appoints them? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. They appointed by the Board upon the recommendation of the general counsel.

I supervise the regional offices. It is an interesting system, which I don't fully appreciate yet, but 

in effect they report to the Board on our case matters, representation matters. 

Mr. Tancredo. I see. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Election matters. 

Mr. Tancredo. Well, let me then be as specific as I possibly can in my question, and if you 

would help me by being as specific as you possibly can in your answer, as you have been very 

candid here up to this point in time with one word responses. 

 Today, as the Board is operated under your leadership, in whatever role that you play, if a 

regional director dismissed a Beck complaint, what happens? Does that mean that dismissal will 

come to your attention? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. There are two alternatives. One is there may be, because of the national 

implications of the matter, a desire on the part of the regional director to inform the general 

counsel. But the way it gets to me after a dismissal is that the charging party appeals that 

dismissal and then it comes up, and ultimately we have the final say in Washington. 

Mr. Tancredo. And the same question if it is approved. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. If it is approved, either you settle it or it goes to litigation. If a charge goes to 

complaint, then you have an ongoing complaint. 

Mr. Tancredo. Well, I thank you very much. It does seem like an extraordinary set of hoops 

one has to go through here, that have been established for the purpose of trying to adjudicate this 

process. It is very complex and very costly. And so you can understand, then, why it would be 

difficult for the average citizen to understand the process clearly and be willing to undertake the 

expense that would be necessary to go through that entire process. And that is another problem, 

I guess, with which we must deal. And I would just end this because, as I say, most of the 

questions I had originally have been asked. 

 But there is an interesting situation to observe here. Sometimes we should call it, these 

hearings, really, and this place, a torture chamber because you are witnessing the torture of logic 
41

to such a magnificent extent here. The idea that anybody could actually argue with the concept 

that a person should never be forced to support any political activity in order to keep their job, 

that is the bottom line. That is the end of it. And all of the support and all the opposition to that 

concept is tortured logic, and it has been certainly an experience observing it. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Tancredo. Back to me, and we will go around again. 

Mr. Rosenfeld now, let's go back to where we were. We were talking about the number of cases 

that have been reversed by the courts and the unusual statements by some of the judges, such as 

the Board does not have the power to reverse the Supreme Court. Now, in addition to those 

difficulties, I submitted in our questionings to you, that there are currently 32 Beck cases that are 

more than 5 years old. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Yes, sir. 

Chairman Norwood. And there are an additional six cases that are between 3 to 5 years old. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Yes. 

Chairman Norwood. I find that astounding. I don't know that we want to call that a roadblock, 

but something's not correct. And it wasn't on your watch. I just want to point out to you that that 

is simply not acceptable. 

 In addition, and I am going to get to my question in a minute, other roadblocks that seem 

to be put up in order to keep union members from having their rights. In 1994,and again not on 

your watch, the Office of General Counsel issued a memorandum instructing all regional 

directors to dismiss immediately Beck charges that they found unworthy, and not to issue 

complaints on worthy Beck charges but to submit them to the Division of Advice. 

 Now, there have been many pieces of questions sort of thrown out about this and the 

problems that occur with this. Then, in 1998, the general counsel issued another memorandum 

that sets up another roadblock to enforcement of Beck, the G.C. 9811. The general counsel 

instructed the employees of his office to “dismiss all Beck-type cases unless the worker explains 

why a particular expenditure is not chargeable and presents evidence of giving promising leads 

that would lead to evidence to support that assertion,” end quote. This directive was issued, even 

though at the complaint stage the worker usually does not have a breakdown of the union's 

expenditures that can provide this real evidence. Is that a roadblock? 

 In 2000, the general counsel issued another memorandum which included in the list of 

cases that must be submitted to the Division of Advice all Beck cases that involve the 

chargeability of organizing expenses, or the type and level of audit unions must give Beck 

objectors.
42

 Here's my question. Not under your watch. Has the Board and the general counsel been 

undermining the rights of these workers in your opinion? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I mean, I cannot offer my opinion on that, sir. As much as I might have things 

to say, I cannot offer my opinion on that. I am now the prosecutor for the Board, and no matter 

what I say, it would be perhaps undermining my position. 

 I would suggest one thing to you, and you said a number of times, not on my watch, 

which is true. On my watch, as an example of what we do, I am holding in abeyance 

determinations on some Beck matters. As an example, the Board law is that organizing expenses 

are chargeable. And based upon that, if I get a charge from an individual saying the union is 

charging me for organizing expenses, I could dismiss that case. Because of what is going on in 

the Ninth Circuit, I am holding those in abeyance. And very often some of these cases, I am not 

defending what happened before necessarily, but some of these cases sit waiting for an ultimate 

decision out of the Supreme Court or a circuit court or whatever court they may be in, or even on 

remand from the circuit court back to the Board. 

Chairman Norwood. Well, a lot of us that aren't lawyers have an opinion on this, and it seems 

like somebody is slowing down something when you say various policy decisions that are 

contrary to the various court cases are up to the Board, not to you. 

 My last question is, will you issue complaints on these issues so the Board can revisit the 

issues? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. It would be difficult for me to answer that. First of all, I could answer that if I 

had a specific matter in front of me; but it would be difficult for me to answer that without a 

specific matter. 

Chairman Norwood. Well, I am referring to all the court cases that I referred to earlier that 

were overturned by the courts. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Normally what we do, my guidelines are Board decisions and Board law. If 

there is a signal given, if there is a series of dissents by the Board or a series of court cases or 

some indication that the Board would like to revisit these matters, given a new Board, a different 

Board, then there may be ways in which to get a complaint on these charges so the Board can 

revisit it, because ultimately the Board and the courts have the final say on these matters. 

Chairman Norwood. Is basically your guideline your mission to protect the workers or to make 

the Board happy? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. My guideline is to enforce section 7 rights. But I do that by looking at Board 

law. And where Board law is clear, I am not going to go forward and issue a complaint. 

Chairman Norwood. Do you agree Board law does not supersede the law of the Supreme 

Court? 
43

Mr. Rosenfeld. I agree with that completely. 

Chairman Norwood. Okay. That will give me an indication of where we have got to go. 

Mr. Owens, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the full statement of our colleague, 

Hilda Solis, be entered into the record. 

Chairman Norwood. So ordered. And all member’s statements can be submitted for the 

record.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE 

HILDA L. SOLIS – SEE APPENDIX J 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also let the record show that my original opening 

statement complained about the fact that this is the sixth hearing held in this committee on the 

right of workers who refuse to join the union since the Republicans have been in control of the 

committee. 

 On the other hand, we have not held a single hearing on the thousands of workers who 

are unlawfully discharged for trying to form a union. I and the taxpayers and everybody else 

involved should ask the question: Are we using our resources in a way that deals with the 

concerns of workers? If we have more than 1,500 cases of workers who feel that they have been 

denied the right to form a union, or have complaints related to that, then surely we ought to have 

such a hearing. 

 I would like to respectfully request that the committee hold a hearing on this issue, 

workers who are unlawfully discharged for trying to form a union. We have a precedent set this 

afternoon, I think, on the stimulus package. The Minority requested a hearing where witnesses 

have a point of view related to the Minority point of view, and we have been granted that 

hearing. So I would like, in the spirit of our present leadership on the committee, to request that 

we have a hearing on the subject of workers who are unlawfully discharged for trying to form a 

union.

 And I yield to the gentleman, if he would like to make a response to that. 

Chairman Norwood. Denied. However, Mr. Owens if you want to ask that at another time, in 

another place, when we are meeting, I will turn to my Board and see if everybody wants to do 

that. But this is not the place to commit to that. 

Mr. Owens. Well, I appreciate the fact that the Chairman is willing to give it some 

consideration. And we can use his influence in the process of trying to get the committee to 

respond to the Minority point of view. 
44

Mr. Rosenfeld, without reference to Beck per se, why would a general counsel ask for regional 

directors to forward cases to Washington? In your view, is the intent typically to frustrate rights 

of workers? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. No. It is to have some uniformity on matters of either national importance or 

difficult legal matters. It is not a roadblock. 

Mr. Owens. Would you say that the NLRB has an overload and a lot of backlog of cases in 

general? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Any backlog, and we are now using the term "inventory"? But any backlog is 

too much, because again what we are dealing with here are individual rights. And every 

individual feels and has the right to have his rights vindicated or resolved as quickly as possible.

The Board itself, I will say, has done a very good job in the past year in reducing its backlog.

But, again, any backlog is too much of a backlog. 

Mr. Owens. Would you please submit to the committee a record of types of cases that you have 

and what the numbers are? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. You would like me to submit a record of cases pending at the Board? 

Mr. Owens. Yes. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. Okay. 

Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Ms. Biggert, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for Mr. Boehm. You commented in 

a speech last year that the real issue in Beck is not money, but compelled political speech. Could 

you explain that statement a little bit? I think really that, at least what I think you are saying, is 

that this distinction is really important to understanding Beck rights. 

Mr. Boehm. Yes, I think the overriding issue is compelled speech. Compelled speech is a first 

amendment right. Under the first amendment it essentially goes from and is best illustrated by 

the Thomas Jefferson quote. If you compel somebody to support a belief that they 

wholeheartedly disagree with, it is sinful and tyrannical. 

 Well, that view has been upheld in any number of Supreme Court cases. The Beck case 

itself wasn't decided and didn't need to be decided on the constitutional grounds, but it is 

certainly consistent with that first amendment right. And beyond that, there is a common-sense 

right that goes beyond legalisms or even constitutional law. And that is, workers are the ones 

who give the money to the union; if they don't have the right to know how the money is spent, if 

they don't have the right to disagree with political uses of that money, that is a fundamental right 
45

above and beyond the legal argument. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. I have a question for Mr. Hunter. In your testimony you applaud 

President Bush's Executive order on nonexempt employers who are posting the notices. Could 

you suggest to us some idea that you would have to improve the notice and communication to 

eligible union employees? Not just the Federal employees, but also other employees so that they 

are aware of the Beck rights? 

Mr. Hunter. Yes. Well, again, the National Labor Relations board could, by decision, improve 

the quality and the effectiveness of notification to employees. In other words, that would be the 

ideal way to handle that. One of the other things that I have recommended my Governor do in 

the State of Michigan, what other Governors have actually done, is issue Executive orders in 

their own States requiring that those State contractors doing business with the State government 

also post similar type employee notices in their workplaces as a condition of the contract. 

 In addition, Governor Wilson, a couple of years ago, and as far as I know, this Executive 

order has not been revoked by the current California Governor, ordered that, through Executive 

order, that workers be notified in their workplaces concerning comparable Beck rights for State 

and local public employees, including teachers, by the way, in the State of California. 

 So other things can be done to get this information into the hands of people who need to 

see it. And, again, being part of the private sector movement on this score, many of my fellow 

think thanks and organizations throughout the country are doing what they can do to get these 

notices or get this information in the hands of people who are_who need to see it. 

Mrs. Biggert. Do you think that Congress should take action? 

Mr. Hunter. Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, I do. I recognize that Congresses over many years 

now have considered taking action both in terms of concepts known as paycheck protection and 

better enforcement of Beck rights as a part of that. Campaign finance reform also contained a 

portion dealing with Beck rights. So, yes, I think Congress needs to ultimately act here to settle 

all these unresolved questions and the squabbling that is going on in the agency as well as the 

roadblocks that I think do exist in some areas. 

Mrs. Biggert. Would such action be codifying the Beck decision or_. 

Mr. Hunter. It could. It could be codifying Beck. It could go farther. In my view, it needs to 

go farther than just codifying Beck, to include the notion of paycheck protection, which would 

allow each individual worker at the start of a year to decide in writing whether or not they 

wanted that portion of their dues money used for non-workplace-related activities to be in 

essence spent by the union for that year. 

 So I think that kind of notification to workers in advance, so that they don't have to fight 

to get their money back after the union has taken it, perhaps unlawfully, would be a very positive 

thing to do to protect employees. 
46

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Would you agree with that Mr. Young? 

Mr. Young. I would to a certain extent. Ideally, of course, the goal would be to remove the 

coercion in the National Labor Relations Act by passing a national right to work act, and then 

employees would have a free choice as to whether or not to support the monopoly bargaining 

representative. I realize the AFL-CIO might oppose that, but obviously they could avoid the 

burden, so called, of free riders by surrendering the monopoly bargaining privilege that they 

jealously protect. Short of that, obviously, it would be good for the Board, through decisional 

law, or for the Congress, through legislative action, to unbury, to dig up notices on individual 

rights that are buried in union political magazines and other magazines. 

 It would be appropriate to look at the requirements under the LM-2s to require functional 

reporting which was under the Executive order issued by the first President Bush in 1992. It 

would be appropriate to require that nonmembers not have to even object, since they have 

already indicated they don't support the union and shouldn't be required to support it beyond the 

activities they can lawfully be forced to. 

 There are many actions that could be taken short of a National Labor Relations Act. But 

I must associate myself with Justice Black's comments that, as it ends up, the individual 

employee's rights are subject to massively expensive enforcement actions, and the average 

employee simply does not have the resources that labor unions marshal in these cases, in every 

one of these cases, against an individual simply trying to avoid paying for the propagation of 

ideas that he disbelieves. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Ms. Biggert. 

 I will go back to myself for a minute. Mr. Rosenfeld, I know you don't believe I have 

any questions for anybody else, but I really do. But I need to get through a couple of things for 

you. I truly appreciate your testimony and your coming here. I realize you are in an awkward 

situation in that you have just taken over, but I want to make sure that your testimony reflects an 

understanding of the obstacles that workers have been getting in your office now to uphold their 

rights. And I am not sure I am convinced of that yet, which leads me to being rather specific. 

 Now, you heard Mr. Simpson's testimony. His complaint challenges his union's 1.3 

percent calculation was summarily dismissed by a regional director, based on an un-audited 1-

1/2 page list of expenditures that were largely unexplained. Now, that didn't happen on your 

watch, but it did happen in your agency. I don't expect you to decide what you are going to do 

about a case like that right here and now. However, you and I know, and I believe everybody in 

this room knows, that 1.3 percent basically is a phony figure; is just not real. In Beck, the Court 

found that Mr. Beck was entitled to a 79 percent rebate. Maybe that is wrong, too. Maybe it was 

only 50. But I guarantee you it wasn't 1.3. 

 Please tell me how the NLRB regional director, who is a senior person now under your 

authority, and I assume remotely aware of the law, can summarily dismiss a case challenging this 
47

calculation. How can that happen? 

Mr. Rosenfeld. You may not want to hear this answer, but I can't discuss that because that 

matter is on appeal before me. 

Chairman Norwood. Well, that is not an answer. That is what I want to hear. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I just can't discuss it. It is going to be up before me. In fact, both matters are 

on appeal before the general counsel. 

Chairman Norwood. Well, one of the good things about this is you are getting all my questions 

from a year from now, because I am going to ask them again. I want to know how that kind of 

thing can happen, and I want to be sure that you put a stop to that kind of nonsense. 

 I am not an attorney, I am just a dentist, but I do know something about professional 

standards. And I can tell you that the Pittsburgh regional director is either grossly negligent in 

the performance of his duties or he is extremely biased. In either case, I want you to know that I 

sort of just want to hear from you that you are going to make that kind of outrageous behavior 

come to an end. 

Mr. Rosenfeld. I will guarantee that I will take my oath of office very seriously and we will 

investigate these matters very seriously. 

Chairman Norwood. I believe that and I am going to be right there with you asking about it 

every day. I think we have all probably had enough. I have got four or five other questions for 

you, and I am sure you will be happy to answer them. I really have some questions for Mr. 

Butcher, too. And I have got a number of questions, and, ladies and gentlemen, if you will 

answer those for me, please, as the committee sends them to you, I would be very grateful. 

Chairman Norwood. I am really interested in your comment that you made earlier when you 

said you had no choice. And I think that is what disturbs me so. As an American citizen, if you 

had a choice, that puts a whole different cover on this. And I want to say to my friend, Mr. 

Owens, it isn't necessarily just a Minority view that the rights of workers should be protected in 

all areas. I want you to understand that. I am very interested in that. But this hearing, this 

subject is focused on one thing: that you shouldn't compel a man to furnish contributions of 

money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves. I believe that in the bottom of my 

soul. Thomas Jefferson had it exactly right. It is sinful and it is tyrannical. And that is what this 

subject is, and that is what this hearing is, and until we get this solved it is very hard to go to the 

next subject. We have had seven hearings. We are going to have 70 more until we get this one 

issue solved. 

 I appreciate the fact that many of you there can help in the end resolve this problem, 

because it is tyrannical. It is absolutely wrong. You know it is going on. There is not one of 

you there that doesn't know it, and I know it is going on. Now, we are going to solve this issue if 
48

it is the last thing I do on this Earth. 

 I just got a new district, Major Owens, and I can be here another 10 years for sure. And 

if it takes 10 years, we are going to follow the doctrine of Thomas Jefferson, and we are going to 

work on some of those other rights that I think you and I both are very interested in. 

 And I will yield to Mr. Owens. 

Mr. Owens. In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I hope we all pay our taxes. Even though there is 

probably no one here who at sometime or another doesn't disagree with the government and what 

it is doing with our taxes, pay your taxes. 

Chairman Norwood. Well, I will close the hearing with one last observation. I personally find 

it outrageous, then, that when workers try to exercise their God-given and constitutional rights to 

try to stop the misuse of their money for partisan political purposes, that they are blocked from 

doing so. Blocked not just by the unions, though I guess in some ways I can understand that a 

little better, but by the National Labor Relations Board itself, which I have absolutely no 

tolerance or understanding for. 

 It seems to me that the best way to describe the support the National Labor Relations 

Board gives to workers attempting to uphold their constitutional rights is that it is sort of like the 

support a rope gives to a hanging man. Now, this has got to stop. And if I have any influence in 

this area, if I have anything to say about this in the next 10 years, this is going to stop, and I can 

say to Thomas Jefferson, you were right and we changed this government to reflect your views 

on that. 

 I thank all of you for being here. You have been very gracious, and I hope that some of 

you will be back when we continue to explore this, because until we solve it, it is not going 

away. Thank you all. Meeting adjourned. 

Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned. 
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136

Table of Indexes 

Chairman Norwood, 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 

41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48 

Mr. Ballenger, 32, 33, 34 

Mr. Boehm, 15, 27, 34, 35, 44 

Mr. Butcher, 6, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33 

Mr. Coppess, 11, 21, 26, 29, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39 

Mr. Hoekstra, 5 

Mr. Hunter, 17, 36, 45 

Mr. Isakson, 37, 38, 39 

Mr. Owens, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 43, 44, 48 

Mr. Rosenfeld, 5, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47 

Mr. Simpson, 9, 29, 30 

Mr. Tancredo, 39, 40 

Mr. Young, 13, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 39, 46 

Mrs. Biggert, 29, 30, 44, 45, 46 

Ms. Solis, 35, 36 

Ms. Woolsey, 30, 31, 32