DeLauro Keynotes Forum on “ Kentucky River Cases”

Workers’ Rights Threatened: A Discussion of the Pending National Labor Relations Board Cases

WASHINGTON , D.C. – Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.-3) today delivered the keynote address at a forum hosted by the Center for American Progress on the “Kentucky River Cases.”  Following is the text of DeLauro’s remarks as prepared for delivery.

“Thank you, Melody, for that introduction.  Let me first thank all the speakers participating in this forum today – Ross Eisenbrey with EPI, Fred Feinstein, Cheryl Johnson with United American Nurses, and Sarah Fox, who brings so much expertise to this issue as a former member of the NLRB.  And many thanks to Cassandra Butts for moderating the upcoming discussion. 

“And most of all I want to thank the Center for American Progress, particularly my dear friend John Podesta, for holding this forum and others like this.  Today, Americans find themselves confronted by a host of issues impacting their daily lives – from energy costs to the war in Iraq to issues of opportunity like college tuition costs and health care.  To each of these challenges, the Center provides the kind of progressive and pragmatic solutions which I believe Americans crave while at the same time fostering public policy debates in which this country needs to be engaged. 

“So, thank you for this opportunity to kick-off one such debate regarding an issue that could very well change the basic rights of workers in America – and that is the pending labor decision by the National Labor Relations Board regarding the so-called “ Kentucky River ” cases.  This comes at a time when we are asking fundamental questions about the character of our economy and an American society where gaps grow deeper and deeper.  With the imbalances of power reinforced every day, we are losing our ability to bridge them.

“As most of you already know, the Kentucky River cases involve disputes at Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., Golden Crest Healthcare Center , and Croft Metals Inc.  The issue at stake in each dispute is whether employers can classify skilled workers who direct the work of any other employee as “supervisors” – even if their authority derives from their professional status and licensing, not any real control over employees.  

“But what on the surface appears to be a technical dispute is actually nothing of the sort.  The NLRB is the Federal agency responsible for enforcing the nation’s labor laws by investigating and remedying unfair labor practices by employers and unions and conducting elections to determine whether or not employees want union representation.  In the instance of the Kentucky River cases, should the NLRB choose to interpret the definition of what constitutes a “supervisor” broadly, the result could mean hundreds of thousands of workers lose their right to union protection – workers in the construction and healthcare industries and other occupations where highly skilled workers sometimes direct the work of more junior employees. 

“And to be sure, among those who will be most immediately and acutely impacted by this decision will be nurses – who often function as “charge nurses” once or twice a week.  And it is on that point that I would like to take a moment to focus my remarks and illustrate the broad implications of this decision. 

“It is hard to imagine, given everything nurses face, that organized interests are hard at work to silence their voice and limit their say.  Anyone who has spent time in the hospital worrying about the health of a family member or a loved knows the high quality of care that nurses provide.  And as a survivor of ovarian cancer, I still have a bond that turns issues like this into a mission.  Nurses are the backbone of our health care system – no one works harder, no one is more dedicated, and we should support them. 

“But as obvious as that is to most of us—as obvious as it is that nurses have one of the hardest jobs imaginable—this upcoming decision could make life even more difficult for them by denying nurses of their collective bargaining rights – their right to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organization, or to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.  Anyone with any working knowledge of how nurses’ shifts work knows that the argument that “charge nurses” are supervisors are spurious.  To begin with, nurses often rotate the duties of a charge nurse, and while their responsibilities include overseeing the work of other nurses aides or students on a given day, charge nurses are not supervisors. 

“Most veteran nurses function as a “charge nurse” but only do so once or twice a week.  The distinction is hardly minor.  If the NLRB changes the definition of what constitutes a “supervisor,” any nurse who serves as a charge nurse even once a week could lose the right to collectively bargain and join a union, thus decreasing their pay and benefits, leaving them unprotected and potentially driving thousands more out of the profession.

“Quite frankly, I believe the ramifications of this decision could be disastrous for a healthcare system already taxed by skyrocketing costs, declining support from government programs like Medicare and Medicaid and a host of other problems, not least of which is a severe nursing shortage.  Already, today 75 percent of all hospital vacancies are nurses.  The number of nursing school graduates receiving their license to become RN’s has decreased by as much as 20 percent in the last decade.  And nearly a quarter of all unanticipated deaths or injuries result from inadequate nurse staffing levels.

“The result of the shortage is clear – emergency department overcrowding, increased wait times for surgery, discontinued patient care programs.  In my state of Connecticut alone, more than 3,200 nurses have left the state or given up their licenses since 1996.  And so you can see that patients across the country have a lot riding on this decision, too. 

“And it is not nurses alone who would be impacted by the Kentucky River decision.  Other industries such as the building and construction trades would also see their bargaining units shrunk or eliminated entirely, sending shockwaves throughout the American workplace. 

“Given such high stakes, I believe the NLRB needs to be as thorough as possible in examining and hearing testimony on this matter – unfortunately, that simply has not been the case thus far.  To date, the NLRB has not heard oral arguments in the Kentucky River cases, and my understanding is that it does not intend to.  Not that this is unusual – in fact, the NLRB has not held oral arguments in a single case since 2001, standing in stark contrast with the Board’s recent past, under both Republican and Democratic control, which held oral argument in 23 significant cases between 1980 and 2000. 

“My concern is that the NLRB is not taking these cases as seriously as it should – and we are here today because, quite simply, it has to.  We need to call attention to this upcoming decision.  Whether it is nurses, construction or metal workers or employees in any other profession, at the heart of this issue is the right of employees to organize – to bargain and to share in the control of their own destinies. 

“At stake in the Kentucky River cases is not some technicality or—despite its name—a regional dispute.  It is whether we as a nation will stand up for the efforts of working people to improve their lives or make it harder for them and their families to seize opportunities – at home or at work, in college or in our hospitals.  It is whether we will honor the commitment and dedication working Americans bring to their jobs, day-in and day-out. 

“And so thank you for holding this forum – for giving a voice to every worker and patient in this country who has a stake in this decision.  People need to know the stakes.  And I believe this forum is one good way to ensure they do.  Thank you.”

###

www.house.gov/delauro