Jim Cooper on Jobs Democratic Representative (TN-5)

Voted NO on allowing compensatory time off for working overtime.

• Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to authorize private employers to provide compensatory time off to private employees at a rate of 1 1/2 hours per hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required.
• Authorizes an employer to provide compensatory time only if it is in accordance with an applicable collective bargaining agreement.
• Prohibits an employee from accruing more than 160 hours of compensatory time.
• Requires an employee's employer to provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding year.
• Requires an employer to give employees 30-day notice before discontinuing compensatory time off.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:

Rep. COURTNEY: This is the fifth time that the majority party has introduced [this bill since] 1997; and each time, the huge flaws in this legislation have resulted in its complete collapse. And once again, it doesn't deserve that support. Despite the representations made in its title--that it promotes workers' flexibility, that it gives workers choice--a closer examination of the bill shows the opposite is true. The better way to describe this bill is the More Work, Pay Less bill.

The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act created a bright line to protect people's right to a 40-hour work week, and make sure that that next hour after 40 hours is paid for with the time-and-a-half of wages. That created the weekend in America. That created the time off that middle class families have taken for granted for decades.

What this bill does is it blurs that line; it creates total chaos in terms of trying to come up with a system to set up ground rules with a case-by-case written contract, and then leaves it to the enforcement of State Labor Departments Wage and Hours Divisions, which are totally incapable of going into the tens of thousands of workplaces all across America.

Voted NO on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill.

Congressional Summary: Provides for the continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through FY2012. Revises agricultural and related programs, including provisions respecting:

1. commodity programs;
2. conservation;
3. trade;
4. nutrition;
5. credit;
6. rural development;
7. research and related matters;
8. forestry;
9. energy;
10. horticulture and organic agriculture;
11. livestock;
12. crop insurance and disaster assistance;
13. socially disadvantaged and limited resource producers; and
14. miscellaneous programs.

This bill lacks fiscal discipline. It continues subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than $20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase. It is inconsistent with our trade objectives of securing greater market access for American farmers. [Hence] I must veto H.R. 6124.

Proponents argument for voting YEA: We had a meeting this morning with the Secretary of Agriculture to talk about implementation. So [despite the two vetoes], the work has been going on within the department of agriculture to get ready for implementation.

This is a good bill. It has wide support in the Congress. It does address all of the issues that have been brought to the Agriculture Committee.

Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing.

To enable employees to form & join labor organizations, and to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts. Requires investigation that an employer:
1. discharged or discriminated against an employee to discourage membership in a labor organization;
2. threatened to discharge employees in the exercise of guaranteed collective bargaining rights; and
3. adds to remedies for such violations: back pay plus liquidated damages; and additional civil penalties.

Proponents support voting YES because:

The principle at stake here is the freedom that all workers should have to organize for better working conditions & fair wages. There are many employers around the country who honor this freedom. Unfortunately, there are also many employers who do not. These employers attempt to prevent workers from unionizing by using tactics that amount to harassment, if not outright firing. In fact, one in five people who try to organize unions are fired. These tactics are already illegal, but the penalties are so minor, they are not effective deterrents.

Opponents support voting NO because:

Democracy itself is placed at risk by this bill. The sanctity of the secret ballot is the backbone of our democratic process. Not one voter signed a card to send us here to Congress. None of us sent our campaign workers out to voters' houses armed with candidate information & a stack of authorization cards. No. We trusted democracy. We trusted the voters to cast their ballots like adults, freely, openly, without intimidation, and we live with the results. But here we are, poised to advance legislation to kill a secret ballot process.

Let's be clear. Every American has the right to organize. No one is debating that. This is a right we believe in so strongly we have codified it and made it possible for workers to do so through a secret ballot.

Reference: The Employee Free Choice Act; Bill H R 800 ; vote number 2007-118 on Mar 1, 2007

Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.

Increase the federal minimum wage to:
1. $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after enactment;
2. $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
3. $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day.

Proponents support voting YES because:

We have waited for over 10 years to have a clean vote on the minimum wage for the poorest workers in this country Low-wage workers had their wages frozen in time, from 10 years ago, but when they go to the supermarket, the food prices are higher; when they put gasoline in the car, the gasoline prices are higher; when they pay the utility bills, the utility bills are higher; when their kids get sick, the medical bills are higher. All of those things are higher. They are living in 2007, but in their wages they are living in 1997.

Opponents support voting NO because:

This bill is marked more by what is not in the bill than what is in it. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They create two-thirds of our Nation's new jobs, and they represent 98% of the new businesses in the US. What protection does this bill provide them? None whatsoever.

We can do better. In the interest of sending the President a final measure that provides consideration for small businesses and their workers, the very men and women who are responsible for our economy's recent growth and strength, we must do better.

Reference: Fair Minimum Wage Act; Bill HR 2 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-018 on Jan 10, 2007

Voted YES on end offshore tax havens and promote small business.

American Jobs Creation Act of 2004: <0l>
1. Repeal the tax exclusion for extraterritorial income - Permits foreign corporations to revoke elections to be treated as U.S. corporations Business Tax Incentives - Small Business ExpensingTax Relief for Agriculture and Small Manufacturers
2. Tax Reform and Simplification for United States Businesses
3. Deduction of State and Local General Sales Taxes
4. Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform
5. Provisions to Reduce Tax Avoidance Through Individual and Corporation Expatriation

Rated 87% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record.

As the federation of America’s unions, the AFL-CIO includes more than 13 million of America’s workers in 60 member unions working in virtually every part of the economy. The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our nation. To accomplish this mission we will build and change the American labor movement.

The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Federal Aviation Administration Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act of 2006: Prohibits the FAA from implementing any proposed change to the FAA personnel management system in cases where the services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service do not lead to an agreement between the Administrator and FAA employees, unless Congress authorizes the change during the 60-day period. Requires binding arbitration if Congress does not enact a bill into law within the 60-day period.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: Because what air traffic controllers do is vital to our safety, I became very concerned by a letter I received from Illinois air traffic controller Michael Hannigan. He wrote that "the air traffic controllers are not being allowed to negotiate in good faith with the FAA."

What was clear in Michael's plea was the sense that he and his colleagues felt that they were being treated unfairly. I looked into it and came to the conclusion that if we did not restore a fair negotiation procedure, it would threaten agency morale and effectiveness.

The problem is this: the FAA Administrator currently has the extraordinary authority to impose wages and working conditions on her workers without arbitration. In order to do that, she merely has to declare an impasse in negotiations and if Congress does not stop her from imposing her terms and conditions within 60 days, the Administrator can go ahead and act unilaterally. That authority denies air traffic controllers and all other FAA employees the opportunity to engage in and conclude negotiations in good faith.

It is in the best interest of the agency and public safety to have management and labor cooperate in contract negotiations.

EXCERPTS OF BILL:

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; never came to a vote.

Rated 17% by CEI, indicating a pro-worker rights voting record.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free markets and limited government, has created a Congressional Labor Scorecard for the 112th Congress focusing on worker issues. The score is determined based on policies that support worker freedom and the elimination of Big Labor's privileges across the country.

Votes in the current Congress score include:
• Bill: H.R. 658, LaTourette Amendment No. 21: NO on repealing changes to the Railway Labor Act's voting rules.
• Bill: H.R. 658, Gingrey Amendment No. 18: YES to prohibit Federal Aviation Administration employees from using official--that is, taxpayer sponsored--time for union activities during the official workday.
• Bill: H.R. 1, Price Amendment No. 410: YES to defund the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
• Bill: H.R. 1, Guinta Amendment No. 166: YES to prohibit imposing "prevailing wage" and other requirements in project labor agreements that advantage unionized contractors.
• Bill: H.R. 2017, Scalise Amendment No. 388: YES to prohibit project labor agreements in DHS contracts
• Bill: H.R. 2055, LaTourette Amendment No. 411: NO on funding for federal project labor agreements.
• Bill: H.R. 1, King Amendment No. 273: YES to eliminate the "Davis Bacon" prevailing wage rate requirement for federal projects.
• Bill: H.R. 2017, Gosar Amendment No. 386: YES to eliminate the "Davis Bacon" prevailing wage rate requirement for Department of Homeland Security contracts.
• Bill: H.R. 2354: Gosar Amendment No. 655: YES to restrict application of the Davis-Bacon Act to contracts exceeding $20 million.
• Bill: H.R. 2017: Rokita Amendment No. 2: YES to prohibit collective bargaining at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

Raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour by 2016.

Congressional summary: Increases the federal minimum wage for employees to:

1. $8.20 an hour beginning 6 months after enactment
2. $9.15 an hour beginning 1 year later,
3. $10.10 an hour beginning 2 years later, and
4. an amount determined by increases in the Consumer Price Index, beginning annually after 3 years.

• Increases the federal minimum wage for tipped employees to $3.00 an hour beginning 6 months after enactment, with annual CPI adjustments.

Proponent's argument in favor (RaiseTheMinimumWage.com): The federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour remains decades out of date, and the federal minimum wage for tipped workers--$2.13 per hour--has not increased in over 20 years. The minimum wage of the past provided significantly more buying power than it does today. The minimum wage of $1.60 an hour in 1968 would be $10.56 today when adjusted for inflation.

Opponent's argument against: (Neil King in Wall Street Journal, Feb. 24, 2014): The CBO concluded that a jump in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour could eliminate 500,000 jobs. For Republicans, the report provided ammunition that a higher minimum wage would kill jobs. Democrats pointed to the CBO's findings that the higher wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. But both sides missed a key finding: That a smaller hike from the current $7.25 to $9.00 an hour would cause almost no pain, and still lift 300,000 people out of poverty while raising the incomes of 7.6 million people.Congressional Budget Office report:: Once fully implemented, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3%. Some people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings, due to the heightened demand for goods and services. The increased earnings for low-wage workers would total $31 billion. Accounting for all increases and decreases, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.

Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue.

Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to declare that an unlawful employment practice occurs when:
1. a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted;
2. an individual becomes subject to the decision or practice; or
3. an individual is affected by application of the decision or practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid.

[Note: A woman named Lilly Ledbetter filed a lawsuit for gender-based discriminatory compensation. The Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Ledbetter could only sue for damages going back 180 days, and the 180 days was calculated from the time her employment contract was initiated, i.e., her hire date. This new law changes the 180-day period to two years, and also calculates the date from the time of each paycheck, rather than the hire date. -- Ed.]

Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination.

A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex.
• Revises the exception to the prohibition for a wage rate differential based on any other factor other than sex. Limits such factors to bona fide factors, such as education, training, or experience.
• Prohibits employer retaliation for inquiring about, discussing, or disclosing the wages of the employee in response to a sex discrimination investigation.
• Makes employers who violate sex discrimination prohibitions liable in a civil action for either compensatory or punitive damages.
• States that any action brought to enforce the prohibition against sex discrimination may be maintained as a class action in which individuals may be joined as party plaintiffs without their written consent.

Sponsored bill for strengthening union organizing.

H.R.842 & S.420: Protecting the Right to Organize Act: This bill expands various labor protections related to employees' rights to organize and collectively bargain in the workplace:

1. revises the definitions of employee, supervisor, and employer to broaden the scope of individuals covered by the fair labor standards;
2. permits labor organizations to encourage participation of union members in strikes initiated by employees represented by a different labor organization (i.e., secondary strikes); and
3. prohibits employers from bringing claims against unions that conduct such secondary strikes.

Biden Administration in SUPPORT: The Administration strongly supports The PRO Act. America was not built by Wall Street. It was built by the middle class, and unions built the middle class. Unions put power in the hands of workers. H.R. 842 would strengthen and protect workers' right to form a union by assessing penalties on employers who violate workers' right to organize.

Rep. Mo Brooks in OPPOSITION: H.R. 842 [is] a radical union bill that tramples the rights of citizens by forcing them to enter into union servitude, including:

• Overturns right-to-work laws in 27 states, thereby forcing citizens, against their will, to pay millions of dollars in dues to labor unions.
• Denies citizens' rights to vote by secret ballot on whether to join a union by imposing a biased "card-check" scheme.
• Deprives individuals of entrepreneurial opportunities. The PRO Act would eliminate the franchise industry and sharing economy as we know them.