Washington - U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), an original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, voiced his support for the bill providing stronger protections for unionizing.

"Hardworking Americans deserve the chance that this bill provides," said Menendez. "They deserve a strong law that will not allow employers to skirt its meaning; a law that will protect their decisions and ensure their voices will be heard."

As one of only three Hispanic senators, Menendez also pointed out the benefits that the bill would provide to minority and female workers, who are typically better served when unionized.

"Latinos represented by unions typically earn median wages that are 46 percent higher than non-unionized Latinos. Women and African-Americans typically earn more than 30 percent higher median wages when they are unionized. So...by opening the door for more workers to seek union representation, we are helping ensure a pathway to fairness and hopefully, a pathway to a better quality of life.

"I urge my colleagues to support the Employee Free Choice Act, to protect and enforce the rights of any worker to freely join a union - free from intimidation, free from back-door tactics, free from fear of retribution. This is a right that no worker should be denied."

# # #

Full text of remarks as prepared for delivery:

M. President,

I rise in strong support of the Employee Free Choice Act, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. This bill will level the playing field for workers seeking a voice at work and ensure they have the freedom to choose to join a union without coercion. I applaud Senator Kennedy for his passion to move this bill forward and his relentless fight to improve and uphold the rights of workers.

Now, some may ask why this change is needed. They may think that in 2007, in this great democratic nation, the right of an employee to seek representation in their workplace is alive and well. Well, M. President, it should be. But the fact is, under current law, there are loopholes that have been exploited, tactics that have been utilized, and actions taken against employees that have undermined the basic rights employees should be entitled to.

From start to finish, workers often face roadblock after roadblock in trying to seek union representation. Active union workers are fired; employers challenge and file appeals with the NLRB; and employers can simply stall the process and prevent it from moving forward.

We cannot ignore that there are some concerted and disturbing efforts that have tainted what should be a fair process.

Employees are fired in roughly one quarter of all private-sector organizing efforts.

One in five workers who openly advocate for a union during an election campaign is fired.

In 2005 alone, some 30,000 workers experienced some form of discrimination for their participation in an organizing effort, resulting in lost wages or lost jobs. And, in an increasingly common trend, a vast majority of private employers are hiring union-busting consultants to fight unionization drives.

Clearly, existing law has not been enough to deter these types of tactics.

The Employee Free Choice Act would close loopholes that have allowed employers to abuse the labor process without repercussion, and it would beef up the penalties for violation. Part of the problem is that under current law, there is not a strong enough incentive to follow the law.

While employers face stiff penalties for firing an employee based on race, gender, or disability, they face minimal penalties for firing an employee for union organizing.

In addition to enacting stronger penalties, this legislation would essentially enforce the steps that are supposed to take place, but often do not. A key part of this bill is that it will bring people to the table. It would ensure that when employees make their voices heard, the process moves forward. This is not forcing the hand of employers or employees, but it simply ensures that negotiations that are supposed to take place will take place.

Currently, employees can agree to join a union, but then the process is dragged out for months or years. This is not the spirit of the law. The Employee Free Choice Act will restore that spirit and uphold the meaning of the rights employees are supposed to have.

M. President, improving the rights of workers is not just about fairness - it is also about equity. We know that workers who have a voice at work have better benefits and are able to provide a higher quality of life for their families. When nearly half of all Americans report having just "enough to get by," it should be obvious that we need to take action to improve the economic standing of many of our workers.

And the fact is, union membership means higher wages. According to the Department of Labor, union workers earn 30 percent higher weekly earnings than non-union workers - that's an average of $191 dollars per week, or more than $9,000 per year.

And this is especially true for minorities. Latinos represented by unions typically earn median wages that are 46 percent higher than non-unionized Latinos. Women and African-Americans typically earn more than 30 percent higher median wages when they are unionized. So M. President, by opening the door for more workers to seek union representation, we are helping ensure a pathway to fairness and hopefully, a pathway to a better quality of life.

Hardworking Americans deserve the chance that this bill provides. They deserve a strong law that will not allow employers to skirt its meaning; a law that will protect their decisions and ensure their voices will be heard.

So, M. President, that is why I support this bill. I believe a majority of voices should be upheld and I believe that our workplaces should be the very best they can be for our nation's workers.

I urge my colleagues to support the Employee Free Choice Act, to protect and enforce the rights of any worker to freely join a union - free from intimidation, free from back-door tactics, free from fear of retribution. This is a right that no worker should be denied.

###