Bill Schurgin Testifies at Congressional Hearing on Collective Bargaining and National Security

William P. Schurgin participated in the September 28 Congressional hearing on Collective Bargaining and National Security. Bill’s testimony was on behalf of the United States Chamber of Commerce regarding the propriety of allowing unions which represent non-guard bargaining units to also represent guards under the National Labor Relations Act.

He spoke of the prohibition by the NLRA against certifying such mixed-guard unions as the bargaining representative of guards and described corporate campaign attempts by mixed-guard unions to force employers to recognize them as the representative of guards without using the NLRB election process, and force employees to give up their right to a secret ballot election. Bill went on to describe security concerns over risks of mixed loyalties if guards were represented by unions that also represent other employees. Permitting the same union to represent both guards and non-guards, he said, severely limits an employer's capability to utilize guards to monitor, witness, and enforce employer rules. Especially when it comes to high security roles, guards should not be forced to choose between supporting a fellow union member and reporting suspicious activity to their employer.

“The issue today is not whether guards are currently represented by qualified unions,” said Bill in his closing remarks. “The issue is also not whether there are experienced guard unions that will continue to organize guards in the future. The answer to both of these questions is a resounding yes. The only question before you today is whether a non-guard union should be allowed to represent guards through the use of card-check/neutrality agreements which are often achieved through corporate campaign tactics. The intent of the Taft- Hartley Amendments and nearly 60 years of legal authority upholding the important distinction between guards and the employees that they are entrusted to enforce rules against call for a resounding NO to that question.”