    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       FUTURE OF WORK: PRESERVING WORKER
                       PROTECTIONS IN THE MODERN ECONOMY

    =======================================================================

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                                    AND THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                                   AND LABOR
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 23, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-45

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Available via the World Wide Web: www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
                  Committee address: https://edlabor.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    39-488 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

                 ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

    Susan A. Davis, California           Virginia Foxx, North Carolina,
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Ranking Member
    Joe Courtney, Connecticut            David P. Roe, Tennessee
    Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio                Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Tim Walberg, Michigan
      Northern Mariana Islands           Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
    Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bradley Byrne, Alabama
    Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon             Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
    Mark Takano, California              Elise M. Stefanik, New York
    Alma S. Adams, North Carolina        Rick W. Allen, Georgia
    Mark DeSaulnier, California          Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
    Donald Norcross, New Jersey          Jim Banks, Indiana
    Pramila Jayapal, Washington          Mark Walker, North Carolina
    Joseph D. Morelle, New York          James Comer, Kentucky
    Susan Wild, Pennsylvania             Ben Cline, Virginia
    Josh Harder, California              Russ Fulcher, Idaho
    Lucy McBath, Georgia                 Van Taylor, Texas
    Kim Schrier, Washington              Steve Watkins, Kansas
    Lauren Underwood, Illinois           Ron Wright, Texas
    Jahana Hayes, Connecticut            Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
    Donna E. Shalala, Florida            Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
    Andy Levin, Michigan*                Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
    Ilhan Omar, Minnesota                Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
    David J. Trone, Maryland
    Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
    Susie Lee, Nevada
    Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
    Joaquin Castro, Texas
    * Vice-Chair

                       Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
                     Brandon Renz, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                    FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida, Chairwoman

    Donald Norcross, New Jersey          Tim Walberg, Michigan
    Joseph D. Morelle, New York            Ranking Member
    Susan Wild, Pennsylvania             David P. Roe, Tennessee
    Lucy McBath, Georgia                 Rick W. Allen, Georgia
    Lauren Underwood, Illinois           Jim Banks, Indiana
    Haley M. Stevens, Michigan           Russ Fulcher, Idaho
    Joe Courtney, Connecticut            Van Taylor, Texas
    Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio                Steve C. Watkins, Jr., Kansas
    Josh Harder, California              Ron Wright, Texas
    Donna E. Shalala, Florida            Dan Meuser, Pennsylvania
    Andy Levin, Michigan                 Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
    Lori Trahan, Massachusetts           Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
    Vacant
                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                   ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Chairwoman

    Mark DeSaulnier, California          Bradley Byrne, Alabama,
    Mark Takano, California                Ranking Member
    Pramila Jayapal, Washington          Mark Walker, North Carolina
    Susan Wild, Pennsylvania             Ben Cline, Virginia
    Lucy McBath, Georgia                 Ron Wright, Texas
    Ilhan Omar, Minnesota                Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
    Haley M. Stevens, Michigan

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on October 23, 2019.................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Adams, Hon. Alma S., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce
          Protections................................................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     7
         Byrne, Hon. Bradley, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
          Workforce Protections......................................    73
            Prepared statement of....................................    74
        Walberg, Hon. Tim, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Health,
          Employment, Labor, and Pensions............................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     5
        Wilson, Hon. Frederica S., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
          Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions....................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Beck, Ms. Jessica, Co-Founder and COO Hello Alfred...........    58
            Prepared statement of....................................    61
        Greszler, Ms. Rachael, Research Fellow in Economics, Budget
          and Entitlements, the Heritage Foundation..................    43
            Prepared statement of....................................    46
        Rogers, Mr. Brishen, J.D., Associate Professor, Temple School
          of Law, Visiting Associate Professor, Georgetown University
          Law Center, Fellow, Roosevelt Institute....................    25
            Prepared statement of....................................    28
        Weil, Mr. David, Ph.D, Dean and Professor, the Heller School
          for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University......     9
            Prepared statement of....................................    11

    Additional Submissions:
        Jayapal, Hon. Pramila, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Washington:
            Policy Brief: Protecting Domestic Workers' Rights........   101
            Prepared statement from SEIU.............................   103
            Link: Beyond Disruption, How Tech Shapes Labor Across
              Domestic Work and Ride Hailing.........................   104
        Questions submitted for the record by:
            Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in
              Congress from the State of Virginia....................   105
        Mr. Weil's response to questions submitted for the record....   107

      FUTURE OF WORK: PRESERVING WORKER PROTECTIONS IN THE MODERN ECONOMY

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, October 23, 2019

                           House of Representatives,

             Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

                                 Joint with the

                     Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,

                       Committee on Education and Labor,

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m., in
    Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Frederica S.
    Wilson (Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Wilson, Adams, Courtney,
    DeSaulnier, Norcross, Jayapal, Morelle, Wild, Harder,
    Underwood, Shalala, Levin, Stevens, Trahan, Walberg, Byrne,
    Roe, Cline, Taylor, Johnson.
        Also Present: Representatives Scott and Foxx.
        Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Chief Clerk; Jordan Barab,
    Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Ilana Brunner, General; Kyle
    deCant, Labor Policy Counsel; Daniel Foster, Health and Labor
    Counsel; Eli Hovland, Staff Assistant; Eunice Ikene, Labor
    Policy Advisor; Stephanie Lalle, Deputy Communications
    Director; Kevin McDermott, Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Richard
    Miller, Director of Labor Policy; Max Moore, Office Aid; Udochi
    Onwubiko, Labor Policy Counsel; Veronique Pluviose, Staff
    Director; Banyon Vassar, Deputy Director of Information
    Technology; Katelyn Walker, Counsel; Rachel West, Senior
    Economic Policy Advisor; Cyrus Artz, Minority Parliamentarian;
    Courtney Butcher, Minority Director of Member Services and
    Coalitions; Akash Chougule, Minority Professional Staff Member;
    Cate Dillon, Minority Staff Assistant; Rob Green, Minority
    Director of Workforce Policy; Jeanne Kuehl, Minority
    Legislative Assistant; Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of
    Operations; Ben Ridder, Minority Professional Staff Member; and
    Lauren Williams, Minority Professional Staff Member.
        Chairwoman Wilson. The Subcommittees on Health, Employment,
    Labor, and Pensions and Workforce Protections will come to
    order. Welcome, everyone. I note that a quorum is present.
        The subcommittees are meeting today in a hearing to receive
    testimony on the future of work and preserving worker
    protections in the modern economy.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), opening statements are
    limited to the Chairs and the Ranking Members. This allows us
    to hear from our witnesses sooner and provides all Members with
    adequate time to ask questions.
        I recognize myself now for the purpose of making an opening
    statement.
        Today we are gathered for the first of three hearings to
    explore the future of work. This series of hearings will
    provide an opportunity for experts and stakeholders to share
    how evolving business models and rapidly changing employment
    arrangements coupled with increased use of technology and
    automation are impacting workers and employers.
        We look forward to hearing ideas on policy options that
    ensure innovation, complements worker protections, civil
    rights, and economic security.
        Today's hearing will focus on how Congress can ensure that
    workers have fair wages, hours and benefits, safe work places,
    and an opportunity to bargain for better working conditions at
    a time when American work places are rapidly shifting.
        For most of the 20th century, companies primarily hired
    workers directly but over the last three decades, there have
    been a fissuring of the workplace where companies are
    increasingly shifting employment to subcontractors, temporary
    workers, or workers misclassified as independent contractors.
    The most visible example of the fissured workplace can be found
    in the on-demand economy where some companies misclassify their
    workers as independent contractors.
        The employment relationship is key to our nations'Nation's
    foundational labor and employment laws. And the erosion of this
    relationship threatens to not only undermine our nation's labor
    laws but to also erode the progress we have made towards a
    strong, American middle class.
        That is why preventing worker misclassification and
    strengthening and maintaining joint employment standards are
    key to ensuring that workers have access to legal protections
    and can exercise their rights.
        For example, in my district in Miami, Florida, a large
    swath of workforce is subcontracted or temporary workers who
    are hired to support the large tourism, hospitality, and health
    industries.
        These workers who are the backbone to multiple, billion-
    dollar industries are currently limited to their abilities to
    collectively bargain and advocate for themselves. In most
    cases, workers are forced, are being forced to work in
    extremely unsafe conditions.
        A full revamp of workers' protections is necessary to
    ensure safer working conditions and better benefits. The right
    to organize as the law currently stands does not empower our
    constituents to harness their true economic potential.
        The Protecting the Right to Organize Act we call the PRO
    Act which we recently advanced through this committee, would
    strengthen joint employment standards under the National Labor
    Relations Act to ensure that workers can bring to the
    negotiating table all of the companies that have a say in the
    terms and conditions of employment.
        The PRO Act would also broaden the NLRA's employment
    standards to prevent workers from being misclassified as
    independent contractors and thereby deny their rights to
    organize and collectively bargain.
        Now that the PRO Act has advanced through our committee, we
    must continue our discussion for ways to complement and
    strengthen our current labor laws.
        Today, we will examine whether or not bargaining can be
    used to establish the industry wide floors that prevent
    individual employers from undercutting wages and working
    additions in order to compete.
        I also look forward to a discussion about how to ensure
    benefits provided to workers in the fissured workplace, truly
    achieve meaningful improvements for workers. Innovation is not
    compatible with collective bargaining rights or good work place
    benefits.
        Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the changing
    economy does not undermine the rights of American workers.
    Today's hearing is an important step towards shaping the future
    of work that facilities innovation and growth while preserving
    the worker protections and benefits that held from the core of
    American prosperity.
        I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today
    and I now recognize HELP Ranking Member Walberg for an opening
    statement. Mr. Walberg.
        [The statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Chairwoman,
            Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions

        Today, we are gathered for the first of three hearings to explore
    the ``future of work.'' This series of hearings will provide an
    opportunity for experts and stakeholders to share how evolving business
    models and rapidly changing employment arrangements, coupled with
    increased use of technology and automation, are impacting workers and
    employers.
        We look forward to hearing ideas on policy options that ensure
    innovation complements worker protections, civil rights, and economic
    security.
        Today's hearing will focus on how Congress can ensure that workers
    have fair wages, hours and benefits; safe workplaces; and an
    opportunity to bargain for better working conditions at a time when
    American workplaces are rapidly shifting.
        For most of the 20th century, companies primarily hired workers
    directly. But over the last three decades, there has been a
    ``fissuring'' of the workplace where companies are increasingly
    shifting employment to subcontractors, temporary workers, or workers
    misclassified as independent contractors.
        The most visible example of the fissured workplace can be found in
    the on-demand economy, where some companies misclassify their workers
    as independent contractors.
        The employment relationship is key to our nation's foundational
    labor and employment laws, and the erosion of this relationship
    threatens to not only undermine our nation's labor laws, but to also
    erode the progress we've made toward a strong American middle class.
    That is why preventing worker misclassification and strengthening and
    maintaining joint employment standards are key to ensuring that workers
    have access to legal protections and can exercise their rights.
        For example, in my district in Miami, Florida, a large swath of the
    workforce is subcontracted or temporary workers who are hired to
    support the large tourism, hospitality, and health industries. These
    workers who are the backbone to multiple billion-dollar industries are
    currently limited in their abilities to collectively bargain and
    advocate for themselves. In some cases, workers are being forced to
    work in extremely unsafe conditions. A full revamp of worker
    protections is necessary to ensure safer working conditions and better
    benefits. The right to organize as the law currently stands does not
    empower our constituents to harness their true economic potential.
        The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which we recently
    advanced through this committee, would strengthen joint employment
    standards under the National Labor Relations Act to ensure that workers
    can bring to the negotiating table all of the companies that have a say
    in the terms and conditions of employment. The PRO Act would also
    broaden the NLRA's employment standard to prevent workers from being
    misclassified as independent contractors and thereby denied their
    rights to organize and collectively bargain.
        Now that the PRO Act has advanced through our committee, we must
    continue our discussion for ways to complement and strengthen our
    current labor laws. Today we will examine whether or not sectoral
    bargaining can be used to establish industry-wide floors that prevent
    individual employers from undercutting wages and working conditions in
    order to compete.
        I also look forward to a discussion about how to ensure benefits
    provided to workers in the fissured workplace truly achieve meaningful
    improvements for workers.
        Innovation is not incompatible with collective bargaining rights or
    good workplace benefits. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that
    the changing economy does not undermine the rights of American workers.
        Today's hearing is an important step toward shaping a future of
    work that facilitates innovation and growth while preserving the worker
    protections and benefits that help form the core of American
    prosperity.
        I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us.
                                    ------

        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Madame Chair. Today we are here to
    discuss the future of work. Madame Chair, I vote in favor of
    the future of work. It is a good thing. And so it is worth
    moving forward.
        But with the ever-evolving economic landscape which in fact
    is pretty good right now, the lowest unemployment rate for all
    sectors or at least most all sectors in history, at least in
    the last 50 plus years, and the increased wage for middle class
    expansions taking place the landscape is pretty good. It is an
    important issue though for us to consider.
        Yet I find it ironic given committee Democrats recently
    passed radical legislation, the PRO Act that would take our
    labor laws back to the 1930's.
        My colleagues across the aisle seem to feel that they
    believe that forcing workers into labor unions is the only way
    to ensure proper wages and benefits. So Federal law should
    promote unions, even at the expense of workers own rights and
    freedoms and choices.
        Democrat's ultimate goal, it appears, is to all but
    eliminate independent contractor status, classifying as many
    workers as possible as employees in order to subject them to
    unionization.
        Labor union membership continues to plummet due the modern
    economic growth and unions own failings. Instead of increasing
    transparency and accountability to serve their members better,
    union leaders are exerting their political influence to push
    backward looking radical labor laws that would allow them to
    consolidate power, further coerce workers, line their own
    pockets, and bolster their own agendas while depriving workers
    of freedom, flexibility, and innovation in the work place.
        It appears the Democrat's reforms would take us back to the
    past while harming workers, businesses and the economy as a
    whole at a time when economic growth and innovation are
    creating real progress and prosperity for American workers.
    That is why committee Democrats recently approved H.R. 2474,
    far reaching legislation which limits the rights of workers to
    make free and informed decisions. This is not what the future
    of work in America should look like or needs to look like.
    There is nothing progressive about what will be discussed
    during this hearing.
        Instead of considering unworkable policies that will harm
    workers and businesses, we should be discussing ways to
    encourage flexible work arrangements and access to employer
    sponsored benefits without creating costly and restrictive
    mandates. These are the kind of reforms necessary to adapt our
    laws for the future of work.
        For example, multi-employer plans should allow small
    employers to join together to sponsor a single retirement plan
    for employees which would significantly reduce costs for
    employers who might not otherwise be able to afford offering
    retirement benefits.
        Additionally, committee Republicans have long championed
    the expansion association health plans which allow small
    businesses to join together to provide their employees with
    high quality healthcare at more affordable costs.
        These are just two examples of innovative reforms that meet
    the needs of a 21st century workforce. American workers are
    benefiting from a strong economy ushered in by Republican led
    tax and regulatory reform.
        Wages are rising. Unemployment is near record lows. And
    millions of jobs have been created since President Trump took
    office. Individual freedom and pro-growth economic policies
    create the best path forward for workers and job seekers, not
    more coercion and red tape.
        That is what I believe, Madame Chair. I am going got stick
    to it, but I look forward to participating in this hearing and
    I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Walberg follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Walberg, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
                    Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions

        Today, we are here to discuss the future of work. With the ever-
    evolving economic landscape, it is an important issue for us to
    consider. Yet I find it ironic given Committee Democrats recently
    passed radical legislation that would take our labor laws back to the
    1930s.
        My colleagues across the aisle believe that forcing workers into
    labor unions is the only way to ensure proper wages and benefits, so
    federal law should promote
        unions even at the expense of workers' own rights and freedoms.
    Democrats' ultimate goal is to all but eliminate independent-contractor
    status, classifying as many workers as possible as employees in order
    to subject them to unionization.
        Labor union membership continues to plummet due to the modern
    economy, economic growth, and unions' own failings. Instead of
    increasing transparency and accountability to serve their members
    better, union leaders are exerting their political influence to push
    backward-looking radical labor laws that would allow them to
    consolidate power further, coerce workers, line their own pockets, and
    bolster their own agendas while depriving workers of freedom,
    flexibility, and
        innovation in the workplace. The Democrats' reforms would take us
    back to the past while harming workers, businesses, and the economy as
    a whole at a time when economic growth and innovation are creating real
    progress and prosperity for American workers.
        That is why Committee Democrats recently approved, H.R. 2474, far-
    reaching legislation which limits the rights of workers to make free
    and informed decisions. This is not what the future of work in America
    should look like. There is nothing `progressive' about what will be
    discussed during this hearing.
        Instead of considering unworkable policies that will harm workers
    and businesses, we should be discussing ways to encourage flexible work
    arrangements and access to employer-sponsored benefits without creating
    costly and restrictive mandates. These are the kind of reforms
    necessary to adapt our laws for the future of work.
        For example, multiple-employer plans should allow small employers
    to join together to sponsor a single retirement plan for employees,
    which would significantly reduce costs for employers who might not
    otherwise be able to afford offering retirement benefits. Additionally,
    Committee Republicans have long championed the expansion of association
    health plans, which allow small businesses to join together to provide
    their employees with high-quality health care at more affordable costs.
    These are just two examples of innovative reforms that meet the needs
    of a 21st century workforce.
        American workers are benefitting from the strong economy ushered in
    by Republican-led tax and regulatory reform. Wages are rising,
    unemployment is at near-record lows, and millions of jobs have been
    created since President Trump took office. Individual freedom and pro-
    growth economic policies create the best path forward for workers and
    job-seekers, not more coercion and red tape.
                                    ------

        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Walberg. I now recognize
    Workforce Protection Subcommittee Chair Adams for an opening
    statement
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman Wilson and thank
    you to the witnesses for being here today. The foundation
    Federal protections for workers including fair wages,
    reasonable hours, and safe work places are grounded in two key
    employment laws. The Fair Labor Standards Act and the
    Occupational Health and Safety Act.
        These landmark laws were passed when the overwhelming
    number of workers and employers were connected through
    traditional, direct relationships. An employee could tell who
    their employer was by looking at the name of the building where
    they worked but as the relationship between workers and
    employers is changing, the protections provided by our key
    labor employment laws are eroding.
        For example, the rising trend of working misclassification
    in which a worker who should be an employee under the law is as
    an independent coordinator is undermining the Fair Labor
    Standards Act.
        When employees are misclassified, employers are able to
    strip workers of minimum wage and overtime protections and gain
    an unfair, competitive advantage by classing them as
    independent contractors.
        Similarly, the lack of clarity in work arrangements can
    undermine the safety of workers because there is less certainty
    about who is responsible for supplying safety equipment and
    safety training. This adds risks for temporary and contract
    workers who are twice as likely to die from falls than workers
    in traditional employment according to Labor Department data.
        And workers who are misclassified do not have protections
    under Federal whistleblower laws including the anti-retaliation
    provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and other
    whistleblower laws overseen by OSHA.
        As our witnesses will discuss today, we don't have to
    choose between strengthening and modernizing protections for
    American workers or building a vibrant and modern economy.
    Without innovation, workers and businesses may lose out on
    opportunities to succeed.
        But without a strong and sustained effort from Federal
    policy makers, the changing relationship between workers and
    employers and the emergence of new business models and new
    technology will continue to erode the financial security and
    safety of America's workers. We can have an economy that values
    workers and an economy where business can succeed.
        Proposals we have previously discussed in this committee
    including the Payroll Fraud Prevention Act would be important
    steps in the right direction. All of us agree that the
    foundational labor and employment laws are outdated in the
    modern economy.
        So the question at the heart of today's hearing is whether
    we will update and strengthen those protections or further
    weaken them. The future of work will be determined by our
    answer to that question. I yield back, Madame Chair.
        [The statement by Chairwoman Adams follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
                             Workforce Protections

        Thank you, Madame Chairwoman Wilson.
        The foundational federal protections for workers -including fair
    wages, reasonable hours, and safe workplaces - are grounded in two key
    employment laws: The Fair Labor Standards Act and the Occupational
    Health and Safety Act.
        These landmark laws were passed when the overwhelming number of
    workers and employers were connected through traditional, direct
    relationships.
        An employee could tell who their employer was by looking at the
    name on the building where they worked.
        But as the relationship between workers and employers is changing,
    the protections provided by our key labor employment laws are eroding.
        For example, the rising trend of worker misclassification - in
    which a worker who should be an employee under the law is as an
    independent contractor - is undermining the Fair Labor Standards Act.
        When employees are misclassified, employers are able to strip
    workers of minimum wage and overtime protections and gain an unfair
    competitive advantage by classifying them as independent contractors.
        Similarly, the lack of clarity in work arrangements can undermine
    the safety of workers, because there is less certainty about who is
    responsible for supplying safety equipment and safety training.
        This adds risk for temporary and contract workers, who are twice as
    likely to die from falls than workers in traditional employment,
    according to Labor Department data.
        And workers who are misclassified do not have protections under
    federal whistleblower laws, including the anti- retaliation provisions
    of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and other whistleblower laws
    overseen by OSHA.
        As our witnesses will discuss today, we don't have to choose
    between strengthening and modernizing protections for American workers
    or building a vibrant, modern economy.
        Without innovation, workers and businesses may lose out on
    opportunities to succeed.
        But without a strong and sustained effort from federal
    policymakers, the changing relationship between workers and employers -
    and the emergence of new business models and new technology - will
    continue to erode the financial security and safety America's workers.
        We can have an economy that values workers and an economy where
    business can succeed.
        Proposals we've previously discussed in this Committee, including
    the Payroll Fraud Prevention Act, would be important steps in the right
    direction.
        All of us agree that the foundational labor and employment laws are
    outdated in the modern economy.
        The question at the heart of today's hearing is whether we will
    update and strengthen those protections or further weaken them.
        The ``future of work'' will be determined by our answer to that
    question. I yield back.
                                    ------

        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Chair Adams. The Ranking
    Member of workforce protections, Member Byrne, will join us
    later, he is unable to be with us now and we will be, he will
    be able to give his opening statement.
        Without objection, all other Members who wish to insert
    written statements into the record may do so by submitting them
    to the Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format
    by 5 p.m. on November 5, 2019.
        I will now introduce our witnesses. David Weil is the Dean
    and Professor of the Heller School for Social Policy and
    Management at Brandeis University. Mr. Weil serves as the
    administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S.
    Department of Labor under President Barack Obama from 2014 to
    January 2017. Welcome.
        Brishen Rogers is an associate professor of Law at Temple
    University School of Law, at Temple University Beasley School
    of law and a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Professor
    Rogers' research focuses on labor and employment, concentrating
    on how the law shapes workers collective action, the impact of
    technology on employment practices, and the relationship
    between law and inequality.
        Rachel Greszler is a Research Fellow in Economics, Budgets,
    and Entitlements at the Heritage Foundation. Ms. Greszler
    provides research and commentary on workplace issues including
    Federal employee compensation, women's issues, and labor
    policies such as minimum wage and paid family leave.
        Jessica Beck is a co-founder and Chief Operating Officer of
    Hello Alfred, a technology and residential service company that
    is changing the way people live in cities by integrating help
    directly into the home through a combination of technology,
    smart data, logistics, and high touch hospitality. Ms. Beck and
    her cofounder, Marcela Sapone built a service-based business
    that assists households in more than 20 cities across the
    United States.
        I appreciate all of the witnesses being here today and we
    all look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses
    that we have read your written statements and they will appear
    in full in the hearing record.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(d) and committee practice,
    each of you is asked to limit your oral presentation to a 5-
    minute summary of your written statement.
        Let me also remind the witnesses that pursuant to Title 18
    of the U.S. Code, Section 1001, it is illegal to knowingly and
    willfully falsify any statement, representation, writing,
    document, or material fact presented to Congress or otherwise
    conceal or cover up a material fact.
        Before you begin your testimony, please remember to press
    the button on the microphone in front of you so that it will
    turn on and the Members can hear you. As you begin to speak,
    the light in front of you will turn green. After 4 minutes the
    light will turn yellow to signal that you have one minute
    remaining. When the light turn's red, your 5 minutes have
    expired, and we ask that you please wrap it up.
        We will let the entire panel make their presentation before
    we move to Member questions. When answering a question, please
    remember to once again turn your microphone on. I will first
    recognize Dr. Weil. Welcome.

    TESTIMONY OF DAVID WEIL, Ph.D., DEAN AND PROFESSOR, THE HELLER
      SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY

        Mr. Weil. Thank you, Chair Wilson, Chair Adams, Ranking
    Member Walberg, Ranking Member Byrne and Members of the
    subcommittees.
        My name is David Weil and I am the Dean of the Heller
    School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University.
    And I did have the honor of serving as President Obama's
    Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of U.S. Department
    of Labor from 2014 to 2017 when I had the honor of appearing
    before this committee on several occasions.
        I offer these comments regarding the topic of today's
    hearing informed by my past and ongoing academic research as
    well as my experience as the head of the Federal agency in
    charge of enforcing our most basic labor standards.
        We can understand the future of work by understanding the
    present of work. In the past few years there have been
    innumerable conferences and convenings on the future of work.
    These meetings typically focus on issues like robotics,
    artificial intelligence, and platform or gig business models
    like Uber and Lyft.
        But gig work is currently estimated to affect a very small
    part of our labor force. And speculations on the impact of
    technology in the past have often proven to be off the mark. A
    focus on changes that are already impacting working people and
    will continue to do so in my view is far more useful. Millions
    of workers in the U.S. have jobs that don't pay enough, provide
    few if any benefits, and lack basic workplace protections we
    once took for granted.
        Most relevant here, employers have moved away from a
    traditional employment model and towards greater reliance on
    outsourcing, contracting and subcontracting, franchising in its
    many forms, and most recently platform business models. This
    change that has been described by the subcommittee chairs
    represents both the present and the future structure of work
    and is what I have termed the fissured workplace.
        The fissured workplace model has allowed employers to shift
    risks and responsibility onto workers and has incentivized the
    misclassification of employees as independent contractors.
        We cannot understand policy solutions without understanding
    the way we got here, which I have outlined in detail in my
    written testimony and academic writings.
        The fissured workplace has social and economic consequences
    for workers. As you move downward in a fissured workplace
    structure, incentives to cut corners rise leading to violations
    of our fundamental labor and employment standards such as the
    minimum wage, overtime, or even the basic concept that people
    should be paid for the work they do.
        For a family struggling to get by the typical losses are
    rising from these violations translate to more than 5 weeks of
    groceries, a month of rent, or 5 weeks of childcare. Different
    forms of workplace fissuring can also undermine providing
    workers safe and helpful workplaces.
        Compared to their employee counterparts, independent works
    have a disproportionately higher chance of injury or death.
    Because of its concentration particularly in low wage sectors,
    the fissured workplace significantly impacts people of color
    and women and compounds the historic and systemic disparities
    that have faced them in the workplace.
        And the fissured workplace is prevalent throughout the
    economy. The impact of fissuring on wage and hourly structures
    of the economy is sizable. My conservative estimate of workers
    operating in highly fissured industries says we have over 23
    million workers or about 19 percent of the private sector
    workforce.
        If we consider the additional workers and occupations in
    industries with partial presence of fissured practices, my
    estimate of its prevalence would exceed 35 percent. It is
    therefore essential that our public policies address fissuring.
    Our policies need to provide rights and protections for workers
    in this increasingly challenging environment.
        My colleague Tonya Goldman and I outlined a proposal to
    provide basic protections to workers, employees, and
    independent contractors in ways that recognize changes in the
    workplace that I have described.
        We do so by defining three concentric circles of workplace
    rights and protections. An inner circle would assure
    fundamental rights like receiving minimum payment for work,
    provision of a safe and helpful workplace and protections
    against retaliation for use of rights guaranteed to all workers
    regardless of employment status.
        A middle circle would provide employee rights and
    protections emanating from a clear and consistent definition of
    employment.
        And finally, an outer circle would provide access to safety
    net benefits like unemployment insurance and workers
    compensation and non-mandatory benefits like retirement.
        But laws are only as good as our ability to enforce them.
    When I led the Wage and Hour Division it had 1,000
    investigators in the field even though the agency had
    responsibility for 7.3 million establishments.
        Enforcement agencies need sufficient number of investigator
    and tools to do their work. New technology--
        [The statement of Mr. Weil follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you Dr. Weil.
        Mr. Weil. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you. We will now recognize
    Professor Rogers. Welcome.

    TESTIMONY OF BRISHEN ROGERS, J.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, TEMPLE
        SCHOOL OF LAW, VISITING ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN
           UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER; FELLOW, ROOSEVELT INSTITUTE

        Mr. Rogers. Madame Chair Wilson, Madame Chair Adams,
    Ranking Members Walberg and Byrne, and Members of the
    subcommittees, thank you for this opportunity to testify today.
        My name is Brishen Rogers. As the chair said I'm a
    professor at Temple University Beasley School of Law and a
    Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. I'm also currently a
    visiting Associate Professor at Georgetown University Law
    Center.
        I'm here in my individual capital, not representing an
    organization. I have been asked to discuss two issues related
    to the present and future of work.
        The first is whether to reform our labor laws to encourage
    more centralized forms of bargaining and standard setting. The
    backdrop here is that an important goal of unions and public
    policy is to take wages out of competition to prevent a race to
    the bottom. This is good both for workers and for responsible
    employers.
        But our labor law today makes it quite difficult by
    encouraging enterprise level bargaining or bargaining at the
    individual worksite or firm.
        Now unions have worked around this when possible. The UAW's
    pattern bargaining strategy is a great example. But it's very
    hard to do in today's economy in part for reasons that my
    colleague, Dr. Weil, just mentioned.
        To illustrate consider how fast food works might try to
    build a pattern bargaining structure today. They'd first have
    to organize one McDonald's restaurant at a time. Now the PRO
    Act would make it much easier for them to do so. That's
    essential but it's arguably not enough.
        In order to get to scale they would have to organize the
    individual restaurants and then merge them into a lager
    bargaining unit. Franchisees could refuse to enter that units
    and whether or not McDonalds is an employer of the workers at
    issue will determine whether it needs to be a part of the unit.
        Even if the workers succeed in building a nationwide unit
    of McDonalds workers, they would have to do that with all of
    the company's competitors. That's effectively impossible today.
    Enterprise bargaining is quite unusual in comparative
    perspective.
        In continental Europe, collective bargaining typically
    involves unions and employer associations that negotiate
    agreements across entire industrial sectors. There is a
    significant amount of evidence that those practices encourage
    both more economic equality and they protect responsible
    employers against unfair competition without having negative
    effects on economic performance.
        We could draw lessons from those systems and from our own
    history to develop more centralized forms of bargaining or
    standard setting.
        I'll say just a tiny bit about how we could potentially do
    that. One option would be for Congress to amend the Fair Labor
    Standards Act to create industry committees or wage boards with
    the power to set minimum terms at the sectoral level.
        We did this under the Fair Labor Standards Act as
    originally passed. The committees could have equal members of
    representatives of employers and workers, could take public
    testimony, deliberate and recommended minimum terms for the
    sector to the Department of Labor.
        As an alternative or a supplement, Congress could revise
    the NLRA to enable true sectoral bargaining or bargaining
    between unions and firms across a sector. Now, it would be
    unwise to simply substitute sectoral bargaining for enterprise
    bargaining. But Congress could for example mandate or encourage
    multi-employer bargaining.
        It could also enable unions who are organized or who have
    organized at the enterprise level to also negotiate at the
    sectoral level, perhaps by granting bargaining rights in stages
    based upon the amount of support a union has within the
    relevant sector.
        I would be happy to discuss details of either of these
    ideas in the Q and A. I'll note though that both of them would
    ideally supplement and bolster enterprise bargaining rather
    than replacing it. Enterprise bargaining still has to be the
    foundation of an industrial relation system in this country.
        The second issue I have been asked to disuses is the idea
    of portable benefits. The developments that I noted earlier and
    those discussed by Dr. Weil have also eroded employees' or
    workers' access to benefits.
        One reason is that our laws require companies to provide
    benefits to employees in many instances but not to independent
    contractors or to employees of their subcontractors. A number
    of gig economy companies and think tanks have proposed that we
    put together, enact safe harbors which would allow them to
    provide benefits to their workers without the risk that they
    would then be classified as those workers' employers.
        I'm not sure this is the best way to protect workers today
    for two basic reasons. The first is that Uber, Lyft, and many
    other gig economy companies today, arguably already employ
    their workers under current law because they exert so much
    control over them. They would almost certainly be their
    employers under the PRO Act and they are almost certainly their
    employers under California's AB5.
        That means those companies already have duties to provide
    many of those workers benefits and carving out a safe harbor
    would enable them to evade rather than uphold that duty.
        Second, and here I'll wrap up, we have models for portable
    benefits that would protect workers. Construction workers
    frequently move between employers and long ago they built
    portable benefit funds that are co-managed by unions.
        Social security and Medicare are also portable in that they
    are provided and administered by public agencies. The best
    option for workers will like be--
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you.
        Mr. Rogers.--benefits that are collectively bargained or
    publicly provided. Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will
    now recognize Ms. Greszler. Welcome.

      TESTIMONY OF RACHEL GRESZLER, RESEARCH FELLOW IN ECONOMICS,
            BUDGET AND ENTITLEMENTS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

        Ms. Greszler. Good morning and thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today. My name is Rachel Greszler and I
    am a Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. The views
    exposed today are my own and don't necessarily represent those
    of Heritage.
        The future of work is already here and it's not something
    that workers need to fear. But policy makers can help workers
    prepare for, adjust to, and thrive amidst these changes.
        One of workers biggest fear against the future of work is
    that they might lose their jobs. And this is a legitimate
    concern because without a job, workers cannot provide for
    themselves and their family and they have no hope for higher
    income and opportunity.
        That's why today's 50 year record low unemployment rate is
    so commendable. And because of the recent tax cuts and reduced
    regulatory burdens, workers are experiencing widespread income
    gains with low income workers receiving the biggest gains. But
    some lawmakers seem determined to stop this with the types of
    interventionist policies described thus far today. By fighting
    against innovation, opportunity, and choices, we will reduce
    workers incomes and short change our entire economy.
    Technological advancements naturally eliminate some jobs. But
    they also give rise to new jobs and astonishing new products
    and services.
        Imagine what workers in the ice industry thought when the
    refrigerator came to market. All of those jobs cutting ice,
    moving snow, transporting and delivering it disappeared. But
    instead of becoming destitute, those workers found new jobs and
    most of those new jobs made them more productive.
        So change creates opportunities and todays workers have
    opportunities to earn supplemental income, to be their own
    bosses, and to interact with a more diverse group of
    individuals and businesses.
        So called independent work used to be reserved for highly
    educated individuals such as lawyers and consultants. But
    today, it's available to nearly all Americans and as many as 1
    out of every 3 workers participates in independent work in some
    capacity. And nearly all of them, 9 out of 10 say they prefer
    being their own boss to being an employee.
        But instead of more autonomy, many law makers want to
    control workers and employers though policies that will lead to
    fewer jobs, lower incomes, and more--and less opportunity.
        Consider the $15 minimum wage passed by the House this
    summer. When California raised their minimum wage, Muriel
    Sterling who owns her own family daycare in Oakdale,
    California, had to reduce some of her workers hours and she had
    to raise tuition costs which made it harder for families to be
    able to afford childcare.
        And when Michigan increased its minimum wage, Pastor Jack
    Mosely explained that his faith-based recovery program had to
    close its Taste of Life restaurant leaving the programs 12
    participants without jobs or quote the opportunity interact
    with other employees and to talk to customers and feel like
    they were part of something.
        Sadly, disadvantaged and inexperienced workers are the
    first to lose their jobs when high minimum wages create
    survival of the fittest labor markets.
        Then there is the Protecting the Right to Organize Act
    advanced by this committee which would overturn three Supreme
    Court cases, strip 27 states of their right to work laws, and
    upend the gig economy as well as franchising and contract-based
    employment models.
        For starters, the PRO Acts pro union, anti-worker
    provisions would strip workers of basic democratic rights. Now
    as Americans we may not always support the political candidates
    that get elected but at least we are not support--forced to
    make financial contributions to them or stripped of our rights
    to a secret ballot election.
        Nor would one candidate ever be prohibited from talking
    about the other candidate's policies. But that's what the PRO
    Act wants for the workplace.
        The PRO Act would also hurt a lot of workers by changing
    the definition of employee. This past summer, my family had the
    blessing of being able to help a refugee family that had first
    become jobless and then homeless. Were it not for a temporary
    job agency that helped this father to obtain work within days
    of requesting it, that family would not be living in their own
    home today.
        Instead of regressive policies, lawmakers can help workers
    adapt to and thrive in today's labor market by reducing taxes
    and unnecessary regulations, by advancing choice based portable
    and affordable benefits, and by giving workers choices over how
    they work, who they work for, and if they want union
    representation.
        Policy makers have two options. Help employers and
    employees respond to the changing nature of work or try to
    prevent those changes from happening.
        The former leads to progress and higher incomes and
    opportunities for all while the latter benefits a select few
    with a smaller economy for everyone. Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Greszler follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Greszler. We will now
    recognize Ms. Beck. Welcome.

      TESTIMONY OF JESSICA BECK, CO-FOUNDER AND COO, HELLO ALFRED

        Ms. Beck. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
    share my perspective on the important topic of the future of
    work.
        My name is Jessica Beck and I am the Chief Operating
    Officer of Hello Alfred, a tech enabled service company I
    cofounded 5 years ago that's changing the way people live in
    cities by building help directly into the home.
        Today I would like to share with you our experience as a
    tech enabled service company that intentionally chose a W-2
    employee model.
        5 years ago, my cofounder, Marcela Sapone, and I, launched
    our business founded on a simple idea. Let's give people back
    their time.
        Through our app, we offer our customers the ability to
    request help with anything they need from groceries delivered
    directly into their fridge to pet care, clothing care, handyman
    services, and more.
        We deliver against these needs through our Alfred Home
    manager staff who visits our members' homes each week to
    fulfill their requests.
        Today we operate in more than 20 cities across the United
    States and provide our services through a combination of
    technology and human help.
        While our brand is focused on transforming the lives of our
    customers, from the beginning we have cared deeply about
    creating good jobs and meaningful work.
        When we launched Hello Alfred in 2014, the gig economy was
    the default approach for tech enabled service startups. If we
    had followed this trend, we would logically have made our
    Alfred home managers contractors.
        This model reduces cost and risk associated with hiring,
    firing, and wage changes as independent contractors are not
    subject to minimum wage laws and companies have limited
    responsibility for tax withholding, benefits, insurance, or
    training.
        However, we observed that a byproduct of this model was a
    more transactional relationship between the workers who power
    these platforms and the platforms themselves. And we were
    determined to build our business differently.
        For us, the conversation ultimately wasn't about 1099
    versus W-2 but instead about how we could create the right
    relationship with our workers, not just a cheaper one.
        We ultimately chose to make our Alfred home managers W-2
    employees and as a result, we are able to provide them with a
    series of important things.
        For example, systems that enable long term life planning
    including benefits such as competitive healthcare plans for
    themselves and their families, opportunities to advance their
    skills and training through learning and development and career
    pathways, fair compensation.
        Alfred home manager wages have some variation depending on
    location, but the average is 56 percent higher than the markets
    minimum wage. By way of example, San Diego's minimum wage is
    $12 per hour but our Alfred's average about $20 per hour.
        We did this because we believe that an employee centric
    approach where we have a strong, trusted relationship with our
    staff ultimately enables us to deliver a better experience for
    our customers.
        A more successful workforce creates a more successful
    business and we believe there should not be a disconnect
    between a company's success and the personal success of its
    workers. The reality is that creating good jobs is good for
    business as well as good for innovation and growth. This
    outlook requires business leaders to embrace their
    responsibility of shaping a new generation of jobs where we are
    not commoditizing skills or side stepping hard won protections.
        It's also worth noting that our decision to choose a W-2
    employer relationship added cost to our model. We estimated
    that to be about 20 to 30 percent more than had we chosen a
    1099 model.
        However, as a business we also see innumerable long-term
    benefits to this investment. For example, we have a lower
    employee turn rate which translates into lower recruiting and
    training costs for us.
        We have an increase in internal promotions and tenured
    employees who began as Alfred home managers which maintains not
    only important institutional knowledge but also leads to new
    ideas. Some of our best innovations come from this group.
        We are proud to look around our company and see former home
    managers who are now trainers, hospitality experts, or even
    leading entire cities.
        Most importantly, workers who feel valued and are given
    opportunities to grow within a company tend to produce an
    excellent product. We rank high in customer satisfaction and
    have been able to maintain strong control of our brand by
    having a consistent high-quality work from our employees which
    is an essential factor in any service based model.
        Regardless of which business model employers choose to
    pursue, there needs to be a concerted effort to provide
    meaningful benefits, protections, and development opportunities
    for the people who do work for these companies.
        When we as business leaders don't make the appropriate
    worker choice, the impact can distance the worker from the
    company. This deprives the worker of the benefits that being
    part of an organization can provide such as career advancement,
    learning, development, and training. It also deprives the
    company of the ideas, lessons, and diversity of skills its
    staff could otherwise contribute.
        I am hopeful that we will see more stewards of good
    business practices in the years to come. Employees shouldn't be
    seen as cost centers, but instead as human beings who are
    delivering real work and value and deserve the same in return.
    The result will be good for business, good for the worker and
    good for our workforce at large. Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Beck follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Beck. Under Committee
    Rule 8(a) we will now question witnesses under the 5-minute
    rule. I will now yield myself 5 minutes.
        Professor Rogers, as companies increasingly contract out
    for work that they would previously hire directly, how does
    that exacerbate the challenges workers face when they organize
    a union or engage in other concerted activities?
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you for that question. Outsourcing and
    subcontracting, fissuring, franchising, in many circumstances
    can impact workers' rights to organize in a couple of ways.
        One is that workers' primary employer may not actually have
    any economic power over their working conditions. The company
    that actually has that power may be a third party. But the
    workers cannot get that third party to the table. That means
    that meaningful collective bargaining is effectively
    impossible.
        A second challenge is that workers do not have rights to
    strike pickets or really organize or bargain with that third
    party under existing law. I'll note that the PRO Act would
    remedy many of those short comings.
        Chairwoman Wilson. How does sectoral bargaining prevent
    individual companies from undercutting wages and working
    conditions in order to compete?
        Mr. Rogers. So the best example of sectoral bargaining in
    the United States is probably the United Auto Workers pattern
    bargaining strategy in which the UAW negotiates a contract with
    one of the big three automakers and then pushes the other two
    to match the terms of that contract. Now that's not actually
    complete sectoral bargaining because there are still many
    nonunion plants in the country.
        But what that does is it prevents the three, any of the
    three automakers from underbidding the other two. A true
    sectoral bargaining would actually lift up wages and benefits
    for all of the workers in the industry therefore ensuring that
    there is a level playing field for all companies.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you. Ms. Beck, can you elaborate
    on your decision-making process as a founder when you chose to
    employ W-2 workers even though it was a more expensive option.
    Why did you make the business decision to cover these cots?
        Ms. Beck. Thank you for the question. At the end of the
    day, we were very focused on building a relationship of trust
    with our customers and also with our employees.
        And when we considered the things that a business should do
    in order to do that, the costs were far less than the benefits
    that we thought we would receive.
        So if we could invest in our workforce, give them the
    protections, the benefits that they deserved, they in turn
    would deliver a high quality experience to our customers.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you. Professor Rogers, in your
    testimony you discuss some of the abuses associated with legal
    safe harbors and some companies rely on to deny their workers
    are employees even when they are providing them benefits. Why
    is this harmful and how would the PRO Act address this problem?
        Mr. Rogers. The greatest problem here in my view is that
    the definition of employment under the NLRA right now looks to
    the common law test and interprets the common law fairly
    narrowly to require a fairly high degree of control over the
    work.
        The test itself however is incredibly malleable and
    incredibly confusing. What the PRO Act does is substitutes the
    so-called ABC test which is much more tractable, much more
    clear and that would lead to gig economy workers being
    classified as employees in most cases.
        As a result, they would then be eligible for most employer
    mandated benefits.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you. Dr. Weil, is there a
    difference in earnings if a worker is employed by a main
    business instead of having their job contracted out?
        Mr. Weil. Thank you, Chair Wilson. The answer is yes, and
    the difference can be substantial. Many of the best estimates
    put that at something like a 20 percent differential when a
    worker is doing the same work for often the same organization
    but has been contracted out to another organization.
        So the impacts on both wages and also access to benefits
    can also be quite pronounced and dramatic from a shift like
    that.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Does the fissured workplace negatively
    impact a works ability to advance within a company? What does
    this mean for wage growth?
        Mr. Weil. I think that's one of the most profound effects
    of the fissured workplace that we are only now seeing and
    putting together in the economic data.
        The fact that a worker in the old model of employment who
    was a janitor, worked for a company and could enjoy a job
    ladder within the company.
        When that janitor is a subcontracted or in other ways a
    staffing agency worker, that opportunity for advancement is
    undercut. And that has implications on his or her job earnings
    profile over the course of their work life.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you so much. I yield, my time is
    up. And now Members from questions--questions from Members. Dr.
    Adams, I am sorry. Mr. Wahlberg, our Ranking Member, North
    Carolina.
        Mr. Walberg. I love North Carolina--
        Chairwoman Wilson. Michigan.
        Mr. Walberg.--but I choose the beautiful state of Michigan.
    Home of 20 percent of the world's freshwater and a beautiful
    color scheme right now but North Carolina is a beautiful state
    to vacation in.
        Ms. Greszler, Republicans have long championed the
    expansion of association health plans as an effective and
    affordable health care solution for many workers. In 2017, I
    was proud to introduce the Small Business Health Fairness Act
    with former Representative Sam Johnson to expand access to high
    quality, lower cost healthcare plans for employers and workers
    and see it pass the House.
        The Department of Labor has also done important work to
    expand access so to HP's by allowing more employers and small
    business to participate in these plans.
        In April, I also introduce H.R. 2294, the Association
    Health Plan Act of 2019 which would ensure continued access to
    coverage for association health plans established under DOL's
    AHP rule.
        In your testimony, you mentioned that expanding access to
    HP's would give workers more choice, portability and
    portability for their healthcare benefits.
        Let me ask you this question. Why are choice and access
    important to workers and do you think that increasing an
    availability of AHP's will benefit workers and their families?
        Ms. Greszler. Yes, thank you. We have actually done some
    polling on this at the Heritage Foundation and we found that
    what is most important to families is to have a choice and feel
    like they are empowered in being able to get access for
    themselves and for their loved members and to make some
    decisions about what type of healthcare they receive. And
    that's why association health plans are so important
    particularly for smaller business.
        There are a lot of costs associated with finding a health
    plan and running that and this association health plan model
    drives down those costs not only administratively but also by
    bringing together a pool of workers so that they can offer a
    lower price.
        And that's something that's particularly important to these
    small businesses and something that they have trouble is
    finding an affordable health plan that both they and their
    workers can use for their healthcare. So small businesses this
    is something that would help them tremendously.
        Mr. Walberg. And they generally want a partner with that
    because of I guess what I would question I would like to ask
    you now about the tight labor market that is out there. We know
    that job creators offer benefits such as health insurance
    plans. We talked about retirement contributions, paid leave to
    recruit and retain workers. It is just a matter of course that
    is necessary to have those employees.
        We also know that thanks to a strong economy spurred on by
    our Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and deregulatory actions there are
    more jobs than job seekers. About 7 million the last figure I
    saw. So again, how does todays tight labor market affect
    employee benefits?
        Ms. Greszler. Well, we are still seeing companies expand
    their benefits because of the tight labor market. Something
    they have to do. They're having to compete to get the workers
    that they need.
        Mr. Walberg. Competition.
        Ms. Greszler. There are people out there that are offering
    thousand dollar signing bonuses in lower wage jobs. We have
    seen a race to the top in the type of benefits that people are
    offering.
        They're even health insurance and pet insurance because
    that's what some workers are asking for. And paid family leave
    has expanded rapidly.
        We now have the top 20 employers in the U.S., a lot of
    these that are employing lower wage works like Lowes, Home
    Depot, Starbucks, they now all offer paid family leave because
    it's something that their workers want and they're responding
    to that.
        Mr. Walberg. And competition.
        Ms. Greszler. And competition.
        Mr. Walberg. Yeah. Ms. Greszler, many businesses use
    subcontractors and independent contracts because this framework
    allows for flexibility, ready access to skilled workers, and
    the ability to responsibly manage costs.
        These relationships are particularly important for
    businesses that operate on thin margins such as small, rural
    hospitals and I have a number of those, allowing them to
    dedicate more resources to patient care.
        The Democrats bill H.R. 2474, the PRO Act, which was
    recently approved by this committee as indicated, codifies a
    broad and vague standard for joint employment that could make
    these hospitals the employer of the independent contractor or
    contractor's employees.
        What are the primary concerns you have with this joint
    employer standard in the PRO Act as it pertains to businesses
    and workers alike?
        Ms. Greszler. Particularly as you talked about smaller,
    rural hospitals, a lot of the businesses simply won't be able
    to offer the services they currently do or the quality of
    service that's offered there.
        I grew up in a small town in western New York and after my
    father and some of the other orthopedic surgeons retired, there
    were none there and so they had to contract to bring some in.
        Similarly, my uncle is a retired physician and it's a job
    that he can do, the kind of traveling doctor model. And so
    you're bringing people who have higher skills than are
    available in that community and as a result, patients have
    access to that higher quality, more specialized care.
        And that's the biggest benefit of contracting is you get a
    more specialized product as opposed to having to use one of
    your current employees to perform say 5 different jobs that
    they aren't necessarily equipped to do.
        Mr. Walberg. So better quality and care.
        Ms. Greszler. Exactly.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you. Dr. Adams, North Carolina.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you to all
    the witnesses. Dr. Weil, currently misclassification is not
    itself a violation of the Labor--Fair Labor Standards Act so
    how would making misclassification a violation of FLSA and
    allowing civil monetary penalties in a private right of action
    for violations help combat misclassification?
        Mr. Weil. Thank you, Chair Adams, and you've pointed to a
    major problem of misclassification and that is because of its
    use by some employers, it undercuts the competitive position of
    other employers by make--and because misclassification in and
    of itself is not a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
    it's very difficult to root out those businesses that are using
    it as a competitive edge by providing penalties expressly for
    the active misclassification and the willful act of
    misclassification.
        It would act as a deterrence for those kinds of models,
    stopping the employers who are using it as a business model
    decision, and it would also support those businesses that are
    doing the right thing in complying with the law in terms of
    their competitive position.
        Ms. Adams. Great, thank you. Dr. Weil, while you discuss in
    your testimony that wage theft related to the fissuring of work
    place can be devastating to low wage workers in terms of lost
    earnings, can you elaborate on what the loss of earnings means
    to a worker practically?
        Mr. Weil. Thank you. You know, I think one of the starkest
    things I saw as Wage and Hour Administrator were the actual
    cases of the impacts of the loss of wages by hardworking people
    because of practices like misclassification.
        Because of the fact that they were not being compensated,
    not just for the minimum wage but even for hours worked. For a
    typical family that could mean up to 4 weeks or 5 weeks of
    childcare. It could mean the practical things like not being
    able to pay rent for a month.
        Because so much of misclassification affects low wage
    workers, its impacts are magnified because of how tight those
    household budgets are and because in many cases their real
    wages haven't gone up in decades.
        Ms. Adams. Yes, and many folks are just kind of living
    paycheck to pay check and if it is not--if it is not going to
    be correct then that is a problem.
        Mr. Weil. Right.
        Ms. Adams. So during the Obama Administration, OSHA defined
    a policy where it would hold both temporary worker agencies and
    host employers responsible for safety and health violations
    depending on the circumstances of the specific case.
        Can you describe for us how that works and whether it is an
    effective way of ensuring the safety of workers employed by
    temporary agencies?
        Mr. Weil. Yes, thank you for the question. OSHA's temporary
    work policy was very much a recognition of what had changed in
    the workplace. And it used the fact that it holds responsible
    not just the direct employer but what is called the controlling
    employer which can be the company that's hiring the staffing
    agency or temporary working agency also responsible for
    complying with laws.
        And that requirement for both parties who both have a stake
    in the game to take responsibility for compliance with OSHA was
    an extremely important part of OSHA's enforcement policy and
    improving or reducing the likelihoods of injuries and
    fatalities particularly in complicated work settings where you
    do have multiple employers.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you. Ms. Beck, do you believe that your
    employment practices have a positive impact on your brand?
        Ms. Beck. Thank you for the question. I generally believe
    that investing in good employment practices is good for
    business and our business at large. And for us, our brand is
    the thing that we promise to our customers. So investing in a
    good employment practice enhances our brand, provides our
    customers with a better product, increases customer
    satisfaction.
        Ms. Adams. So are you saying that it does have, your
    practices do have positive impact on your brand?
        Ms. Beck. I believe that to be true, yes.
        Ms. Adams. Okay. Thank you very much, Madame Chair, I yield
    back.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you. Now, Dr. Roe, Tennessee.
        Dr. Roe. Thank you, Madame Chair. I don't know what economy
    we are describing, but in my lifetime, this is the best one I
    have seen.
        We have 7 million open jobs. The unemployment rate is 3 and
    a half percent, it is the lowest since 1969. Median incomes are
    up 12 percent. Real median household incomes are up $7,000
    under the Trump Administration to $65,000 plus.
        African American teens, unemployment in 2010 was 48
    percent. It is now at a record low. African American
    unemployment is at 6 percent. Latino, the lowest on record. I
    mean, these are all things we should be celebrating and talking
    about and how we improved that.
        And one of the things I think that Ms. Beck, and I totally
    agree with your business model. And when you are done, would
    you come, please send your people over and show me how to use
    this electronic thermostat I have at my condo. That would be
    very helpful because I can't figure it out.
        It is a model that you have that we used in our practice
    forever. We have an employee that has been with my medical
    practice for 42 years. And I hope you have the same success we
    have.
        and, Ms. Greszler, I'm going to go over just a couple of
    things I think that are important in the sharing economy. When
    I was a resident physician, we didn't make very much money and
    so I needed to go out and work in emergency rooms to make extra
    money to support my family.
        That is exactly what you were talking about. I went into
    rural communities and worked a shift at night or maybe worked
    the entire weekend to help support my family. It worked
    perfectly.
        The other day I got in an Uber with my wife to go to an
    event. The person was, who drove the Uber was a flight
    attendant who had rented a car that you could get off the
    street, she wanted to make some money so she could work that
    weekend to make a little, have some fun that weekend and not
    spend any of her hard earned money she makes on an airplane
    taking care of me. And she rented the car, drove the Uber and
    pocketed the money. I can't think of anything that works
    better.
        I thought it was one of the neatest things I have seen in
    that type of economy, to let people decide what is good for
    them. And right now, the things that we need in this country,
    workers, and Ms. Beck pointed it out are workers with skills
    both hard and soft skills.
        And I think that is what is lacking at the lower end and in
    our state we are, in Tennessee, we are trying to do that,
    providing free community college and free technical school for
    people to bring those skill levels up so they can make more
    money and they're more employable.
        The--just as an independent contracting, Ms. Greszler, as
    an independent contacting varies by industry, the one size fits
    all policy ignores the complexity and nuances that I just
    mentioned of such work arrangements and the value they bring to
    the economy.
        In your opinion, how would this change in the Nations
    employment laws affect the millions of hair dressers, child
    care workers, other professionals who currently rely on those
    flexible work arrangements afforded them by their designation
    as an independent contractor?
        Ms. Greszler. Well, I think independent work the biggest
    benefit of it is the flexibility and also the ability to earn
    additional income. There is no cap on the income you earn.
        When you are in a traditional employer employee
    relationship, you are often limited 40 hour per week to your
    salary and often prevented from working from anybody else.
        Only 16 percent of people who participate in the gig
    economy use it as their primary from of income. A lot of them
    are just working on the side and whether that's just to have
    some extra spending money, to save for education for their
    children, maybe for their own education, or to start a business
    of their own to have some income that is coming in while you
    are becoming an entrepreneur, those are all things that are the
    choices those individuals make and they lead to better outcomes
    going forward.
        And so I don't see how restricting people from being able
    to earn additional income and being able to have flexibility
    will be helpful going forward. Flexibility is something that's
    been particularly helpful to women who are now in the labor
    market in equal numbers and without that I think we will have a
    lot of mothers that simply choose not to work at all because
    they can't find a job that meets their demands.
        Dr. Roe. You know, people are renting out part of their
    homes, sharing their homes. There is all kinds of things that
    benefit everyone.
        Professor Rogers, I have got one question for you. I know
    you support the PRO Act, but do you support the part in there
    that doesn't allow for a secret ballot?
        We just had a letter written by many members of the, I
    would have signed the letter, on the USMCA agreement requiring
    a secret ballot for unions in Mexico.
        And, look, if you want to belong to a union that is your
    business. You have a right to do that. I think that is the
    single most important thing we have as an American is a secret
    ballot.
        Mr. Rogers. I support the majority sign up procedure under
    the PRO Act.
        Dr. Roe. The question I asked was do you support a secret
    ballot so that I can go in there if I want to vote for a union
    I can, if I want to vote against it I can. Nobody looking over
    my shoulder.
        Mr. Rogers. So the problem is that workers under existing
    law can demonstrate unambiguously that they want a union and
    their employer can refuse to recognize that union--
        Dr. Roe. My time has expired. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you. Mr. Courtney from
    Connecticut.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, and thank you
    to all the witnesses for being here today. Particularly, Ms.
    Beck, again for your testimony that shows that innovation and
    flexibility in a workforce are not incompatible with the
    employer employee relationship.
        And again, I think it is just a really impressive bit of
    testimony today that is refreshing, you know, to sort of
    reiterate that point.
        Dr. Weil, you proposed ensuring that certain basic
    protections are tethered to work rather than to the employment
    relationship and this includes ensuring all workers no matter
    their classification as paid for their work earn a minimum wage
    are guaranteed a basic right to a safe working environment.
        Can you just sort of flesh that out a little bit that, you
    know, you know, how this would actually work in practice that
    using work as the trigger as opposed to the employment
    relationship?
        Mr. Weil. Thank you, Congressman Courtney. I think what we
    are talking about is a core set of rights that are so
    fundamental, we want to get out of this box are you an employee
    or are you an independent contractor.
        Those are legitimate and important categories that I think
    play very important roles in our workplace and labor laws. But
    things like not being retaliated against for the use of rights
    which is fundamental to our whole system of workplace rights,
    being assured a safe and healthful workplace and being assured
    that you will be paid for the work you do to me are fundamental
    features that we should make sure people receive regardless of
    their employment status whether they are an employee or an
    independent contractor.
        The mechanisms to ensure those might differ somewhat but
    you want to make sure that those ends happen when a person is
    at a workplace. And we get out of this box of figuring out for
    something so fundamental.
        Mr. Courtney. Again, based on your background, I mean,
    would, again, for example right to getting paid for your work,
    I mean, tied to work rather than employment necessarily. I
    mean, would that be housed in your old division at the
    Department of Labor? I mean, is that sort of the--I mean, at
    some point we have to deal with legal structures here.
        Mr. Weil. Right, right. I think it could be. I think it
    could be and I think we are talking about provision of minimum
    payment for work whether that work is done through an
    employment setting or an independent contract setting.
        I think the most important thing is to assure that those
    rules are clear to all people who employ people and that they
    make their decisions accordingly.
        Mr. Courtney. Okay. And again, I know you have done, you
    know, great work on this issue, written books and so in the
    course of your research, do we have any idea about the number
    of workers who are not covered by OSHA as a result of the
    fissuring workplaces?
        Mr. Weil. Well, the most direct answer to that would be we
    know that self-employed workers have no coverage under OSHA.
    And if you look at that that's 16 million workers right there.
        The estimate I gave before that roughly somewhere between
    20 percent up of the workforce is in fissured relationships, I
    think also gives one a sense of the lack of coverage of so many
    of those workers.
        Mr. Courtney. And because of that lack of OSHA protection,
    I mean, do we have any sense of just, you know, the risk level
    and the exposure to injury and fatalities as a result of that,
    you know, shortcoming?
        Mr. Weil. Absolutely, I mean, I can give you two quick
    examples. One is a story that happened for Amazon Flex workers.
    Amazon Flex workers deliver packages to people but are paid as
    independent contractors.
        There have been a number of cases reported of fatalities
    for those flex workers working long hours and because of the
    incentive structures.
        It's also becoming more common in the meat packing industry
    which we know is a very dangerous industry for certain work to
    be done at night by subcontractors and increasingly that
    practice as we have found in many other parts of the economy,
    that subcontracting is done to people paid as independent
    contractors.
        And again because of that misclassification, those workers
    in very dangerous settings have no OSHA coverage.
        Mr. Courtney. Well, thank you for, you know, again putting
    the focus on that. I am, you know, certainly believe that as a
    committee and as a Congress, you know, we can figure this out,
    you know. This is really not mission impossible in terms of
    providing basic protections for people and still allowing
    companies like Ms. Beck to innovate and thrive and succeed.
        And, you know, to say that they are incompatible and that
    we just have to kind of totally release people into this brave
    new world in my opinion is just an unacceptable level of risk.
    And we again as a country we can do better than that. I yield
    back.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Courtney. My Byrne.
        Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
        Chairwoman Wilson. From Alabama.
        Mr. Byrne. Good morning, everybody. In my prior life I was
    a labor and employment attorney representing small to medium
    sized businesses. And you can sort of picture my clients. They
    don't have HR directors because they can't afford HR directors.
    They are just trying to make their business go. And it is hard.
    It is hard to run a business these days.
        And so when we add complexity to the laws that they have to
    comply with, you leave them with one of two choices. One is to
    go through an inordinate amount of expense to try to get legal
    advice so that they comply with the law. Or that they
    inadvertently fail to comply with the law.
        That is not helping the American economy and that is
    certainly not helping the people that work for those small
    businesses. So I look at the definition of employee in this PRO
    Act, I got to tell you, even as a lawyer, I look at that, I
    would have a hard time advising some of my clients whose an
    employee and whose not. Who is an employer and who is not.
        We actually had a meeting a year or so ago. We met with
    some gig workers and one guy as I recall was both an Uber and a
    Lyft driver.
        And I asked him I said do you consider yourself to be an
    employee or an independent contractor? And he said I consider
    myself to be a franchisee. I said well, I know you are not
    that. But even he was confused.
        So I am trying to think who we are benefiting here with all
    of this. Now, I know that there is a big push out there to
    totally destabilize the equilibrium between labor and
    management under our labor laws.
        Because unions even under a very friendly administration,
    the Obama Administration, continued to lose market share
    because what unions are selling, workers aren't buying. They
    don't have the stuff that workers are looking for.
        So we think by piling on these sorts of definitions,
    somehow we are going to give the unions a better chance here. I
    don't think so. I think you are just going to make things work
    for small or medium sized business and for those people that
    work there. Because all they want is a job.
        And, Ms. Greszler, you are right. There are lots of young
    women out there that they want a job but they want to control
    their hours and so they want to work for themselves.
        But if we make it so difficult for a business to know when
    somebody is an independent contractor when they are an
    employee, those businesses are just going to say well, I am
    just not going to hire anybody. I am going to quit doing it
    which means we have cut out opportunities for those young women
    that have those business. I have got them in my own family.
        [The statement by Mr. Byrne follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Bradley Byrne, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
                    on Subcommittee on Workforce Protections

        Thank you for yielding.
        American workers are benefitting from a strong economy ushered in
    by Republican pro-growth policies. Wages are on the rise, jobs are
    being created, and unemployment is at a 50-year low.
        Instead of building on these successes, Democrats in Congress are
    advocating policies that will take our labor laws and economy
    backwards.
        Specifically, Democrats are pushing legislation that will severely
    restrict the independent-contractor classification, increasing costs
    and legal risks to business owners.
        These efforts are ongoing even despite the fact that many Americans
    in the modern economy desire to work for themselves on their own terms.
    Workers recognize and seek out the freedom and flexibility these
    arrangements provide. This is a growing trend among American workers
    that should be encouraged, not impeded.
        Yet, Democrats want to penalize this kind of entrepreneurship by
    creating an expansive, confusing definition of ``employee,'' which will
    increase costs for business owners as well as consumers, while limiting
    work opportunities for individuals who desire flexibility rather than
    working for only one employer or being forced into a one-size-fits-all
    union contract.
        Democrats claim that many if not all employers are intentionally
    misclassifying workers to deny them protections and benefits. But under
    the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) there are already sufficient
    incentives for employers not to misclassify workers. Indeed, there is a
    great deal of misinformation out there about the issue of worker
    misclassification. In fact, during our last subcommittee hearing on
    this issue, a witness confused the source and substance of a related
    statistic with misquoted data erroneously attributed to the federal
    government. As we proceed to examine these issues, it is important we
    create and develop policy based on the best and most accurate
    information possible. It's not all bad news. The Department of Labor
    (DOL) has taken steps to improve clarity and flexibility for workers
    and employers alike, empowering workers to earn more in the strong U.S.
    economy. For example, DOL's recent overtime rule provided a
    responsible, reasonable solution that will allow more than a million
    additional workers to qualify for overtime pay without significantly
    increasing the burden on employers.
        Additionally, DOL and the National Labor Relations Board are
    working on proposed rules to update the standard for joint-employment
    under the FLSA and National Labor Relations Act, respectively. These
    updates will create clear, precise standards so that workers know
    upfront who controls the terms of their employment and with whom they
    will negotiate wages and benefits, and businesses know upfront the
    extent of control they can exercise without subjecting themselves to
    unwanted union harassment and costly litigation. The Trump
    administration's joint-employer standards will replace unworkable Obama
    administration standards that increased compliance costs and created
    confusion for workers and businesses alike.
        We need more policies like these that reflect the realities of a
    21st century workforce. Rather than supporting backward-looking
    proposals which promote outdated workplace policies, Republicans
    champion reforms that expand opportunities for flexibility, innovation,
    and entrepreneurship to give workers and job-seekers opportunities to
    compete successfully in the 21st century economy.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
        Thank you, I yield back.
                                    ------

        Mr. Byrne. So, Ms. Greszler, let me ask you. In light of
    this definition that they have got of employee and employer
    under PRO Act and based upon your expertise, do you believe
    punishing small businesses with costly fines for
    misinterpreting under workable definition of employee is the
    right approach?
        Ms. Greszler. No. I think you will end up driving these
    small businesses out of business. The PRO Act includes a
    $100,000 fine for misclassifying an employee. The average
    income of a small business owner is $73,000 per year. That
    would wipe out more than their entire income for the year.
    These small business owners simply can't pay that fine, but
    they also can't comply with the law. It's so vague what the
    definition is now under those provisions of an employee versus
    a contractor that they're probably just going to not hire any
    contactors anymore.
        As a result of that you have less specialized services, you
    are having lower quality that you are providing to your
    customers. You are going to end up losing those customers to
    the bigger businesses that do have the money to pay for the
    expensive lawyers to tell them whether, what they need to do in
    terms of contract versus employee relationships.
        It's just going to benefit the big guys and drive out the
    little guys.
        Mr. Byrne. Now that and that is what I am most worried
    about. You are right. The big guy is going to take care of
    themselves. They will be fine. I am not worried about them.
        But most people I America work for small to medium size
    business. Now you go into an area like the I represent in south
    Alabama, we don't have that many big businesses. Most people,
    the vast majority of people work in a small or medium sized
    business.
        And most of those people just want to go to work every day,
    do their job, get paid fairly, get fair benefits, and all this
    stuff we are arguing about up here doesn't mean a hill of beans
    to them. It really doesn't. But we would make things all this
    complicated to try to solve a problem that is not really there.
        So, Professor Rogers, I am going to ask Dr. Roe's question
    again. It is a real simple question. Yes or no. Do you support
    secret ballot elections?
        Mr. Rogers. I support secret ballot elections in instances
    where employees have a legitimate right to choose a union. And
    you--
        Mr. Byrne. Do you think they don't have that now under
    present law?
        Mr. Rogers.--we have found under our existing law and
    practices that there, those rights are simply illusory.
        Mr. Byrne. Well, I can tell you from my experience and I
    have done dozens of union elections, you are absolutely wrong.
    They have plenty of rights. They exercise those rights and
    taking away their right to exercise that ballot secretly would
    be a slap in their face and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Byrne. Mr. Morelle, New
    York.
        Mr. Morelle. Good morning, thank you, Chairman Wilson--
    Chairwoman Wilson and Chairwoman Adams, for holding this
    hearing and to all of our witnesses for being here today to
    share their expertise as we discuss the future of work and I am
    struck by this.
        I don't see this necessarily although I understand why
    people draw this conclusion. The question before us today is
    really about independent contractors, the fissured work place
    and not whether you are pro union or non-union. This is really
    about how we properly classify people for the work that they
    do. And the United States is witnessing a rapidly changing
    workforce as the 21st century economy continues to unfold, and
    it is critical seems to me that we consider the future of work
    but we also consider the future of worker benefits.
        And we know that when an employer-employee relationship
    exists, the employee has access to core statutory protections
    under the NLRB, FLSA, and OSHA but that isn't the case when you
    are classified as an independent contractor.
        So this is really important as we sort of consider this.
    And there is obviously questions to access to health coverage,
    retirement plans, paid leave, workers compensation, and
    unemployment insurance all of which is by no means guaranteed
    if you are an independent contractor.
        I do want to get to another topic, but I was struck by
    something I didn't entirely plan to ask about but, Ms. Beck, I
    am just curious about the model that you use.
        Are the, are your employees, do they work as other platform
    opportunities where the worker makes the decisions about when
    he or she is available for work? Do you sort of log on when you
    are available to work or are there set hours? How does that
    model work?
        Ms. Beck. Thank you, that's a great question. For us so we
    do provide all of the protections, benefits, wage, insurance,
    that are commensurate with a W-2 employee relationship. And we
    also provide sort of a fixed hours in which you can work but
    that doesn't mean that every worker of ours works all of those
    hours.
        So within the guidelines that we provide, workers have,
    they work independently, they work autonomously, and they check
    in and check out as appropriate.
        Mr. Morelle. So if just to--if I am a worker and I
    typically work 9 to 5 but on some morning I have to take my,
    you know, family member to the doctor and so for those two
    hours I am not available, is there a bank of hours that you
    don't have to work or is it simply that they indicate that they
    are not available for that time and work their own hours? And
    is there a minimum number of hours they have to work weekly or
    how, I am just trying to understand the model because it does
    seem very innovative.
        But it also seems, I am just trying to understand if it
    works like the other platforms do who argue that they must be
    independent contractors and not employees?
        Ms. Greszler. I think our business model is, you know, we
    have designed the system that we use based on our business
    model. So but to answer your question directly, there is no
    minimum number of hours that an employee has to work on our
    platform although most choose to work 4 or 5 days a week.
        If someone has to take time off they ask for it, they clock
    out, and then they clock back in when they need to come back.
        Mr. Morelle. So there is not you have X number of sick days
    or X number of vacation days. They just sort of work when they
    choose to work?
        Ms. Greszler. We have sick days and vacation days
    commensurate with the laws that we otherwise follow but it is
    flexible within those guidelines.
        Mr. Morelle. Great. Well, thank you very much and I agree
    and associate myself with my colleague and friend, Mr.
    Courtney's remarks that it does seem to me that you can do this
    and still have an innovative model for your business.
        It clearly, I don't think to those who make the argument
    that you can't have innovation when you continue to have an
    employer employee relationship and I think your example gives
    evidence of that.
        I wanted to just shift for a second and I know I only have
    a minute but thinking about retirement plans particularly as
    there is a current retirement crisis facing our country and too
    many people, young people in particular building towards their
    retirement and I thought perhaps, Professor Rogers, you might
    just--can you comment on how classifying workers as independent
    contractors makes it more challenging for people to have
    adequate retirement?
        Mr. Rogers. Sure and thank you for the question. I think
    this occurs in a couple ways. So, if we are talking about the
    lower wage workforce, individuals who are classified as
    independent contractors often have lower pay than individuals
    who are classified as employees as Dr. Weil indicated. Because
    of that there is simply less money to go into retirement funds
    even when they're available.
        The second reason is that many if not most companies do not
    provide such funds to independent contractors, the savings
    vehicles that they would provide to employees.
        Mr. Morelle. This is a great topic. Thank you, Madames
    Chairs, for it. Obviously, I am out of time but I think we will
    have further discussion and I appreciate it.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Morelle. Mr. Taylor from
    Texas.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you, Madame
    Chair, appreciate this hearing and appreciate to the witnesses.
        Ms. Greszler, you actually represent diversity on this
    panel. You are the only one without a Harvard degree. Nobody
    got that one. All right.
        So I just wanted to, you know, I am very fortunate to
    represent a very successful community in Plano, Texas which
    actually has the highest per capita income city in North
    America with over a quarter million people.
        And I have employers that have pursued a W-2 employee
    strategy and I have employers that have pursued aggressive use
    of the 1099 structure, you know, for instance, insurance
    companies use 1099 contractors to do insurance adjusting. That
    is the normal model for insurance adjustment.
        And 1099 contractors will, and many IT professionals in
    Plano Texas that are using the 1099 model to go in and do piece
    work, right. So they are building a particular technology
    platform, it is a two, three month job. They are going and
    doing that for the next company. They are doing that remotely
    and so the 1099 prospect it just it is a better way for them to
    do that business.
        One thing that I have noticed is my state is a right to
    work state and businesses that come into my state consistently
    talk about how that is a feature, that is why they come to
    Texas. We have, you know, very low unemployment.
        Actually, our income growth in the state of Texas in the
    first two quarters this year was 7 and a half percent. Just so
    just staggering increasing in income growth in Texas as a right
    to work state.
        One thing that I have noticed looking at the charts is that
    union membership among young people is actually going down,
    right. So younger and so it is not only are you seeing total
    numbers for union membership go down, but you are seeing the
    younger, the new generation seems to be less union oriented,
    particularly in the technology space which I have a lot of
    technology companies in my district.
        Can you speak to why that is? I mean, what is going on?
    What in your mind giving a National trend, I see that locally
    but what do you see on a National level?
        Ms. Greszler. Well, I think younger workers prefer having
    more autonomy and they also want a structure that not only lets
    them be rewarded for the things that they achieve, a pay for
    performance type structure, but also something that's not just
    a rigid ladder.
        It has no, you know, they want no cap. They want to have
    open opportunities so that they can say my income might double
    in 2 years instead of I know it's going to raise three percent
    every year and not go beyond that.
        And so they want more options and that's not something that
    unions are offering. Instead, you know, the unions are rigid
    pay scales and they're providing services that frankly are not
    representing the workers themselves and I think that is why we
    see a decline in the desire to be a member when a worker
    actually has a choice as they do in Texas is that people are
    choosing not to be there anymore because they don't want to pay
    for something that's not benefitting them.
        And they also don't want to pay for other things that are
    taking place in terms of lobbying against policies they might
    be against, corruption that's happening in the unions. These
    are hard earned dollars and if you are going to be contributing
    hundreds if not a thousand dollars of your paycheck to a union,
    you want to see it benefitting you directly.
        Mr. Taylor. Now in the, the other thing I just want to talk
    about, you know, just going to talk about the economy growing
    generally and how as unions decline, the economy continues to
    improve. I mean, is there a correlation there or is that just
    something that is happening?
        Ms. Greszler. No its absolutely--you can compare the right
    to work states versus the non-right to work states and over the
    past 25 years, median income growth and that's what we are
    talking about here is we want workers' wages to go up. It's
    increased 165 percent in right to work states compared to 99
    percent in the non-right to work states.
        And it's the same thing when you look at employment growth.
    Look at GDP growth. It's all far higher in those states that
    are right to work that give workers those choices in the, as a
    result of choice as more opportunity.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you. And, Ms. Beck, just to talk about
    your business model and it is interesting to hear how you
    think, thought through the 1099 contractor versus the W-2 and I
    think you have really made the right choice for your business.
        But, I mean, have you ever or would you ever consider
    hiring a 1099 contractor to come in and evaluate your HR system
    or to, you know, do some IT work or are you just sort of
    ideologically opposed to 1099 contractors, you would never
    consider hiring one?
        Ms. Beck. Thank you. It's a great question. At the end of
    the day, I think every business has to make the choices that
    both benefit its, you know, business but also its workers. So
    as a, you know, blank statement we are not opposed to 1099
    contractors for everything.
        Mr. Taylor. Okay.
        Ms. Beck. I just think that when you are thinking about you
    own workforce and your front-line staff and the people who are
    really driving the core of your business, then the relationship
    has to be the right relationship. And for us, that was a W-2
    relationship versus a 1099.
        Mr. Taylor. Sure, no and I appreciate that at the core of a
    business and again, you know, at least, you know, in Plano,
    Texas we have a numerous businesses that are enormously
    successful that pay very well that are using the 1099 model to
    grow their business and provide a really good lifestyle for the
    people that had the fortune of living in Colin County. Madame
    Chair, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr.
    Norcross, New jersey.
        Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Appreciate you holding this
    hearing and talking about the future. And really like the
    comments from all the folks who start talking about we can look
    at the future by looking at today.
        And, you know, the idea of somehow blaming every problem on
    the unions today it is just absolutely remarkable. I guess it
    is the only talking points we can get across. So there are
    other things other than that.
        Having spent close to 40 years in the business, when we
    talk about corruption where we hear that. It is in the business
    side of the equation. There are bad people everywhere. But your
    very own statistics saying that union membership is declining
    yet you are blaming everything on the unions is just
    remarkable. So I will just leave that.
        Let us talk about the gig economy and the subcontractors or
    the misclassification. Yeah. This is a great entrepreneurial
    spirit. I want to become my own boss, but you know what, I want
    more than one customer.
        Mr. Uber of the world, you are my only customer and I am an
    independent contractor so now I become my own HR manager. I
    become my own tax consultant. I am my own safety director, so I
    am up on all the current issues. I am my own lawyer because I
    might get sued. I am my own mechanic because now I have to take
    care of that vehicle. And oh yes, I am my own retirement
    consultant so when I get to those golden years, I might have a
    few dollars put away.
        So the idea of wanting to take on all that responsibility
    so you can make minimum wage is just beyond me why we think
    this is a really good idea.
        But let us just home in on one of those issue. Dr. Weil,
    OSHA. I now become an independent contractor. I am an
    electrician. I go into a refinery to work as that one-man job.
    Tell me, what are the chances of that worker being up to snuff
    on the OSHA regulations?
        Mr. Weil. That's a great question, Congressman Norcross.
    There are a few problems that worker has. Number one is as you
    say, the likelihood they understand the health and safety
    standards that should be protecting them is probably pretty low
    because for all the reasons you've just outlined.
        The real problem is if that person is self-employed
    independent contractor but is being put in that environment and
    sees a problem, that person has no standing because of that
    status.
        So our laws make it very difficult for that person to do
    anything because of that status. So it's that, those coupling
    of that problem of both the likelihood they don't have the
    information they need in a case like OSHA and then the absence
    of their right to complain which is basic to the whole OSHA
    system working.
        Mr. Norcross. And the legal side of it they are now because
    they are their own company, they are liable for any issues that
    happen on those jobs.
        Mr. Weil. That's right. That's true.
        Mr. Norcross. So there is a difference between staring your
    own company and growing it and we don't want to dissuade
    anybody from going and building that great company. But the gig
    worker is completely different.
        Do you think anybody from Uber is putting away, I don't
    know 15 percent of the money they earn so that someday they
    will be able to retire? What are the chances?
        Mr. Weil. It's a huge challenge because that Uber driver,
    that Lyft driver, independent contractor working on a platform
    like that, not only is going to have to cover the expenses for
    things like gasoline obviously, for paying for expenses on
    their cars, for keeping their car up, but then there are all
    those hidden expenses that its very unlikely that they're
    putting money aside, like long term retirement. The other thing
    I would add to that is the Uber platform is really a branded
    business. I mean, we have a verb we use. We say we are going to
    Uber somewhere.
        Now that to me says you have a brand there that employs
    very cleverly a large group of people to make it work but all
    the terms that matter to an independent contractor, a true
    independent contractor are being determined by the platform.
        Mr. Norcross. So this isn't just to beat up Uber, it is
    just as you said it is a verb and when we look at their model
    of innovation doing it through the app I think is wonderful.
        The idea of making everybody a subcontractor so they defer
    all those costs. The Uber driver pays his own Social Security,
    right? Both sides of that equation. If there is not enough
    work, do they collect unemployment?
        Mr. Weil. No, they don't. They are not covered by
    unemployment insurance as an independent contractor.
        Mr. Norcross. So with my 5 seconds left I want to make a
    distinction. There is a difference between becoming an
    entrepreneur, starting your own company and trying to just
    deter fault for your cause of being an employee. With that I
    yield back.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Norcross. Dr. Shalala of
    Florida.
        Ms. Shalala. Thank you very much, Madame Chair. I do want
    to point out that the House of Representatives does not have an
    HR office which I think we should have obviously.
        But, Dean Weil, I, you have worked in the Department of
    Labor and the Hour and Wage Division if I remember correctly
    was founded in 1938 and you talked about only having 1,000
    employees.
        Would it have made a difference if you had 5,000? Have you
    thought about how we would manage enforcement in a gig economy,
    in this new economy with lots of independent contractors?
        And how we would think about reorganizing not only that
    division but the entire Department of Labor?
        Mr. Weil. Thank you, Congresswoman Shalala, for that
    excellent question. That represents I think one of the biggest
    challenge we faced was the fact that we had 1,000 investigators
    to cover 7.3 million workplaces. That is a challenge that any
    enforcement agency always has.
        But when you layer on it the complexity of what has
    happened with all of the different forms of subcontracting and
    independent contracting, it makes it incredibly difficult for
    an enforcement agency, whether its Wage and Hour or OSHA or any
    enforcement agency to undertake its task as required by the
    law.
        I think it requires one to think differently which we tried
    to do, be more strategic in how you use those scarce resources
    and even with more resources you would still have to make the
    tough choices about where you prioritize your enforcement so
    that it really has an impact on compliance and improving
    compliance.
        Ms. Shalala. So have you also thought about, I have been on
    the website 1,000 times about information for individual
    contractors that is usable so that they know what their rights
    are.
        It seems to be that you have to almost re-conceptualize the
    whole concept of enforcement if we are moving to this kind of
    an economy.
        Mr. Weil. I think that's very true. I think that one has to
    think about the whole tool box. That enforcement and vigorous
    enforcement is foundational but there is also things as you
    state like education, outreach, trying to make people aware
    about what the law says they're supposed to do.
        We use for instance administrator interpretations because
    we wanted to inform the employer community about what the law
    says and what the responsibilities were.
        Ms. Shalala. Thank you. Professor Rogers, how do you think
    about whether benefits, a benefit package ought to be provided
    by the public sector versus the private sector?
        You are at Temple which is on TIAA-CREF I think. And for
    those of us that are academics, we have a mobile, that is
    unless our states don't have their own systems, we have a
    mobile system. I have been in, taught in 5 universities and so
    I have TIAA-CREF, you know, in all of those places and
    cumulatively it doesn't matter where I have gone, I have had
    the same pension system.
        Mr. Rogers. So thank you for the question, Congresswoman
    Shalala. TIAA-CREF is a great example of a portable benefits
    system that actually works quite well. Because you have a large
    number of university and college professors around the country
    that are able to participate and multiple employers in the
    different universities participate as well.
        You know, I think that's a model that can be replicated in
    the industries where we have many, you know, multiple different
    employers but we would have to create incentives for those
    employers first off to treat their workers as employees and to
    give them generous benefits.
        Ms. Shalala. What about buying into those systems for
    individuals?
        Mr. Rogers. So this was--excuse me, what was the last part?
        Ms. Shalala. What about buying into those platforms for
    individuals?
        Mr. Rogers. So Washington State has created a mechanism
    where individuals and I believe very small companies can buy
    into a public benefits system. That I believe covers paid time
    off or paid leave.
        There was a proposal a couple of years ago to allow
    individuals to buy into CALPERS, the California Public Employee
    Retirement System.
        And there is a pretty strong economic argument for
    permitting that because the administrative costs are simply so
    low and because CALPERS can negotiate for much better
    investment rates, fees for investment providers.
        Ms. Shalala. Thank you very much. It seems to me this is
    the way we ought to think about it. What existing platforms can
    we use and rethinking the enforcement mechanisms at the same
    time. Thank you, Madame Chair.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Shalala. Mr. Scott,
    chair--oh, Dr. Foxx.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much--
        Chairwoman Wilson. I have you down as ex officio.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much, Chairman. I want to thank
    our panelists for being here today. Ms. Greszler, in your
    testimony you mentioned that the biggest growth component in
    the economy appears to be individuals who are supplementing
    traditional work with gig type work.
        This seems like an important point to consider when
    crafting Federal labor and employment policies. How should we
    account for the future growth of the sharing economy and the
    demands of modern workers who seek freedom and flexibility in
    their work arrangements?
        Ms. Greszler. Well, I think we shouldn't stop it from
    happening is the first thing. And we need to recognize that
    first the gig economy is a small portion of total employment.
    It's about 1 percent but it's a huge opportunity for workers.
    Workers aren't using that as their primary source of income. If
    you are an Uber driver and you want a steady job, you got a
    taxi cab company and you get that.
        These workers want something that is optional, that allows
    them to pick the jobs they do, the days they do them, and it's
    particularly beneficial to less experience or disadvantaged
    workers.
        Think of somebody who has a disability and they might not
    be able to wake up every day and be able to perform a 9 to 5
    job, but they can say hey, I feel good today, I can go out and
    drive Uber. I can do some things on Task Rabbit.
        And so we are going to isolate those people and force them
    to not having a job at all in some cases or not getting that
    additional income that they would like for whatever purpose it
    is if we try to just kill this sector of the economy.
        Mrs. Foxx. Of course, this way of work has been around
    since the beginning of time. When I was in college and working
    full time, I typed other people's papers at night to make a
    little extra money. So those of us who are ambitious and wanted
    to make money have always found ways to do this on the side.
        Ms. Greszler, Democrats are so certain that labor unions
    are the key to the future of work that they are willing to
    sacrifice workers own liberties to achieve the goal of enabling
    labor unions in all work places around the country. As you
    know, this committee recently approved H.R. 2474, the
    Protecting the Right to Organize Act on a party line vote after
    Democrats unanimously rejected dozens of amendments to preserve
    and protect workers' rights.
        What are some of the ways this radical bill undermines
    workers' rights in order to satisfy Democrats desire to force
    more workers into labor unions?
        Ms. Greszler. There's all sorts of problems here.
    Everything from taking away an employee's right to not pay a
    portion of their income into the dues of a union membership.
    Privacy implications here, having your personal information
    including your home address given to a union when you don't
    want that to happen.
        Having a third-party arbitrator step in, be the one that is
    in control of those negotiations.
        And then talking about the secret ballot election. I mean,
    that is the fundamental component of our democracy is that you
    have the right to choose, have a secret ballot and have nobody
    else look at that.
        If we are going to support this type of provision, I would
    ask those who do support it if you would also support having
    people who work for Donald Trump's campaign in the next
    election be the ones that go to individual homes and take the
    votes of individuals.
        Or do we think that instead, those people should be able to
    work and walk into a secret ballot to booth to cast their
    votes.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. It is especially ironic that these
    people want to only vote on the MCA if the, we force Mexico to
    have a secret ballot for union elections but not in this
    country.
        Ms. Greszler, in your testimony, you point to the fact that
    small businesses often use contractors. In fact, my husband and
    I have done that over the years as we were contractors. In
    fact, businesses with only 1 to 4 employees utilize 6.7
    contractors on average.
        Can you explain how contracting is beneficial to both the
    business and the contractor and what might be the impact that
    the Democrats desired definition of employee were to become the
    law?
        Ms. Greszler. Contracting is particularly crucial to
    smaller businesses and that's why we see them using more
    contractors.
        My sister owns her own veterinary clinic in the area. It's
    small and there is a number of female doctors there. It's
    primarily all female staff and she uses relief doctors to come
    in and that's the way they have been able to provide their
    employees with paid family leave.
        Without being able to use those relief doctors, they
    wouldn't be able to offer that. And so this is something that
    is so crucial to small businesses helping them thrive and grow.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. One more question. Can you elaborate
    on how Congress can better foster an environment that will lead
    to an even stronger economy, greater innovation, higher wages
    and more opportunity for American workers and businesses alike?
        Ms. Greszler. Freedom, opportunity, choices, you know, the
    tax cuts have been doing wonderful things for American
    families.
        The average family with children has $2900 more in their
    pocket every year. $45,000 over 10 years. And that gives them
    the choice. It gives them what they want to spend that money
    on. It helps them afford childcare, all types of opportunities
    going forward.
        So whatever we can do on the tax side, a lot of Americans
    don't realize that's actually everyone's biggest expense. They
    spend more on taxes than they do on food, clothing and housing
    combined.
        So let's lower those tax burdens, and also on the
    regulatory side, this is just a huge burden. I don't think that
    many people have had the experience of running a small business
    or even employing one person but it's incredibly complex and
    there is this great fear about doing something wrong and being
    charged huge fines as a result of that and so whatever we can
    do to reduce those burdens going forward.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madame chairman.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Mr. Scott, our chair--
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madame Chair.
        Chairwoman Wilson.--education and labor.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Dr. Weil, 5 minutes went by pretty
    quickly and I think there was, did you get to answer all the
    questions I think the strategic enforcement was the, what was
    left off of your statement. Were you able to get that, what you
    wanted to say in?
        Mr. Weil. I did but I would be delighted to talk further
    about the importance of that in this workplace.
        Mr. Scott. What did you want to say?
        Mr. Weil. Well, I think as I was responding to
    Congresswoman Shalala, we face a real challenge under any
    circumstance given resource constraints, and I appreciate the
    attention that has been given to the importance of enforcement
    resources.
        But we also have to think about how we deploy the and how
    we work with other parties and those other parties include
    state governments, worker advocacy and unions, and employers in
    making sure that people comply and they understand their
    rights, particularly given the complexity of multi-employer,
    joint employer, and rooting out problems like misclassification
    in the workforce.
        I think we showed that one could make inroads in that
    during the Obama Administration, but I also think we showed the
    need for additional enforcement resources for all of our
    workplace agencies.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Professor Rogers, you indicated that
    it is difficult to form a union today. Can you say, give a
    little example of what you are talking about?
        Mr. Rogers. Sure, I'd be happy to. You know, basically
    workers face a very high probability of retaliation from their
    employers when they begin to organize.
        Sometimes and often that retaliation is frankly illegal.
    It's unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act but it's
    very difficult to deter because the NLRA is limited to awarding
    back pay and workers have to actually, you know, mitigate their
    damages in the meantime.
        So that means if you begin to organize and you have a very
    substantial risk of being terminated, then waiting months or
    even years to get your job back. If you're making under $15 an
    hour, under $30 an hour, workers, you know, you will make the
    rationale choice not to stand up in the first place because the
    risk is simply so high. That's one among many, many problems. I
    could talk about this for a while.
        Mr. Scott. You mentioned the problem with contract workers.
    We have said a lot, a few things that a contract worker doesn't
    get that an employer, employee would get like minimum wage and
    overtime, workers comp, unemployment compensation, you know.
    What about if you are an independent contractor, what rights do
    you have on unemployment discrimination?
        Mr. Rogers. You have to no rights under Title VII. You have
    some rights under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act for
    racial discrimination but no rights under Title VII as an
    independent contractor.
        Mr. Scott. What protection would you have as a
    whistleblower?
        Mr. Rogers. Under which statute? Just in general?
        Mr. Scott. Well, just in general as a whistleblower for
    retaliation for being a whistleblower, retaliation for
    reporting injuries or an unsafe workplace?
        Mr. Rogers. In general, none. If you're not covered as an
    employee under the act, you're not covered by the retaliation
    provisions of the act. And that's true for the NLRA, FLSA,
    ERISSA, OSHA.
        Mr. Scott. And what could be done to protect workers who
    are, who may in fact be an independent contractor under present
    law? How would they, how could they be protected for things
    like minimum wage, overtime, unemployment compensation, workers
    comp, discrimination?
        Mr. Rogers. Well, I think there are a couple issues there.
    One is that a lot of workers are misclassified as independent
    contractors.
        When workers are misclassified, they're denied rights under
    all those statutes even though they really should be entitled
    to them.
        Solving that is, you know, a matter of changing the
    definition of employment and holding companies to duties toward
    workers over whom they have power regardless of whether they
    kind of qualify under the common law tests or certain other
    tests. You know, there are various bona fide independent
    contractors, but bona fide independent contractors tend to have
    the labor market power to negotiate for decent wages and
    working conditions on their won.
        They're not necessarily the workers who need protection
    under the Fair Labor Standards Act or the NLRA for example.
        Mr. Scott. And if you are an independent contractors, you
    had--you don't have the right to collectively bargain?
        Mr. Rogers. It's actually even worse than that. Collective
    bargaining by independent contractors can be a violation of the
    antitrust laws. And so an employer could seek an injunction
    against collective action by independent contractors.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madame Chair.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Scott. Mr. Cline,
    Virginia.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you, Madame Chair, thank the witnesses for
    being here.
        It has recently been reported that 50 percent of
    Millennials and 75 percent of Gen Z'ers according to Forbes
    have quit their jobs due to issues related to mental health.
    These numbers have been steadily climbing over recent years
    which makes the conversation about workplace flexibility and
    benefits an important one. I commend the chair for holding this
    hearing today.
        Keeping options available to workers so that they can
    choose a job that fits their needs is of the utmost importance
    considering statistics like these. Employers should be able to
    be--to give options of benefits to workers such as Ms. Beck has
    done with her business.
        Such as working other businesses, providing benefits such
    as working remotely, performance rewards, continuing education.
    These types of benefits make them a more attractive employer
    and the employee happier.
        By restricting these choices of individuals that directly
    impact the workers wellbeing through broad over regulation by
    the Federal Government however we are eliminating viable
    workforce options that have brought our economy to where it is
    today.
        I would note from Ms. Becks testimony that when she made
    the decision to structure her team as employees, it added an
    additional 20 to 30 percent cost to the model more than a 1099
    model due to additional benefit and taxes.
        Unemployment has hit a 50 year low at 3.5 percent. This is
    in large part due to the recent deregulatory efforts taken by
    the Department of Labor and giving the power of choice back to
    individuals.
        As I speak the unemployment numbers speak to our success as
    a nation, but we were founded to create a more perfect union
    and I believe in consistently continuing to better it.
        Expanding employment options is one such way we can keep up
    with the modern worker and as a way that workers greatly value.
        So much of the district that I represent in Virginia is
    rural and policies like the Protecting the Right to Organize
    Act would have a negative impact on businesses but particularly
    small businesses in rural areas.
        It would inappropriately preempt and prohibit right to work
    laws in 27 states that value and protect this fundamental
    right. This is unacceptable and would hurt both the employees
    and employers in my district.
        So, Ms. Greszler, can you talk about the impact of bills
    like the Protecting the Right to Organize Act and how they
    would impact businesses, particularly small businesses and
    businesses in rural localities?
        Ms. Greszler. Well, by forcing unionization upon workers
    and employers that don't want that and that wouldn't choose
    that model, you're dictating that both the wages and the total
    benefit packages that those workers get.
        And younger workers today place less value on having
    something like a defined benefit pension. They have high
    student loans to pay, they might be saving for a home, paying
    for childcare costs, and it's not necessarily beneficial for
    them to have 15 percent of their wage of their compensation
    tied up in retirement benefit particularly when you look at the
    union structure and they have been well known for having strong
    retirement benefits but the reality is they can only pay for 40
    cents of what they've promised in all of these benefits. And so
    those workers are recognizing that they don't want to get into
    a system where a high portion of their compensation goes to a
    retirement benefit that's actually not going to be there for
    them when they retire, that will be insolvent by then.
        And so I think that we need to instead of looking towards
    the union model, look towards more portable, accessible,
    affordable things. The average worker is going to change jobs
    12 times throughout their career. They might want something
    that they can take with them throughout those jobs so that they
    don't have to change doctors, don't have to roll over
    retirement plans or start new ones.
        But let's look towards more portability that can help
    workers accommodate instead of just driving that out of the
    market entirely.
        Mr. Cline. Can you also talk about transparency when it
    comes to union organization and accountability for workers?
    This, the act that is under consideration would force the
    sharing of personal information of workers and can you comment
    on that and the impact that would have on workers?
        Ms. Greszler. Yes, I have talked to workers personally who
    don't want union representatives coming and knocking on their
    door and trying to get theme to sign cards that they might not
    want to sign.
        And we need to have more accountability on these unions and
    members or people who are potentially considering voting for or
    against a union need to know what is going to happen to their
    money if it goes towards that union.
        And there was talk about the corruption in there and the
    fact that this is just normal, and it happens everywhere. I
    don't think that makes it right and it is actually more
    frequently happens amongst unions and workers need to know
    where their money is being spent and there needs to be proper
    disclosure of that.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you. Ms. Beck, are you, are your workers
    unionized?
        Ms. Beck. Our workers are not unionized. But with the thing
    that I think is important about that is as an employer, I want
    to make sure that our workers have everything that they need.
    So that's why we pay a fair wage, you know, we are 56 percent
    above the average minimum wage, provide benefits, career
    enhancement--
        Mr. Cline. And I am glad that you are able to do that. It
    was an additional 20 to 30 percent cost in your model but I am
    glad you were able to make the choice to do that. And with
    that, Madame Chair, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Cline. Ms. Wild from
    Pennsylvania.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you, Madame Chair. I am really disappointed
    that at Ms. Foxx is no longer here because I wanted to
    challenge her to a typing competition.
        I too typed papers for others in college but I was 18 or 19
    years old, not middle aged and trying to support a family.
        I have questions for you, Ms. Greslzer. In your written
    testimony you say there is nothing inherently wrong with
    unions, but workers must be free to choose whether to join
    them.
        And this is a quote, Congress must not grant them special
    favors. So I want to talk for a couple minutes about the law
    and special favors.
        Under the NLRA, employers can hold as many mandatory
    captive audience speeches as they like to argue against
    unionization, but unions cannot compel attendants to hear
    speeches that are in favor of unionization correct?
        Ms. Greszler. I'm not an attorney. I believe that's correct
    but I don't know for sure.
        Ms. Wild. Well, you are here as a witness. Let me see. Let
    me go to your area of expertise. You have provided us with a
    Congressional testimony on the future of work helping workers
    in and employers adapt to and thrive in the ever-changing labor
    market. As a research fellow from, for the Heritage Foundation
    and you are not able to answer that question?
        Ms. Greszler. I have not looked specifically at that
    component of the law and I can't provide you with 100 percent
    certainty.
        Ms. Wild. Well, what--I won't hold you to 100 percent
    certainty. What do you understand to be the rule on that?
        Ms. Greszler. That is my general understanding.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you. Under current law, if an employer
    files an unfair labor practices claim against a union, the NLRA
    requires the NLRB counsel to petition for a temporary
    injunction against unions pending disposition of the claim.
        But, if the union files an unfair labor practices claim
    against the employer, the NLRB has discretion but is not
    required to seek a preliminary injunction against employers
    pending disposition of the claim. Correct?
        Ms. Greszler. I will believe your word for it. I have no
    idea on that one.
        Ms. Wild. Same answer as before? You are not a lawyer? But
    that is your understanding, right?
        Ms. Greszler. I'm an economist and I do cover a broad area
    of policies, labor is one of them, but I am not well versed in
    the specific components and statutes of labor law.
        Ms. Wild. Okay. And let me just ask you are you aware that
    employers only have to notify employees of their NLRA rights if
    the employer is found to have violated the NLRA?
        Unlike title VII, the ADEA, FMLA, and OSHA, an employer
    does not have to past and maintain notices advising employees
    of their collective bargaining rights, correct? Are you aware
    of that?
        Ms. Greszler. Again, this is above my level of
    understanding of labor laws.
        Ms. Wild. Well, let me represent to you that all of those
    statements are true, and I am going to ask for confirmation of
    that from Professor Rogers in just a second, but I would
    respectfully submit to you, Ms. Greszler, that the unions
    aren't the ones getting special treatment under the law.
        Professor Rogers, can you comment on those items that I
    just asked Ms. Greszler about and confirm one way or the other
    whether they are true?
        Mr. Rogers. Everything is true with one exception which is
    that not in all cases does the NLRB have to seek an injunction
    with the union ULP's. That's only when it comes to
    recognitional and organizational picketing and secondary
    boycotts.
        Ms. Wild. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Other
    than that, I am correct about employers be able to hold as many
    mandatory captive audience speeches as they like but unions are
    not able to?
        Mr. Rogers. Correct.
        Ms. Wild. And that employers don't have to post the notices
    like they do for OSHA and ADEA and FMLA and so forth?
        Mr. Rogers. Correct.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you. I have a couple more questions for
    you, Professor Rogers. As somebody who has--I practiced law for
    30 plus years before I came to Congress. I was a trial lawyer,
    actually on the defense side most of the time. One of the
    fundamental tenants of justice that I firmly believe in is that
    judges have to avoid conflicts of interest and or even the
    appearance of a conflict of interest. And the best ones I knew
    always erred on the side of recusal to avoid the appearance of
    impropriety.
        But as I understand it, the Republican majority of the NLRB
    attempted to overturn the Browning-Ferris joint employer rule
    in high brand industrial contractors by holding that an entity
    is only an employer if it is actually exercised directed
    immediately control. Is that correct?
        Mr. Rogers. That's correct.
        Ms. Wild. And it isn't it true that NLRB board member
    William Emmanuel was a former lawyer at Littler Mendelson, the
    firm that represented the employer on the losing end of the
    Browning-Ferris decision?
        Mr. Rogers. I believe that's correct, I don't want to
    stipulate that it was Littler specifically but yes, he was
    involved in the litigation.
        Ms. Wild. Okay. So you wouldn't be able to comment on the
    fact that Mr. Emmanuel did not reveal to the litigants his
    connection to the dispute, seek a waiver from them or recuse
    himself from overturning the Browning-Ferris discussion?
        Mr. Rogers. Oh, that's absolutely my understanding and of
    course the decision was vacated as a result once the conflict
    of interest came to light.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you very much.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Wild.
        Ms. Wild. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you. Mr. Levin of Michigan.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, and thanks so much
    for holding this very, very important hearing and I salute your
    leadership.
        I want to spend my time digging into the possibilities for
    sectoral bargaining with Professor Rogers. Recognizing Dr.
    Weil's really important work before, during, and after your
    government service on the fissured workplace, recognizing that
    our labor laws are so antiquated and despite all the
    protestations about how workers are forced to be in unions and
    all this nonsense.
        Virtually no workers in the private sector are in unions.
    6.4 percent, the lowest in 100 years. And there is no way
    workers can rebuild voice and power in our economy without a
    much freer market for worker representation.
        So, Professor Rogers, stipulating that we must pass the PRO
    Act and take whatever measures to allow workers to form unions
    much more freely, I am impatient.
        I have read your whole testimony which we always say we
    read all of your all's testimony but in this case, I read all
    of that.
        And I don't--I am frustrated by the idea that we have go to
    in stages over a lot of years, but I don't disagree about the
    practical difficulties of getting to a sort of a European scale
    of sectoral bargaining from where we sit right now.
        So how can we do this most expeditiously? And don't put on
    an incrementalist hat and a, you know, we are not Eeyore here.
    We are thinking big about what, the changes we need to make for
    the American people so they can get their little piece of the
    American dream which despite low unemployment and the booming
    stock market, they don't see in ahead of them.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you for the question. So I guess two
    thoughts and then we will continue the conversation. The most
    expeditious way to at least get some sectoral standard setting
    structure in place would be to amend the Fair Labor Standards
    Act to established wage boards.
        You know, under the original FLSA, those were essentially
    in place to set wages, but it would be plausible, Australia has
    a system for example to use that type of structure to set
    standards beyond wages. So you could look at scheduling
    policies, particularly concern for retail workers. Health and
    benefits--
        Mr. Levin. But let me just ask you, don't you think that we
    face a, we should sort of choose between either going with, you
    know, wage boards or other, you know, public solutions like
    that or sectoral bargaining, sectoral bargaining--
        Mr. Rogers. I think the two can complement each other.
        Mr. Levin. Okay.
        Mr. Rogers. I mean, wage boards can set minimum standards.
    And, you know, they can do more than wages. Right.
        Mr. Levin. Right.
        Mr. Rogers. In terms of sectoral bargaining, you know, the
    challenge is that if we all of a sudden convert to a sectoral
    bargaining model but still require unions to have majority
    support before they can bargain, in very few sectors are unions
    going to be able to bargain. Right.
        Mr. Levin. Right.
        Mr. Rogers. So, you know, if you want to act very quickly
    you could say well, in any industry in which unions have 5
    percent density, the union has rights to at least bargain over
    some topics.
        Mr. Levin. But there, so there is a wide, wide range in
    other countries right, between say France--
        Mr. Rogers. Correct.
        Mr. Levin.--with very relatively low worker membership in
    unions but very high sect, you know, participation in sectoral
    bargaining.
        And in Sweden where people are sort of all mostly 70
    percent are in unions and they have sectoral bargaining.
        So could we move from--could we start with France and then
    move towards Sweden? I mean, why--
        Mr. Rogers. We potentially could. You know, part of the
    difference is that France has extension laws.
        Mr. Levin. Right.
        Mr. Rogers. Sweden does not, right. So the unions bargain
    in France at the sectoral level. Then those standards are set
    across the country thorough administrative action. The, you
    know, that would certainly be a decent starting point in the
    U.S., but you would have to have something like a most
    representative union, most representative status determination
    which is what France does to figure out who has bargaining
    rights.
        Mr. Levin. All right. Well, I think I am going to need you
    and your colleagues to work with us to figure out the best way
    to get there because I don't, I mean, we are facing a situation
    where 1 in arguably 2 generations of American workers are
    looking at having a standard of living below what their parents
    had.
        That is the reality and we can't stand for that. We need to
    transform our economy so that workers have power in their
    workplace and nationally so that they can have a middle-class
    standard of living.
        And I am counting on you, this is great work that you and
    your colleagues are doing, and I am looking forward to working
    with you to make that a policy reality. Thanks so much, Madame
    Chairwoman, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Levin. Ms. Jayapal of
    Washington.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you for, to
    our distinguished witnesses for your testimony.
        I represent the Seattle area and obviously we have a lot of
    technology innovation, a very robust economy. In fact, an
    employment rate of 96.9 percent in Seattle and we also are the
    countries first major city to pass a $15 minimum wage which I
    was very proud to be a part of.
        We have the first city wide domestic workers bill of
    rights. And at the state level, we were the first state in the
    country to tie minimum wage to inflation. We are also in the
    top three for highest minimum wage statewide across the
    country. And middle-class workers are about to be paid fairly
    for their overtime work at the state level. And this is in
    contrast to the Trump Administration's faulty proposal for
    overtime that leaves most middle-class workers behind.
        It is no coincidence that Washington State also has one of
    the highest union densities in the country. Top--we are number
    three in the country. We actually have unionization rate of
    about almost 20 percent which is double the national average.
    And so people in my district understand that innovation does
    not mean worker exploitation.
        So I want to start, actually go back to Mr. Rogers because,
    Professor Rogers, because I want to pick up on my colleagues
    questions to you. And specifically around centralized
    bargaining and standard setting structures, especially for low
    wage industries.
        As you may know, I have introduced the Domestic Workers
    Bill of Rights, H.R. 3760. It creates a Federal domestic
    workers wage and standards board, modeled off of the wage
    boards in Seattle, California, and New York.
        And the board would make recommendations on Federal
    standards for domestic workers including wage recommendations,
    workplace protection standards and improvements to benefits.
        Professor Rogers, how would a Federal standard setting
    board change the domestic work industry?
        Mr. Rogers. So it would change it in, and thank you for the
    question. It would change it potentially in profound ways for
    the better. As you know, domestic workers are excluded from the
    National Labor Relations Act. That exclusion goes back to the
    original passage of the act.
        And the reasons for it are rooted frankly in white
    supremacy and southern Congressional leader's insistence at the
    time that domestic and agricultural workers be excluded from
    the major new deal labor legislation as a condition of its
    passage.
        They actually supported unionization and fair wages just
    not for agricultural and domestic workers who at the time in
    the south were of course overwhelmingly African American.
        So that exclusion stands until today. Enterprise
    bargaining, to shift to the need for a new bargaining model for
    domestic workers, enterprise bargaining effectively won't work
    for them because the enterprise is an individual household. So
    individual bargaining they already have enterprise bargaining
    in a way.
        Sectoral bargaining could do a couple of things through a
    wage board process or standard setting process it can bring
    public attention to the challenges domestic workers face. It
    can set minimum terms and enforce them. And perhaps most
    importantly can give domestic workers a voice in that standard
    setting and enforcements.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I mean, this is to me one of the
    most exciting advances in the future of work is the work we are
    doing with domestic workers and as one home care worker put it,
    and this is her quote, the solution is to make sure that
    workers are at the table on the front end and have a say in
    those these platforms and programs were developed and run and I
    think that is what we have done.
        Mr. Weil, you ran the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour
    Administration. You have written extensively on the future of
    work. The conversation about the future of work is often
    dominated by a set of platform-based companies who claim that
    they are so different and so innovative that they should be
    exempted from the laws that protect workers right to organize
    or to be paid fairly, to work safely without harassment and
    discrimination.
        And many of these platform-based companies actually refused
    to treat workers as employees and they spend millions to
    litigate and lobby to evade their responsibilities towards
    workers.
        And this is said with deep respect for the innovation that
    does come from these companies. But they do use measures
    including deactivating workers without any opportunity for
    appeal or charging workers punitive fines, setting
    unpredictable rates of compensation.
        You have talked about this as fissured workplaces. Tell me
    the top three harms that are caused by these kinds of
    practices.
        Mr. Weil. Well, thank you for the question. And I think
    you've outlined them. It is the fact that workers in that
    status of independent contractors lose basic rights like the
    right to a minimum wage. And the right to be paid, the right to
    access to a benefit like overtime, all of our social safety net
    protections, the right to collective bargaining. Essentially
    all of our rights that are very much vested in employment.
        There are certainly parts of the digital economy where
    workers are legitimate independent contractors, where the
    digital platform acts as an electronic market to bring users
    and providers together. You know, that's the yellow pages kind
    of hyper level of that.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Weil. Thank you. Thank
    you very much.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Weil. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Ms. Underwood of Illinois.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madame Chair. Dr. Weil, in your
    written testimony you pointed out that women are
    disproportionately represented in the types of short term and
    contract jobs that we are discussing in today's hearing.
    Generally, do these women have access to paid family and
    medical leave at work or even unpaid leave that protects their
    jobs?
        Mr. Weil. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman
    Underwood. The answer is no. According to most recent national
    compensation survey, only about 18 percent of private sector
    women have access to paid leave.
        And if we look at the bottom quartile, that number goes
    down to only 8 percent.
        Ms. Underwood. Wow. Based on your experiences at the
    Department of Labor, how does having access to paid family
    leave and medical leave benefit workers?
        Mr. Weil. In a huge way. Because of the absence of that
    leave, people face very difficult disruptive choices of leaving
    a sick child at home alone to fend for him or herself. Or a
    worker in a healthcare profession having to come into work when
    they're sick. And not only therefore running themselves down
    but exposing other people to their health problems.
        Ms. Underwood. Right. And that is awfully burdensome for
    both the worker and the employer.
        Mr. Weil. Absolutely.
        Ms. Underwood. Let us talk about how short term and
    contract work affects workers ability to save for retirement.
    Now most Americans with retirement savings have an employer
    sponsored plan like a 401K.
        Professor Rogers, do companies that use short term or gig
    workers in the U.S. generally offer these workers access to a
    401K or other retirement account?
        Mr. Rogers. Not that I know of. No.
        Ms. Underwood. And why can access to an employer sponsored
    plan be so important to the workers ability to save for
    retirement
        Mr. Rogers. Well, let's say access to an employer sponsored
    plan of some sort would be really helpful. It's because the,
    you know, savings especially early during your career can
    compound over time.
        If you save in your 20's and 30's that can, you can
    accumulate a pretty significant amount of funding, especially
    by the time you retire.
        Ms. Underwood. And so how does limited access to those
    account affect the short term and gig economy worker?
        Mr. Rogers. It means those workers essentially have zero
    retirement savings. And I'll also add, I don't think this has
    been mentioned yet, because Social Security is not withheld
    typically--
        Ms. Underwood. Right.
        Mr. Rogers.--the workers have to withhold it themselves and
    they may to be able to do that.
        Ms. Underwood. Retirement security is a big concern for my
    community in northern Illinois. According to the Federal
    Reserve, half of workers in this country think that their
    retirement savings are quote not on track.
        Like many Americans these workers may plan to rely on
    Social Security to supplement their income and retirement but
    short term and contract workers as you mentioned often receive
    less from employers there too.
        So for example, a mom and pop shop restaurant that hires an
    employee as a delivery driver pays Social Security and Medicare
    taxes for that employee, Professor Rogers, is that correct?
        Mr. Rogers. If they are an employee and if the employer is
    following the law, yes.
        Ms. Underwood. Okay. But most of the big food delivery apps
    that we are hearing about today are set up so that they don't
    have to cover those expenses for their drivers, is that right?
        Mr. Rogers. They're set up to evade those expenses is the
    way I would put it, yes.
        Ms. Underwood. Okay. And so instead even after tax
    deductions, many drivers for those company have to cover those
    Social Security and Medicare tax expenses themselves, right?
        Mr. Rogers. Correct.
        Ms. Underwood. The ability to save for retirement is
    crucial for American workers of all ages. But millennials are
    facing additional burdens.
        The Brookings Institution reports that it is more difficult
    for millennials to save enough for retirement than it is for
    previous generations. So this is for both Professor Rogers and
    Dr. Weil.
        As this committee continues conversations on the future of
    work, what are the essential components of policy that empowers
    workers and provides retirement security especially for younger
    Americans that we need to keep in mind. Let us do Dr. Weil
    first.
        Mr. Weil. I think the key is portability. I think both
    sides talk about portability. I think it's something we have to
    provide all workers so that they can move, work in situations
    and multiple employers and be able to save.
        But one can do that compatibly with also the protections we
    have under our employment laws.
        Ms. Underwood. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Rogers. I would just add to that designing portable
    benefits in such a way that workers have a voice in their
    design and administration and just general protections for the
    right to organize and general workplace protections which will
    make it easier for workers to save for retirement.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you. While the future of work has the
    potential to offer many workers new flexibility and
    opportunities, we must ensure our policies and laws evolve at
    the same time to ensure that anyone who works full time can
    provide for their family.
        We must also ensure that these workers have access to high
    quality health insurance by protecting the Affordable Care Act
    and by lowering costs that make health coverage out of reach
    for far too many.
        I have introduced legislation to address this, the
    Healthcare Affordability Act, which would make insurance more
    affordable for nearly 20 million Americans including many of
    the workers we are discussing here today.
        Thank you, Madame Chair, for holding this important hearing
    and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here. I yeild
    back
        Ms. Jayapal. Madame Chair.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
        Ms. Jayapal. I have a unanimous consent request. Madame
    Chair, I would like to introduce the following reports into the
    record.
        A 2018 data and society report entitled ``Beyond
    Disruption, How Tech Shapes Labor Across Domestic Work and Ride
    Hailing.''
        A 2019 Institute for Policy Studies report entitled
    ``Protecting Domestic Workers Rights.''
        And a statement by SEIU entitled the ``Future of Work,
    Preserving Worker Protections in the modern economy.''
        Chairwoman Wilson. Without objection so ordered.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madame Chair.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Ms. Stevens of Michigan.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Madame Chair. And thank you to our
    witnesses. I thoroughly enjoyed reading through your testimony.
        I come from the great state of Michigan where the UAW
    strike is on everyone's mind and it is very visceral, it is
    very real, it has been going on for a long time.
        We know that we have reached a tentative agreement but that
    our UAW workers are still out there on the picket line and part
    of why they are striking is in part of what we are discussing
    at today's hearing.
        UAW contract negotiations as they have gone on throughout
    the years, you know, workers have been able to fight for
    increased wages and better benefits and unfortunately there is
    this model, this bargaining model has become increasingly less
    common.
        Although the conversation I had with one of my regional
    directors earlier today was that they believe that the work
    they are doing and that the strike that is taking place will
    have global ramifications.
        So, Professor Rogers, how do we encourage this type of
    model of sectoral bargaining across other industries?
        Mr. Rogers. So the auto industry is actually a, it's a
    really nice example of some of the merits of sectoral
    bargaining because pattern bargaining got the UAW close to
    sectoral bargaining for, you know, for long periods of time.
    And still in some ways gets the UAW close to sectoral
    bargaining.
        With the exception, with two exceptions basically. There
    are as you know quite a few non-union part suppliers into the
    auto workers today. Then there are also many non-union plants
    that have opened, especially transplants by foreign auto makers
    that have remained nonunion.
        So one of the challenges the UAW and the U.S. Automakers
    face is wage competition from those other entities. Sectoral
    bargaining could set a wage floor and, you know, ends that
    unfair competition.
        Ms. Stevens. Yes. And what type of role do portable
    benefits play and as, you know, negotiations are going on for
    current portable benefits systems. Could you speak a little bit
    about that?
        Mr. Rogers. In the--
        Ms. Stevens. You mentioned it in your testimony I think and
    I know you talked about, you know, building wealth and
    protecting healthcare pensions but I don't know if you can talk
    a little bit about portable benefits?
        Mr. Rogers. I mean, I think in general providing high
    quality benefits that workers can get access to regardless of
    their skill levels and who they work for is essential. Portable
    benefits is part of that.
        I would just, I am a little cautious about a full-throated
    endorsement of portable benefits because in some cases, the
    proposals for portable benefits have essentially been framed so
    as to let many companies off the hook for duties they already
    owe toward workers.
        Ms. Stevens. Yeah. Well, and obviously we are here today
    talking about worker protections and, Ms. Beck, I know from
    your testimony which was really well done and your model is one
    to be commended and I think the conversation around the future
    of work in the 21st century age and how we grow a 21st century
    labor movement really speaks to maybe something that you could
    shed some more light on at a 10,000 foot view which is how we
    drive innovation but also ensure that workers' rights are
    protected?
        Ms. Beck. Yes, thank you for that great question. I very
    much believe investing in our workforce is investing in
    innovation.
        And the examples that I would give you are, you know, when
    our Alfred home managers are in the field or working with
    customers, it is their ideas and their observations that
    ultimately become the next great thing that our company does.
    So I think it's extremely important to view the relationship
    between a workforce and innovation as a very positive thing.
        Ms. Stevens. Yes. Well, at this time I would like to thank
    our two fabulous chairwomen who lead subcommittee on education
    and labor that I sit on and this is exactly what we are doing
    on this committee which is advocating for the individual worker
    and the voice of our economy that is relying on good and sound
    practices.
        And thank you all so much for your time and expertise
    today. Thank you. I yield back the remainder of my time, Madame
    Chairwoman.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Stevens. I remind my
    colleagues that pursuant to Committee practice, materials for
    submission for the hearing record must be submitted to the
    Committee Clerk within 14 days following the last day of the
    hearing preferably in Microsoft Word format.
        The materials submitted must address the subject matter of
    the hearing, of this hearing. Only a Member of the Committee or
    an invited witness may submit materials for inclusion in the
    hearing record.
        Documents are limited to 50 pages each. Documents longer
    than 50 pages will be incorporated into the record by way of an
    internet link that you must provide to the Committee Clerk
    within the required timeframe. But please recognize that years
    from now that link may no longer work.
        Again, I want to thank the witness for their participation
    today. What we have heard is very, very valuable.
        Members of the committee may have some additional questions
    for you and we ask the witnesses to please respond to those
    questions in writing. The hearing record will be held open for
    14 days in order to receive those responses.
        I remind my colleagues that pursuant to Committee practice,
    witness questions for the hearing record must be submitted to
    the Majority Committee Staff or Committee Clerk within 7 days.
    The questions submitted must address the subject matter of the
    hearing.
        Closing statements. I now recognize workforce protections
    Ranking Member Ms. Adams for closing statement.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you all very
    much for being here. I do want to echo my appreciation to the
    witnesses for taking the time to be with us today.
        The Fair Labor Standards Act and the Occupational Health
    and Safety Act were passed with the core mission of
    guaranteeing workers fair wages, reasonable hours and safe work
    places. Yet as our witnesses made clear, under the fissured
    work place workers today are facing a race to the bottom that
    undermines basic worker protections. In response, Congress must
    take bold, decisive action to protect workers.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve the
    lives of workers and to restore the purpose of our essential
    labor and employment laws.
        So thank you again to our witnesses for your testimony. The
    takeaways from this hearing will provide important context as
    we look ahead to our next future of work hearings.
        These hearings will focus on how we can empower workers
    with competitive and in demand skills to avoid displacement and
    protect workers' civil rights amid the growing use of platforms
    and algorithms in employment related decision making.
        But most importantly, today's hearing will help guide this
    committees' continued efforts to improve the lives of workers
    and serve our constituents.
        I yield back, Madame Chair, thank you.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Adams. I now recognize
    now workforce protections Ranking Member for his closing
    statements. Mr. Byrne.
        Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Madame Chairman, and I appreciate
    this hearing. The title of it is the future of work, preserving
    workforce protections in the modern economy and I think it is a
    very important topic. I appreciate all of the witnesses being
    here today.
        I would have like to have heard from a worker. I do talk to
    workers a lot. Not just when I am out doing my thing as a
    Congressman but sometimes when I go around visiting businesses
    I want to stop and talk to the people that work at the
    business.
        How are you doing? How is the place going? They seem pretty
    happy to me. We have three percent unemployment in Alabama
    right now.
        There is a recent study out that shows that the people who
    benefitted the most in terms of wage performance are people at
    the bottom who are seeing wage increases like they haven't seen
    in many years.
        I have yet to have one person at any of my town halls, at
    any of the businesses I have visited anywhere, come up to me
    and say I don't think I have enough workforce protections or
    anything close to that.
        They are mainly worried about making sure that we are going
    to have an economy that produces the jobs that they need to
    make money and provide what they need to provide for their
    families.
        I am see--I encounter a large number of people who are
    working in what I consider to be alternative type work
    situations. That is just the future, I think. When we talk
    about the future here, I think that is the future.
        We have fewer jobs where people show up for the same place
    9 to 5 and more situations where people will be working out of
    their homes or in other situations.
        And I don't think our laws match up with that. I don't
    think they do all. Because we haven't rethought them in
    decades. But we still have this old mindset that are an all
    working in factories, doing the same repetative thing over and
    over again.
        If you have been into a modern factory, you know that is
    not the case anymore. It is dramatically different.
        We have benefitted a lot in the state of Alabama from a
    manufacturing resurgence. Automotive, aviation, you name it.
    And when I go in those places and I see how they are producing
    what they are producing it is unreal. It is like going into
    some sort of a science fiction movie, the way they do it.
        And they are constantly innovating, and the innovators are
    the workers. It is not the management that is doing the
    innovation, it is the men and women on the line. And it is
    really cool to watch them do what they do by the way, they are
    really good at it.
        Not once have I had one of them come to me and say, ``I
    wish I had a union.'' Not once has anyone ever said to me, ``I
    wish I had a union.''
        I am afraid if they had sat through this hearing today,
    they would say that doesn't have anything to do with what I am
    thinking about, what I am concerned about in my job.
        And noticing everything that I said right now, I didn't
    talk about the people that owned the businesses or run the
    businesses. I am talking about the people that work there. And
    I think we have missed the mark today.
        I think we should be sitting down and talking to those
    workers and say what do you need? You know, my experience is
    most of the people that own and manage these businesses do
    that. They sit down with their workers and say what do you
    need? Because they can't be a successful business if those
    employees are not working at maximum efficiency, maximum
    quality.
        Now there are more and more people as I said becoming
    independent contractors. And I think we have to understand they
    are doing that by choice. They want the flexibility that comes
    with that.
        And here comes the big Federal Government with a bunch for
    new regulations out there that are going to make independent
    contracting very difficult.
        So I wish we could have a different hearing where we
    brought in the workers and we asked the workers what do you
    need. And I think we would get a very different set of answers
    than what we got today.
        Thank you for holding this hearing and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Byrne. We can say that
    the workers need workforce protection and that is what our
    committee is slated to do at this, as we move forward.
        I am going to now recognize myself for the purpose of
    making a closing statement.
        I want to thank our witnesses for their compelling
    testimonies today. This hearing revealed the challenges posed
    by the changing relationship between employers and workers.
        As we heard from today's witnesses, the increasing share of
    workers hired as subcontractors, temporary workers, or
    independent contractors is undermining workers' rights and
    protections.
        We know that innovation has the potential to improve the
    lives of workers, but Congress must ensure that innovation does
    not come at the expense of our nation's labor laws.
        At the end of the day, we have the responsibility to
    preserve and strengthen workers' rights.
        Today we discussed some of the opportunities we have to
    pass legislation this Congress that will improve the quality of
    life for workers and their families in the modern economy.
        As we move forward, I look forward to working with my
    colleagues to advance bills like the Protecting the Rights to
    Organize Act, the PRO Act, which will help reduce income
    inequality and expand access to the middle class.
        I also look forward to a continued discussion on how we can
    meaningfully expand benefits for workers and how industry wide
    bargaining can truly achieve improvements for workers in the
    fissured workplace.
        If there is no further business, without objection, the
    committee stands adjourned. And thank you for coming.
        [Additional submissions by Ms. Jayapal follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Beyond Disruption: How Tech Shapes Labor Across Domestic
    Work & Ridehailing
        https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-116HPRT46455/pdf/
    CPRT-116HPRT46455.pdf
        [Questions submitted for the record and their responses
    follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Mr. Weil response to questions submitted for the record
    follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        [Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the subcommittees were
    adjourned.]

                              [all]