[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]