[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF SECTION 220 OF THE CONGRES-
SIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT: IMPLEMENTING
THE RIGHTS OF CONGRESSIONAL STAFF TO
COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 2, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
http://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-209 WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairperson
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois,
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina Ranking Member
PETE AGUILAR, California BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
C O N T E N T S
----------
MARCH 2, 2022
Page
Oversight of Section 220 of the Congressional Accountability Act:
Implementing the Rights of Congressional Staff to Collectively
Bargain........................................................ 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Hon. Zoe Lofgren, Chairperson.................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairperson Lofgren.................... 4
Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member................................ 6
Prepared statement of Mr. Davis.............................. 8
WITNESSES
John D. Uelmen, General Counsel, Office of Congressional
Workplace Rights............................................... 10
Prepared statement of Mr. Uelmen............................. 13
Mark Strand, President, The Congressional Institute.............. 34
Prepared statement of Mr. Strand............................. 37
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
John D. Uelmen, General Counsel, Office of Congressional
Workplace Rights, responses.................................... 60
Mark Strand, President, The Congressional Institute, responses... 141
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
August 11, 1994, The Washington Post, House Votes To Extend Laws
to Hill; Bill Gives Labor Rights to Congressional Staff; Senate
Passage Awaited, submission.................................... 142
January 9, 1995, The New York Times, Congress, a Soon-to-be-Law
Says, Must Now Do Unto Itself as it Already Does Unto Others,
submission..................................................... 145
May 2, 1995, Congressional Research Service report, Congressional
Accountability Act of 1995, submission......................... 146
January 1, 2011, Office of Compliance, Labor Representation:
Collective Bargaining Rights in the Congressional Workplace,
submission..................................................... 199
March 2, 2022, Daniel Schuman, Policy Director, Demand Progress
Educational Fund, written statement, submission................ 207
Hon. Andy Levin, Ninth District of Michigan, submission.......... 211
December 1998, Senator Charles Grassley, Harvard Journal on
Legislation, submission........................................ 213
February 8, 2022, Chairperson Zoe Lofgren letter to Board Chair
Barbara Childs Wallace, submission............................. 225
February 22, 2022, Board Chair Barbara Childs Wallace response
letter to Chairperson Lofgren February 8, 2022 letter,
submission..................................................... 227
OVERSIGHT OF SECTION 220 OF THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT:
IMPLEMENTING THE RIGHTS OF CONGRESSIONAL STAFF TO COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN
---------- --
--------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2022
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in Room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren
[Chairperson of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Raskin, Aguilar, Scanlon,
Leger Fernandez, Davis, Loudermilk, and Steil.
Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Democratic Staff Director; Sean
Jones, Professional Staff; Teri Morgan, Deputy Staff Director;
Eddie Flaherty, Director of Operations; Hannah Carr,
Professional Staff; Khalil Abboud, Deputy Democratic Staff
Director; Lauren Doney, Rep. Raskin Deputy Chief of Staff; Kyle
Parker, Rep. Butterfield Chief of Staff; Tim Monahan, Minority
Staff Director; Nick Crocker, Minority Deputy Staff Director;
Gineen Breeso, Minority Special Counsel; and Aubrey Wilson,
Minority Special Projects Director.
The Chairperson. A quorum being present, the Committee on
House Administration will come order.
We want to say good afternoon to everyone. As we begin, I
want to note that we are holding this hearing both in person
and remotely, and, therefore, in compliance with the
regulations for remote committee proceedings pursuant to House
Resolution 8.
If you are joining remotely, please keep your microphone
muted when not speaking to limit background noise and always
keep your camera on.
And for those joining us in the hearing room, we are
holding this hearing in compliance with the most recent
guidance issued by the Office of the Attending Physician. Let
me just say, it is a relief to be back in person, and it is
wonderful to be here safely with our extra ventilation and
without our masks.
So, with that, I ask unanimous consent that the chair be
authorized to declare a recess of the Committee at any point,
and that all Members have five legislative days in which to
revise and extend their remarks and have any written statements
be made part of the record. And, without objection, that is
ordered.
Now, let me just say, one of the first votes I cast as a
brand-new member of the House of Representatives--it was late
on my very first day in that Congress--was to pass the
Congressional Accountability Act. Not a single Member of the
House of Representatives voted against it.
As someone who grew up in a union family, and as a former
congressional staffer, and as a long-time advocate of workers'
rights and protections, I was proud to cast that vote and proud
to be part of an institution that sent a strong message to
Legislative Branch employees and the American public by
unanimously approving that bill.
Less than two weeks later, we voted again on a very similar
version of the bill sent to the House and Senate. Again, not a
single member of the House voted against it, and that version
of the bill was signed into law by then- President Bill
Clinton.
The CAA was a landmark bipartisan reform for the Congress.
Until its enactment, Congress was exempt from workplace
discrimination laws, and this included, for example, finally
extending rights and protections of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 to Legislative Branch employees.
However, one provision of the bill we unanimously approved
required additional action--the provision of the CAA that
provided for Legislative Branch employees to organize and
collectively bargain as employees in other workplaces can.
That part of the law directed the new Office of Compliance,
now called the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, to
recommend implementing regulations to the Congress which, when
adopted, would take effect and permit employees to organize.
The Office of Compliance did its part. The Office of
Compliance carefully reviewed the issue, and after careful
review and public notice, the office's Board of Directors
recommended regulations that, as the law said should be the
default, followed the substantive regulations already issued by
the Federal Labor Relations Authority. These regulations as
required by the CAA needed to be approved by Congress before
they could be implemented.
Our most recent oversight hearing on OCWR on November 19,
2021, included discussion of the issue of unionization for
congressional staff. During that hearing, Barbara Camens, a
member of the OCWR Board of Directors, testified that, and I
quote, those regulations were issued by our board 25 years ago,
before the current iteration of the Board. We have not looked
at them, we have not reexamined them, and we have not taken a
position on them.
Since our November 2021 hearing, there has been increased
and significant attention to the issue of unionization of
congressional staff and the 1996 regulations from both Members,
staff, and the press.
Accordingly, in continuing our oversight of this issue, I
wrote to the OCWR Board and asked for their views of the 1996
regulations. The Board responded on February 22, 2022, and said
that following a fresh review of the regulations the board
originally recommended, OCWR continues to support them and
endorses their adoption.
And, without objection, I ask that my February 8, 2022,
letter to the OCWR and the Board's February 22 response be
inserted into the record.
The Chairperson. Two important principal goals of the
Congressional Accountability Act were to improve the work
environment for legislative branch staff and provide them with
the same rights and protections afforded to workers in other
sectors, and to ensure that Congress operates under the laws it
enacts for private sector workplaces.
We took important steps forward in a bipartisan basis in
passing the original CAA, and we again acted together on a
bipartisan basis to add additional reforms, including
strengthening protections for staff, and increasing
accountability for Members in recent years with this Committee
playing a lead role.
However, Congress has still failed to follow through on an
important part of the law, and that would provide Legislative
Branch staff with the option to organize but only if they
choose.
It is well past time for Congress to follow through on that
promise. Today's hearing is an important opportunity to learn
more specific aspects of the CAA and Congress' options for
moving forward.
I would now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Davis, for
any opening comments he may have.
[The statement of Chairperson Lofgren follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, Madam Chairperson, for holding
this hearing on this topic, but I am just glad that we are back
here too. I mean, I feel like--you mentioned 1995, party like
it is 1995 here in the hearing room again, frankly, party like
it is February of 2020. I like this. I think this is our way of
getting Congress to get back to normal and get back to more
bipartisanship.
It is refreshing to have the majority talk about this topic
before it goes to the Floor for a vote and especially on an
issue that is this impactful to our institution.
I do want to begin by stating that I believe unions can and
do play an important role in helping to facilitate a fair
working environment in many industries across America.
During my time in Congress, I have been a strong supporter
of Davis-Bacon provisions. I have supported union workers
throughout my district, including the laborers, the carpenters,
the operating engineers, and the mine workers, as well as many
others in the building trades and outside the building trades.
I have also been a supporter of existing unions here on Capitol
Hill, in places where they make sense, like the Capitol Police
or the Architect of the Capitol, other labor and trade unions.
Democrats say they have called this hearing to discuss the
status of congressional staff. Considering that they have held
the majority for three years, this is long overdue as the first
hearing of any standing committee to seriously discuss any
improvements to Hill staff pay and working conditions.
Now that the majority is finally talking about these
issues, they are focusing on unworkable, impractical ideas like
congressional staff unionization, collective bargaining for
people who already have some of the best benefits in the
country.
Unions do a lot of good to ensure hardworking folks across
the country can earn a great middle-class living, but they are
simply not feasible for congressional offices. Not only do most
congressional staff already have the benefits most unions fight
for, voting to unionize Congressional offices and committees
would create serious problems and lead to even more dysfunction
in Washington.
Congress' unique office structure, fluctuating partisan
balance, unpredictable schedule changes, and unavoidable
turnover due to elections make unions impractical in our
offices and committees. This is a concept that could create
numerous conflicts of interest and impact members'
constitutional responsibilities to the American people without
the guarantee that any improvements for staff well-being would
materialize.
As a former Congressional staffer myself, I understand the
unique working situation that all staff face. I know both the
incredible opportunities and challenges of being on that side
of a congressional office.
Like Members of Congress, staff are public servants. They
are essential to the Legislative Branch, and our country is
fortunate to have the benefit of their unique expertise and
skill sets. We need to set realistic expectations of what
unionizing in Congress would accomplish, which is to say very
little.
First, there is no employment law gap for Congressional
staff.
Second, staff unionization would fail to address one of
staffers' main issues: low staff pay. Not only does Federal law
prevent this, union dues would simply take more from their
paychecks without any assurance that improvement to staffers'
work environment would come to fruition.
Further, congressional staff are all political appointees,
not part of the Civil Service, and unionization would not
change that. In other words, collective bargaining would simply
add unworkable, additional layers without achieving much of
anything.
Yet we acknowledge that there is more work that needs to be
done to improve staff well-being. Both Chairperson Lofgren and
I are members of the Select Committee on the Modernization of
Congress, where we have had multiple conversations on how to
improve the recruitment, treatment, and retention of staff.
This Committee has implemented several of these
recommendations stemming from those conversations, for example,
instituting the HR Help, the one-stop shop for human resource
information for the whole House.
However, there are more recommendations that this Committee
should consider. Instead of focusing on those, this hearing is
only focusing on one narrow, unworkable pathway, rather than
all the possible solutions that could directly address the
concerns raised by staff.
After silence for nearly thirty years on these regulations,
OCWR and the outgoing majority want to implement them
overnight, without appropriate consideration. We need to
approach this issue with eyes wide open, have all our questions
answered before committing to a course of action.
Our staff and this institution deserve better, as do the
American people. This Committee should focus on regular
oversight of these issues and review the recommendations from
the Modernization Committee.
Unions, again, many whom I have worked with on Capitol Hill
and off, in government and outside of government, they play an
important role in many workplaces. They just aren't the right
answer for Congressional offices.
I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Other Members are invited to submit any opening statements
for the record.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses. Our first
witness is John Uelmen, who is the General Counsel for the
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. Mr. Uelmen previously
served at OCWR as acting General Counsel, Deputy General
Counsel, and Supervising Attorney. In December of 2015, the
Board of Directors appointed him as the General Counsel.
In his capacity as the General Counsel, Mr. Uelmen is
responsible for investigating and enforcing violations of the
labor laws in the CAA, as well as ensuring compliance with
health and safety and public access laws that are included in
the CAA.
Prior to working with the OCWR, Mr. Uelmen prosecuted labor
and employment cases before administrative tribunals, trial
courts, and courts of appeal, for more than twenty years in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
We welcome you, Mr. Uelmen.
And our second witness is Mark Strand, who is President of
the Congressional Institute. The Institute produces resources
such as a House Floor procedures manual and a survival guide
for congressional staff.
Mr. Strand has served as president since 2007, and is also
an adjunct professor of legislative affairs at George
Washington University's Graduate School of Political
Management. He is the co-author of the book ``Surviving Inside
Congress.''
And like some of us, Mr. Strand is also a former
congressional staffer, having spent nearly 24 years on Capitol
Hill in both the House and Senate, most recently serving as the
Chief of Staff to former Senator Jim Talent.
On behalf of the Committee, I really want to thank both of
our witnesses for their long-standing interest in improving the
Legislative Branch and for being willing to share their
thoughts with us today.
I would remind the witnesses that their entire written
statements will be made part of the record, and we would ask
that you confine your oral testimony to about five-minutes.
So first, Mr. Uelmen, we are happy to recognize you.
Could you pull the microphone just a little bit closer?
There we go.
Mr. Uelmen. All right.
The Chairperson. Much better.
STATEMENTS OF MR. JOHN D. UELMEN, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF
CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE RIGHTS, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND MR. MARK
STRAND, PRESIDENT, THE CONGRESSIONAL INSTITUTE
STATEMENT OF JOHN D. UELMEN
Mr. Uelmen. Okay. Thank you for this opportunity to speak
with you today about implementing the rights of congressional
staff to collectively bargain under Section 220 of the
Congressional Accountability Act.
As you know, I am the General Counsel of the Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights, and under the CAA, I have
specific statutory responsibilities with respect to Section
220. I know that many of you have questions about today's
topic, so I will keep my oral statement brief.
Prior to the hearing, I did provide the Committee with a
detailed written statement and a document from my office
containing answers to frequently asked questions about
unionization and collective bargaining.
In my written statement, I tried to provide you with three
types of information concerning the past, the present, and the
possible future, if a resolution approving the OCWR regulations
is passed by the House.
Regarding the past, I provided some background information
about the regulations approved by the board in 1996, how lack
of congressional approval of these regulations affects the
collective bargaining rights of congressional staff under
Section 220, and how the current board responded to the
Chairperson's recent inquiry as to whether the 1996 regulations
are still being recommended for approval given the changes made
to the CAA in the Reform Act.
As you know, the members are now unanimous in recommending
that the regulations adopted by the 1996 board be approved by
Congress. The statutory procedures under Section 220 were not
changed by the Reform Act, and the regulations are not obsolete
because of changes in the House or the Senate since 1996.
Regarding the present, I noted the pending approval
resolution now before this Committee and suggested some steps
the Committee might take regarding the language. I also
provided a brief explanation about how unionization and
collective bargaining currently operate under the OCWR
regulations that were approved and issued in 1996 and which
apply to other staff in the legislative branch, since these are
the same regulations that would apply to congressional staff if
the House were to approve the pending regulations that the
board has not yet been able to issue.
These regulations contain procedures that are able to
resolve representation questions, such as who must be included
or excluded from a bargaining unit, as well as negotiability
and all other issues.
Finally, regarding the future, I tried to answer some of
the big picture questions about how unionization and collective
bargaining might work if the rights of congressional staff
would be implemented in the House. Because the definition of
employing office in the CAA and because most decisions
regarding staff working conditions are made by the management
of each Member office, unions would have to organize at the
Member and committee office level. There cannot be one
bargaining unit for most House employees because the House of
Representatives itself is not an employing office.
On the other hand, it would be possible to have more than
one bargaining unit in an employing office. For example,
committees would likely have two bargaining units which would
be split by party affiliation.
Since I have noticed a change in the type of questions I
have been receiving in the last few days, I also want to talk
briefly about the duty to bargain under the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute, most of which is
incorporated into Section 220. For convenience, I am going to
refer to this as the statute.
The duty to bargain is very limited under the statute. It
is nothing like what exists in the private sector under the
National Labor Relations Act. When we talk about the duty to
bargain, we are talking about proposals made by a union that
management must bargain over.
Under the statute, the only mandatory subject of bargaining
is over conditions of employment, which is defined in the
statute as personnel practices, policies, and matters, whether
established by rule, regulation, or otherwise, affecting
working conditions. And that is in Section 7103(a)(14).
In addition, there is a broad prohibition against proposals
contrary to law and a very expansive definition of management
rights in Section 71(6)(a) that prevents mandatory bargaining
on any proposal that would keep management or severely restrict
management's right to do such things as determining its
mission, budget, organization, number of employees, internal
security, hiring and firing, disciplining, and making job
assignments. So many of the bread-and-butter issues that labor
unions can compel management to bargain over in the private
sector are usually off the table for Federal employees under
this statute.
The union can, under certain circumstances, compel
bargaining over procedures which management will use when
exercising a management right or appropriating arrangements for
employees adversely affected by the exercise of a management
right, but this is a far more limited form of bargaining than
what exists in the private sector.
[The statement of Mr. Uelmen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Thank you, Mr. Uelmen. Your time has
expired, but your full written report is available. It will be
on our website, not only for the Members, but for staff and
other interested members of the public to thoroughly review. We
do appreciate it, and we will hold you available for questions
after we hear from Mr. Strand, who will now be recognized
remotely for five minutes.
Mr. Strand.
STATEMENT OF MARK STRAND
Mr. Strand. Thank you, Chairperson Lofgren and Ranking
Member Davis and other Members of the Committee. Thank you for
inviting me to testify on the issue of congressional staff
unionization.
I believe unionizing would ultimately harm Congress and
inhibit the work of elected Representatives and threaten their
independence. I want to make clear, though, that I am not
against labor unions. I am the son of a union shop steward. As
a former staffer who served in the House and Senate for 24
years, I am mindful of the often challenging circumstances of
being a congressional employee.
My written testimony contains a lot of open-ended questions
that need to be answered before taking a single step towards
allowing employee unions among your staff. Because once you
start down this road, you might find it extremely difficult to
turn back.
For the first hundred years of our government, Congress
didn't have staff. It wasn't until a joint committee in the
1970s pushed through a number of reforms that modernized
Congress that we arrived at the current number of staffers
working for individual Members.
I mention this because citizens do not elect staff. They
elect a single individual to represent them. Members then are
given broad latitude to hire the staff they think will best
serve their constituents.
The Executive Branch currently has more than two million
employees, plus 4,000 political appointees, all of whom help
the President execute his agenda. For Congress to compete, it
requires strong individual legislators. We empower Members to
organize in offices based on the unique needs of their
district.
The independence of each individual Member is the key to
Article I powers invested in the Legislative Branch through our
Constitution. Our system of government was intentionally
created to invest significant power in individual lawmakers. By
contrast, the political parties in the parliamentary system
control most staff, which serves as a check against individual
Members, showing independence from party leaders. To give up
that kind of independence that is engrained in our system would
put Congress at an even greater disadvantage against the
Executive Branch.
The essential problem with unionization is that the union
will share control over terms and conditions of employment with
the elected Representative that intersect at vital points with
the ability of a Member to represent his or her constituents.
A classic example is the right to discharge an employee. A
lawmaker hires a legislative aide to assist with that Member's
primary committee assignment. The aide performs adequately on
most issues but develops a contentious relationship with
committee staff which, in turn, threatens the Member's ability
to participate in the committee process.
Is there a just cause to discharge the employee and hire
someone who can get along with the committee staff and thereby
ensure the Member's legislative agenda is achieved? How do you
prove that in grievance procedure? Do you get affidavits from
committee staff?
What if, while that process is going on, the committee is
passing a comprehensive reauthorization that won't occur again
for another ten years? How will the Member explain to voters
that internal staff disputes led to legislative failures but
that Member still deserves to be reelected?
What if the staff member performs their job functions well
enough but makes a very poor impression on constituents, like a
front desk person who has difficulty making people feel
welcome? What if the scheduler makes periodic mistakes that
embarrass the office with double booking meetings or not
factoring in travel times in the district? How many mistakes
are enough to justify replacement?
Unionization would require uniform jobs in each office
ultimately, which would take an incredible amount of agency
away from lawmakers. Right now, a staff assistant in one office
might also be a press assistant, but in another, she oversees
interns or handles one or two smaller policy issues.
How would standardizing the job of a staff assistant help
young employees learn the other roles needed in a Capitol Hill
office?
A union, under the guise of improving workplace conditions,
might enforce labor hours, but congressional committee
schedules can vary from week to week, even day to day.
Washington, D.C. staff can put in long hours during session,
but during recess periods, it is the district staff who is no
longer working traditional nine to five, and instead is
staffing their boss at breakfast, dinners, and weekend events.
These are the normal feast or famine hours for congressional
staff.
But if union decides that such long hours are detrimental,
what happens then? How is a Member sufficiently served when
someone other than she and the chief of staff determine when
employees can work within reasonable limits? What happens to a
committee if a markup runs long or extends into the morning
hours? Are time-sensitive negotiations put on hold because
staff must remain off the job for certain periods to comply
with union mandates?
Senator Robert Byrd, a supporter of unions, spoke against
Capitol Hill unions. He said, Senators will no longer have the
ability to structure and manage their staffs consistent with
the unique needs of the States which they represent without
first consulting with union representatives.
Congressional staffers, just like Members, get pulled to
public service. Working conditions can certainly be improved,
but the correct approach is robust oversight through this
Committee or even by looking at what your colleagues on the
Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress have done.
Discretion over things like salary levels, job
responsibilities, titles, hours to a reasonable extent, among a
myriad of other issues, need to be left to the Members
themselves.
Thank you for inviting me to testify.
[The statement of Mr. Strand follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Thank you very much, Mr. Strand.
And now is the time when Members of the Committee can ask
questions for as long as five-minutes, and I will turn first to
the Ranking Member, Mr. Davis, for his questions.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Mr. Strand, I appreciate you being our witness today and
great to see you again. You mentioned in your testimony, did I
hear you correctly, that former Senator Byrd from West Virginia
did not support unionizing congressional employees because of
the unique office type of experience?
Mr. Strand. Yes, that is correct. And, of course, Senator
Byrd was a strong supporter of unions in West Virginia, but he
just felt----
Mr. Davis. That is what I was going to ask you.
Mr. Strand. Yes.
Mr. Davis. Has he ever been accused of being anti-union?
Mr. Strand. No. He just didn't think it would work on
Capitol Hill. The reason for that, as you know, he was a great
institutionalist of Congress, and what he said was that they
will no longer have the ability to structure and manage their
staff consistent with the unique needs of their States.
Because this is a unique relationship. When you are elected
by the voters, they elect you; and whenever you invite somebody
else into that process of how you are represented, whether it
is staff or a union representative or someone else, you are
necessarily getting in between the Member and their
constituents. And this is a dangerous place to be, because it
already undermines the ability of Members to do the job the way
they think it is best for their district.
Mr. Davis. And former Senator Byrd, who had some other
unique historical perspectives, felt this way, that it would
disrupt the--could impact the legislative process and also
maybe disrupt the congressional process that we follow here in
the House?
Mr. Strand. Yes. And I think this is----
Mr. Davis. Do you agree?
Mr. Strand. Yes. I think he agreed with that statement, and
I agree with your assessment there.
The biggest challenge continually is that what is the
leverage that unions would have? Auto workers make automobiles,
and so their leverage is to stop making automobiles in a
strike.
Legislative staff make legislation. Caseworkers do
casework. Staff assistants perform constituent services. And
these are all at the--but they don't do them independently.
They do them at the express direction of the Member of Congress
who hires them.
So once you invite somebody else into that process, there
is multiple influences generating how they perform their duties
serving constituents. And this is where the problem comes for
the independence of individual Members of Congress.
Mr. Davis. Well, listen, I know you mentioned the Select
Committee on the Modernization of Congress and recommendations.
I think you and I both agree that some of those recommendations
ought to be discussed at this Committee's level.
So I appreciate your time today, Mark. It is great to see
you again and give my best to your family too.
Mr. Uelmen, I was very impressed with your resume until I
saw that you actually went to a law school that let my
colleague Mr. Steil in. So a little lower there knowing that
you both went to the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law
School.
Mr. Steil. Hey, hey.
Mr. Davis. No, I will not yield, Mr. Steil.
In a letter from February 22 of 2022, from Barbara Childs
Wallace to Chairperson Lofgren, she stated that the board urges
Congress to approve these regulations. Do you think it is the
proper role for OCWR to advocate for the adoption of certain
policies?
Mr. Uelmen. Well, I think it is the position of the board
that the policies have already been decided by the
Congressional Accountability Act. I mean, I think it is
Congress' role to determine the policy. The Congressional
Accountability Act clearly provides that these rights exist for
employees, and it is just a technicality that they haven't been
implemented for congressional staff. So, if Congress does not
believe that unionization is something good for Congress, they
should pass legislation that says that. I don't think the CAA
says that.
Mr. Davis. Has OCWR crafted a handbook or guidance on the
organization and management of unions in the House of
Representatives?
Mr. Uelmen. Well, it is going to be a challenge, you know--
--
Mr. Davis. So the answer is no?
Mr. Uelmen. No. I mean, I think we had a challenge with the
Reform Act, and we met that challenge. I think the same thing
would be true with this effort, you know, with--and, again, it
is very hard to predict exactly how many petitions we are going
to get.
I mean, it is going to be extremely difficult for a union
to organize, and it is going to be even more difficult to get a
collective bargaining agreement, so----
Mr. Davis. Well, again, another question. My time is
running short. I apologize Mr. Uelmen. It was announced during
an OCWR-hosted brown bag lunch last week that your office is
compiling a resource of frequently asked questions. Is this
correct?
Mr. Uelmen. Yes. In fact, it is up on our website.
Mr. Davis. All right. It is just inexcusable that the only
guidance your office is offering is FAQs. It is clear that
there are a lot of unknowns and that your office hasn't
provided the necessary information for staff and employing
authorities alike for them to fully understand the impacts of
what we are discussing today.
So, with that, Madam Chairperson, I am out of time, and I
yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
I believe that Mr. Raskin is joining us remotely. I would
recognize Mr. Raskin if that is correct.
Mr. Raskin is not appearing on our screen, so I will turn
to Mr. Aguilar, who is also, I understand, participating
remotely. Mr. Aguilar would be recognized.
Oh, apparently, Mr. Raskin was trying to log on, so we will
go back to Mr. Raskin, to recognize him remotely.
Mr. Raskin.
Apparently he has lost the feed. So we will go to Ms.
Scanlon, who is here in person for her questions. And hopefully
the two remote Members, who they noted, both of them, publicly,
have tested positive for COVID and have to participate
remotely, will be able to reconnect.
Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Chairperson Lofgren, for holding
this important hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for
being here. Obviously, this is a topic of intense interest,
both on the Hill and off, and I really welcome the opportunity
to dig into this a little bit.
I have worked for many years in the legal services field,
and many of the arguments we are hearing here are similar to
the arguments that we heard when legal services lawyers tried
to organize. Also, there are many of the same reasons why legal
services lawyers tried to organize.
If you look at their union, as they started talking to each
other, they found out that they had widely shared concerns.
Resources were problematic. Workers from around the country
found that their working conditions weren't great. There were
problems with hours and treatment and those kind of things,
some of the things we see right here in Congress, where, as has
been mentioned, the working conditions are not always ideal.
So I do welcome the opportunity to talk about what are the
barriers to unionization, so that they can be addressed, and
what can we do to make it easier.
I too have served on the Committee, the Select Committee on
the Modernization of Congress, and we have had many, many
discussions about things that need to be done to make life on
the Hill more livable for everyone.
I was really interested in reading, in the May 23, 1996,
Congressional Record, there was debate about staff unionization
efforts that could not include pay, health insurance, or
retirement benefits. These are typically things that people
negotiate with through their unions. So can you talk a little
bit about that, just so it is clear to people.
Mr. Uelmen. Sure. And that was the point I was trying to
make about how limited both the duty to bargain is as well as
the scope of bargaining is under the statute. So really what I
would call the bread-and-butter issues really cannot be
bargained under the statute because they are usually determined
by law or they would infringe upon a management right, so----
Ms. Scanlon. And can you compare or contrast that to how
other Federal employees are treated?
Mr. Uelmen. It is really the same.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay.
Mr. Uelmen. You know, there may be more opportunity in
Congress, simply because there are less laws that regulate, you
know, some of these areas, you know, so--and then those
opportunities would probably have to be decided by the board,
you know, by a petition. But for the most part, those are the
same restrictions that are on all other Federal employees, so--
--
Ms. Scanlon. So what do you see as the greatest impediments
to unionization that would need to be addressed?
Mr. Uelmen. Well, I am not sure some of them can be
addressed. As I said, unions would have to organize them on the
Member level. So you can't have one Member for one bargaining
unit for everybody in Congress.
Now, there are ways that you can collectively bargain with
multiple employers. So, if a union was able to organize
multiple offices and the management of those offices agreed to
bargain collectively with the union, you can come up with
either a master agreement or a lead agreement that would apply
to all of the offices.
So, I mean that is something that management would have to
decide, and that would be something where the union would have
to, you know, be able to--one union would have to be able to
organize multiple offices, so----
Ms. Scanlon. So that would be similar to implementing model
employment rules----
Mr. Uelmen. Sure, sure. I mean----
Ms. Scanlon [continuing]. For the offices?
Mr. Uelmen. I mean, this is something, like, for instance,
that happens a lot in the construction industry where you have
multiple small employers. So there is a master agreement that
all of them have signed onto----
Ms. Scanlon. Right.
Mr. Uelmen [continuing]. You know, so----
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. It is just really interesting to tease
it out, especially this idea that it would have to be office by
office. So if we can only have 16 employees, some of whom are
part time, whatever, those are pretty small units, but there
could be a greater collective bargaining space.
I am very interested in the organization movement. I
represent southeastern Pennsylvania. That is union country like
no other, and it has served our country well. It has built the
middle class, and we have seen how the rollback of the ability
to organize and collectively bargain has really hurt our middle
class. I am really, really heartened by the fact that we are
seeing a resurgence in interest in organizing around the
country, in places where people previously said it was
impossible, like legal services, although that has existed for
a while; like Starbucks, for example. So I am interested in
teasing out what we can do in this area, so thank you.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady yields.
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and this is an
important issue, and it is important that we discuss these
issues.
I think this is a solution looking for a problem, and--but
still, an idea is an idea, and we have to look at it
reasonably. Another committee I am on, we took on a nonsensical
idea, the Post Office becoming a bank. So as we went through
the process, we realized, I think everybody realized that was
not a good idea. I think we do need to look at this.
But there are several pitfalls that unionization would have
that would--and I agree with Senator Byrd. The uniqueness of
this institution requires flexibility. It requires each
individual office to meet the unique needs of its constituency.
It is not just State by State, it is district by district.
A homogenous type of operation, I think, would create many
more problems, and those who would suffer from that would be
the constituency of the people in America. I even think back of
what happens when the staffers decide to go on strike right at
the end of a government shutdown and we can't really function
here? I mean, these are the types of things that, ah, you are
crazy. Well, there is crazier things that have happened in the
world, and we must think through these.
My office is very transitional, you may say, in the way
that we have operated. My staff and what they do now is
different than the staff that I had when I first came in. I
have made up positions to meet the unique needs of our
district. As Georgia's economy has grown, even after the
pandemic, we have grown substantially.
Many, many more new businesses are coming into the State,
so I created a staff position for someone to go and just
introduce themselves to new businesses and new organizations to
let them know how we can represent them and work with them.
So, the duties in my office is based on the strength, the
talent, and the interest of each staff member. I have at one
time, I had a scheduler here and a scheduler in the district.
My scheduler in the district also took on other duties when I
was up here. I may have a legislative correspondent who also
works as a staff assistant, or I have one right now that is a
legislative correspondent and is working as a legislative
assistant because they have an interest there, but they still
like doing the legislative correspondent work.
We actually look at the interest and the talent of every
member, and we know how to best operate our office, and we
transition as needed.
So, Mr. Strand, unions appear to be more effective. Now, I
am in a right-to-work State of Georgia. The unions we have in
Georgia are predominantly in larger businesses, larger
construction companies, larger industries. You very rarely find
unionization in the small businesses because, quite frankly,
the employees don't want to be unionized, and the uniqueness of
each small business is they must have the flexibility within
their staff. The makeup of Congress, because of the way the MRA
is done, the way that we do our own hiring, is we operate more
as individual, small businesses.
So, Mr. Strand, the independence of each individual member
is key to the Article I power invested in the Legislative
Branch. Can you elaborate on that and what some of the pitfalls
of a homogenous-type operation would be?
Mr. Strand. Well, thank you, sir. I think that it goes back
to the whole central issue that if you have another interest
negotiating the terms--the control and terms of conditions of
employment besides yourself, that voters are getting someone
they didn't vote for. And this is the challenge continually is
that I do staff retreats all over, and every office is
different.
Every Member has their own unique needs in their districts.
They do things differently, from outreach to casework to the
legislative staff and setup. So, the uniqueness of the office
is based on your unique relationship with the voters. And
therefore I think it is just not practical to do it, especially
on an office-by-office level. You know, I am not sure how that
would work on a practical basis.
Now, this is not to say there aren't bad employers up
there, but the key thing is that I think most Members recognize
that, other than their own time, their most precious resource
is their staff. You can exponentially increase your influence
and your ability to do the job when you have good management
and good staff. And that is something you can't change through
a union, that is something that you must do as Members.
Mr. Loudermilk. All right. Thank you. We could go on this
all day, but I see I am out of time. And you are right, this is
a unique employment. This is not generally a career path for
people who work here. I have got folks in this room that used
to work in my office and moved on to other things. Hopefully,
they enjoyed our time there, but still, there are bad employers
and that is something that must be dealt with individually.
With that, Madam Chairperson, I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back. I understand
the technical difficulties have been resolved, and Mr. Raskin
is now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Madam Chairperson, thanks so much for calling
this important hearing. As I was listening to my distinguished
colleague speak just now, I was reflecting how----
The Chairperson. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, can you hear me?
The Chairperson. Oh, apparently, I was--oh, there he is.
Mr. Raskin, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
You know, all employers are unique in his or her or its own
way. The history of the labor movement, of course, is
confronting employers who say, we are different, we are unique,
and we take care of our people, and we are sensitive to the
needs of our employees and so on. So I think we have got to
take that with a grain of salt.
Well, what is unique about our situation is the point that
I think Mr. Strand and the Ranking Member make, which is that
we are the Congress of the United States, and we have to get
the job of lawmaking done.
Having said that, under Article I, we have the power to
pass all laws necessary and proper to the functioning of our
institution. So, we can design it the way we think we need to
design it, in order both to vindicate the interest of staff to
having a fair workplace, where their interests are recognized
and taken into account, as well as the paramount interest of
the government in legislation. I think we can do both.
So, Mr. Uelmen, let me come to you. First, does the right
to organize exist now in the staffers? In other words, is there
anything that would stop, under the First Amendment and under
this legislation already passed, workers, staff members in a
particular committee or office getting together, meeting,
caucusing, and then saying they want to present the Member with
requests or demands of some kind?
Mr. Uelmen. Well, that is a difficult question. I mean,
yes, certainly they can do that. The problem is they probably
could not enforce any type of agreement they reach through our
procedures and then through the OCWR, so----
Mr. Raskin. And then that is the necessity of action right
now, but theoretically, the right of them to get together
exists. After all, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act itself was based on the First Amendment and the idea of
people having the right to speak, to assemble, to associate,
and get together. And that is really all we are talking about
doing is vindicating that right.
There are particular complexities that are attendant to the
legislative function of the national government. So help us
with this. What exactly is the bargaining unit? Is it each
Member's office? Is it each committee's office? Or is it, I
could contemplate the situation where it is all the press
secretaries from all the offices. Is it the Democratic and
Republican and Independent members together, or is it each
separate? Is that going to be defined by regulation by us or is
that going to be defined through a kind of common-law process
of considering collective bargaining agreements and attempts to
organize?
Mr. Uelmen. Well, I think the question you are asking is
literally what we call the appropriateness of the bargaining
unit. So, the way the process works is a union would propose a
bargaining unit, and if there was a disagreement with
management regarding the appropriateness of that unit, they
would then use the OCWR procedures to resolve that
disagreement.
Generally, I mean, a bargaining unit must be composed of
staff members of the same employer. So, I think that you can't
have a bargaining unit representing, you know, from multiple
employers. As I said, you may be--there may be opportunities
after you form the union to bargain, you know, jointly, but
from an organizing perspective, I think it must be from each
employing office.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. I hear you are defining an employer as a
Member, is that right, or a committee or subcommittee?
Mr. Uelmen. Yes. The problem is the CAA says an employing
office is not the House of Representatives; it is each office
of a Member or each committee office.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Good. All right. So, I think what
probably gives everybody pause on this is the nightmare
scenario invoked by some of our colleagues, which is, you know,
what happens if we face some kind of massive strike or shutdown
in the middle of, you know, the appropriations period or
something like that.
I know that there are public sector workers who have the
right to organize but not, for example, the right to strike. I
think it works that way with a lot of teachers and, you know,
other public employees. Is that something that would be
determined along the way or is that something that will be
built into the legislation that we are considering right now?
Mr. Uelmen. Yes. The statute itself actually, you know,
totally prohibits both strikes and lockouts. So, I mean, that
really isn't an issue. It has never been an issue with Federal
employees, so----
The Chairperson. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Raskin. Madam Chairperson, thank you. I ask unanimous
consent to insert a statement by our colleague, Andy Levin,
from Michigan.
The Chairperson. Of course. Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
The Chairperson. Mr. Steil is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Steil. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
Mr. Uelmen, appreciate you being here. It is good to see a
fellow Badger alum despite what Ranking Member Davis says. It
is good to have you here.
I want to discuss with you the process of developing the
regulations. I know your team recently went through an
expedited review of the draft regulations from the 1990s and,
to my knowledge, had no edits. Is that correct?
Mr. Uelmen. Excuse me. I didn't hear the----
Mr. Steil. You reviewed the draft regulations that were
produced in the 1990s with your team and you had no additional
edits?
Mr. Uelmen. Yes. The board did review the 1996 regulations
that were adopted by the 1996 board, you know, so yes.
Mr. Steil. So, there were no recommended changes or----
Mr. Uelmen. No.
Mr. Steil [continuing]. Edits to that regulation. Is that
accurate?
Mr. Uelmen. Right. That is correct.
Mr. Steil. And can you explain the process of the review
that your team went through when reviewing these regulations?
Mr. Uelmen. Well, again, they went through the Notice of
Adoption, which is very detailed. It went through all the
comments and the 1996 board's response to the comments. They
reviewed kind of the dissenting views and determined that--and
really the regulations themselves, all they say is that the
regulations that apply to everybody else are going to apply to
Congress. So, we have had those regulations in place since
1996.
Mr. Steil. And how many days total did that process take,
Mr. Uelmen?
Mr. Uelmen. Well, it is the date between the two letters. I
mean, it pretty much ended--began when we received the letter.
It ended, I believe, on the date that the board sent the
letter.
Mr. Steil. Do you recall what those dates were, just how
many days that might have been?
Mr. Uelmen. Off hand, I don't. If I could look----
Mr. Steil. A handful of days? Weeks? Months?
Mr. Uelmen. I mean, it was twenty days. I--you know, I
think it was around there.
Mr. Steil. Couple weeks, okay. Well, maybe we can get that
for the record later.
And then following that process, you sent the regulations
to the board for their approval. Is that accurate?
Mr. Uelmen. Again, the regulations, the way it works is the
regulations are published in the Congressional Record once they
are adopted by the board. So those regulations are still there.
I mean, we did send another copy to the Chairperson, but those
regulations have already been published and have been out there
since 1996.
Mr. Steil. Okay. And, obviously, a lot has changed since
1996. I think there is a lot of staffers on the Hill that
probably weren't born at that time.
Have you considered whether it would be necessary or
appropriate to have an additional notice and comment period
since it is, you know, approaching 25, 30 years since it was
initially drafted?
Mr. Uelmen. Just so we are clear, you know, this is the
decision of the board. That is not my decision to make.
Mr. Steil. Understood. But in your opinion, would that be a
helpful process or a not necessary process?
Mr. Uelmen. You know, unless they are going to change what
they proposed in 1996, it really--there is no----
Mr. Steil. You don't see a need for it?
Okay. Committee staff in both the House and the Senate have
requested to see copies, I think, of the original comments that
were made during the initial notice and comment period, but I
believe your office stated that those no longer exist. Is that
accurate?
Mr. Uelmen. No. I think what we--there were three comments,
I think--no, the comments are fully described in the Notice of
Adoption. I think the actual letters, I think we found three
out of the six. So, I think we are still looking for the other
three.
Mr. Steil. So slightly incomplete record, it would be at
least my analysis of it.
Have you considered kind of the potential conflict of
interest congressional unions may create with their Members?
And let me put a pin on this. In your comments, I believe, to
my colleague, Ms. Scanlon, you noted that a bargaining unit
could exist with more than one Member. Is that piece accurate?
Mr. Uelmen. No.
Mr. Steil. It would be one Member to one bargaining unit?
Mr. Uelmen. Each Member office would have to have a
separate bargaining unit.
Mr. Steil. So you couldn't have a group of Members come
together into one cohesive bargaining unit under your
understanding?
Mr. Uelmen. I don't believe that is possible under the CAA.
Mr. Steil. Okay. Very good. And then would a committee
staff, would that bargaining unit be a minority and a majority
staff, or would that be all under the chair of any given
committee?
Mr. Uelmen. I think, as I indicated, I think it would have
to be split along partisan lines, because the Ranking Member
determines for the minority and the Chairperson determines the
working conditions for the majority.
Mr. Steil. Even though the employing authority might be
just the chair on a committee?
Mr. Uelmen. Right. An employing office can have more than
one bargaining unit. I mean, we have multiple bargaining units
in----
Mr. Steil. Okay. And do you see a conflict that would exist
if the Senate and the House chose different paths?
Mr. Uelmen. A different path?
Mr. Steil. Different path. If the House chose to unionize
and the Senate did not, or the Senate chose to unionize, and
the House did not.
Mr. Uelmen. Well, the CAA allows that, I mean, since it can
be adopted by one House resolution. So at least the Act itself
contemplated that, where one House would adopt regulations and
the other wouldn't, so----
Mr. Steil. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony
today.
Madam Chairperson, I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Aguilar, we will see if our technology is working and
can we recognize you for five minutes.
Mr. Aguilar. Madam Chairperson, can you hear me?
The Chairperson. We can hear you, but we can't see you.
Mr. Aguilar. Well, I assure you I am around. We will see if
they can switch the----
The Chairperson. Ah, there you are.
Mr. Aguilar. There we go. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Appreciate the importance of this hearing.
Mr. Uelmen, I will get to you. According to the OCWR, when
employees file a petition to eventually be certified as an
official bargaining unit, the petition--I want to get this
right--must have the signatures of thirty percent of the
employees. Is that what you testified?
Mr. Uelmen. Yes. There must be a showing of interest by
thirty percent of the employees in a bargaining unit.
Mr. Aguilar. Our colleague from Georgia talked about the
[inaudible] so let's go with that. Knowing that some of our
offices are small, the bargaining units could be comprised of
two or three staffers, and if an individual leaves a bargaining
unit, how does that change a union in an individual office? Is
the union still legal? What if all the employees covered in the
bargaining unit leave their positions over the course of the
congressional term, what would happen in that case?
Mr. Uelmen. Excuse me. I didn't catch the end of that.
Mr. Aguilar. What if the employees covered in the
bargaining unit--let's just say that it is a bargaining unit of
four people--what if there is a transition and over the course
of the two-year cycle in Congress, all those employees end up
moving on to other positions? You know, what would happen in
that case?
Mr. Uelmen. You know, generally the way union--collective
bargaining agreements operate is that once the agreement is in
place, it really--it is in place for those positions, and so it
doesn't matter whether the actual people in those positions has
changed.
Mr. Aguilar. Okay. I appreciate that.
In your testimony, I wanted to get a little deeper into the
membership and management piece. You noted that management
officials are--and I am quoting here--those employees whose
duties and responsibilities require or authorize the individual
to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the
employing office.
Can you tell us a little bit more about what kind of
staffers would be considered management?
Mr. Uelmen. Well, generally management are those staffers
who determine the conditions of employment. The idea is to
separate those staffers who are going to be on one side of the
table from those who are, you know, going to be on the other
side of the table. So, if you are going to bargain, you are
going to bargain with the people who are determining the terms
and conditions of the employment, so that is really the
dividing line.
Mr. Aguilar. So it doesn't have to do specifically with
supervisory responsibilities and roles? I think that is just an
area of confusion.
Mr. Uelmen. Yes. I mean--I mean, as I said, that is how you
divide it. So, whatever you call the position, the question is
whether this is a position that is deciding what the rules of
the office are going to be, or is this someone on the other
side who is being subjected to those procedures, so----
Mr. Aguilar. Yes. No, I understand that. I just think from
the perspective of an employee, it oftentimes, you know, might
feel like management is whoever is supervising you. So, if you
are an intern, you know, your supervisor is a staff assistant
potentially. If you are a staff assistant, your supervisor
might be the chief of staff or deputy chief of staff. So, I
just think that there is some confusion in that sense that we
might need to clear up.
House committees also have nuance management structures.
How would the committee staffers fit in in those respects on
the management side? Is it still the same answer?
Mr. Uelmen. Yes. Again, it would be who in the committee is
deciding what the conditions of employment are. So, it would
undoubtedly be the senior staff.
Mr. Aguilar. But do you have any more guidance on what that
definition of senior staff might be?
Mr. Uelmen. Again, some of these questions obviously can be
tricky, I mean, which is why we have procedures in place to
determine if somebody should be included or excluded from a
bargaining unit. I mean, there is a difference between what we
would call a lead worker position and somebody who is really in
management. Somebody who merely is giving direction for work
but doesn't really have a role in determining the conditions of
employment is not going to be considered management, so-and-
so----
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate that.
My time is running short, so I will yield back, Madam
Chairperson.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from New Mexico is recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Madam Chairperson,
and for our witnesses for shedding light on this issue.
In the fourteen months I have been here, I truly admire our
staffers. They are committed to this institution. They are
committed to their jobs. I think them speaking out about this
now is a good thing.
And it strikes me, listening to the testimony and reading
it, that the CAA was adopted, as was pointed out, decades ago.
It was in the Congressional Accountability Act that set up the
process for this unionization. So, Congress already did this.
And it also strikes me, sitting here today after that great
State of the Union Address last night, that President Biden
said, when we invest in our workers, we can do something we
haven't done in a long time--build a better America.
I think if we apply that principle everywhere, we will want
to apply it here as well, so we can build a better Congress to
better serve our constituents, because that is indeed what we
are trying to do.
So in looking at this, Mr. Strand, you have spent decades
committed to this institution and committed to making sure that
the workplace works for different people in these offices. Do
you think that when we strengthen our staff's working
conditions and pay, we also strength Congress' capacity,
especially increasing our capacity as a coequal branch of
government, yes or no?
Mr. Strand. No, I think that the conditions of the
workplace for employees makes a huge difference in the ability
of staffers to serve the country, just like the Members of
Congress.
The biggest thing you have to have been that that is the
responsibility of the Member to ensure those conditions----
Ms. Leger Fernandez. But I was asking whether you believe
that strengthening the employees was a good thing, and I think
you have indeed said----
Mr. Strand. Oh, I absolutely agree with you, that----
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Fine.
Mr. Strand. Yeah.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much.
You know, my district is the size of Pennsylvania, and so I
have staffers that are sent out over a very large, large area.
I want to make sure that they work at a job that they love, but
that they can stay at it if they so desire.
Mr. Uelmen, you described the unionization process in
detail. Mr. Strand earlier expressed his concern about a union
preventing staff from working long hours or changing the at-
will nature or changing some of the things that are already in
the Congressional Accountability Act.
Could you just clarify, if a office chooses to unionize,
could they change the provisions of the Congressional
Accountability Act that says at will, strikes are not allowed,
those other matters that he pointed to?
Mr. Uelmen. No.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Can you point to examples from other
unions on the Hill that might account for varied
responsibilities, different working hours? I mean, there are, I
could imagine, quite a few unions that are dealing with complex
working conditions. Is that correct?
Mr. Uelmen. Sure. We have, I think, twenty-some bargaining
units on the Hill. I think the largest one is the Capitol
Police. You know, so they provide, you know, a lot of complex
tasks that--and then happily they just entered into another
agreement, so--after many years of bargaining, so----
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Well, that is a good thing, right? I
believe that what we are looking at here is the fact that we
are now hearing from our staffers about these issues. And that
if we want to invest in our staff and we want to be able to
listen to our staff, would you describe a unionization process
and a union as a way of increasing management's ability to
listen to the issues that affect those workers?
Mr. Uelmen. I mean, certainly. I mean, anytime you sit at
the table together to discuss working conditions, each party is
going to learn a little bit more about the other. I mean, labor
is going to understand--have a better idea what the challenges
are of management, and management is going to have a much
better understanding of what the real concerns are of labor,
so--even if you don't get a collective bargaining--even if you
don't get an agreement, if you sit down and discuss it, I mean,
you are likely to have a better understanding of where the
other party sits. I mean--so----
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes, indeed, this concept of listening
is a wonderful thing to do, and we all are committed to doing
that with our constituents. And this would give us an
opportunity--not an opportunity but an obligation to sit and
listen to our staffers.
With that, Madam Chairperson, my time has expired, and I
yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady yields back.
I have just a couple final questions. First, as you have
mentioned, Mr. Uelmen, the issues that can be bargained is
fairly small compared to what you would have under the National
Labor Relations Act: pay, health insurance, retirement
benefits.
Some have asked the question, what about when dramatic
changes need to happen quickly? For example, because of the
pandemic, the Attending Physician's Office told us work remote.
We did--you know, we changed on a moment's notice to remote for
health reasons. Telework, masking, social distancing, hybrid
work arrangements, office cleaning and the like.
Would those changes be subject to collective bargaining or
not?
Mr. Uelmen. Again, that may be a difficult question to
answer, but what I can point out is that there is an exception
for emergency situations so that, generally in an emergency,
management can act very quickly and even--it might mean that
bargaining might be very expeditious, and it might be a call to
the union, saying, this is what we are going to do, we have to
do it, it is an emergency. But there is a provision in the
statute that does allow for kind of very prompt action by
management during emergencies, so----
The Chairperson. Let me ask you. We have had occasions
where a Member dies in office and the Clerk maintains the
office staff until the election provides a successor. Is the
Clerk--what would happen in that instance where the Clerk is
running the office that was unionized, how would that work?
Mr. Uelmen. Yes. I am not sure I have a clear answer for
that, I will be honest with you. I think what we would have to
look at would be kind of the successor type cases and try to
apply a similar type of analogy. So, in many cases, with a
corporation, for instance, if there is a change, that doesn't
necessarily mean that the collective bargaining agreement goes
away, so----
The Chairperson. Okay. If there is a dispute between a
Member and--the union and the Member, and then that Member
leaves the office, what happens to this dispute and the
bargaining unit in that case? How would you resolve that?
Mr. Uelmen. Well, I think that again, most of the--if there
is a collective bargaining agreement, there probably is a
grievance procedure in place. If for some reason, you know,
management or the Clerk, if that is who it is would refuse to
use that bargaining unit, then it could be resolved through the
unfair labor practice procedure. So, I mean, there are
procedures that would resolve that issue, so----
The Chairperson. Would it be assumed, since none of us are
entitled to this job until reelected, that the terms of the
agreement would be renegotiated after every election, or would
it be a continuing agreement, do you think?
Mr. Uelmen. Again, I am not sure. I mean, if the same
officeholder is there and the office is the same, it may be a
possibility to continue the agreement, you know, into the next
term. Obviously if a Member is defeated, then the office
changes and----
The Chairperson. Right.
Mr. Uelmen [continuing]. You know, so----
The Chairperson. Well, I just think those are outlier
situations and should not dominate any decision-making, but I
hope that we can think through some of the odd cases that might
come up, make sure we know what the answers are.
Accordingly, the hearing record will be open for five days.
If Members of the Committee have additional questions for
either of our witnesses, we will send them to you, and
certainly ask that you respond as best you can so that we can
make both the questions and the answers part of the written
record.
I just want to thank the witnesses and the Committee
members for their attention today. It has been mentioned that
we had unanimity. I think I am the only Member here who was a
Member of Congress in 1995. This was unanimous. We had two
votes in the House. The first was 429 to 0, and the second was
390 to 0. It included those measures, unionization for the
staff.
I will just mention, in 1998, one observer wrote this, this
is a quote: The Office of Compliance drafted regulations
implementing the section which concerns the unionization of
legislative employees, but Congress has not approved them. This
is a disgrace to the principles supporting the CAA.
He continued: The result is that no regulations are in
effect, and this section of the Act is not being implemented.
Who said that? Senator Chuck Grassley. I would ask, without
objection, that Senator Grassley's law review article from the
Harvard Journal on Legislation from the winter of 1998, where
he made that observation, be included in the record.
I also would ask unanimous consent that the following items
be made part of the record: An August 11, 1994, Washington Post
article; a January 9, 1995, New York Times article; a May 2,
1995, Congressional Research Service report; a January 1, 2011,
Office of Compliance publication, Labor Representation,
Collective Bargaining Rights in the Congressional Workplace; a
March 2, 2022, written statement of Daniel Schuman, the policy
director for Demand Progress.
The Chairperson. I think we have additional thinking to do
on--on this, but I think that this very helpful hearing has
helped us focus on the few remaining nuance issues that need
answers.
I would just note that we all value our staff. This
institution could not run without our staff. I was just
thinking, I recently had my District Director, only my second,
who retired after 22 years in my district office. As we were
celebrating her years of service, another member of my district
office staff mentioned that she has been working for me since
1987, in both my local office and now in the congressional
office.
So we go back a long ways with these valuable people who do
the people's business, and their rights need to be respected
and considered as was envisioned by those unanimous votes my
freshman year in Congress.
So unless there are further issues before us, we will thank
the witnesses and the Members and adjourn this hearing without
objection.
[Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]