[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ESSENTIAL BUT UNDERVALUED: EXAMINING
WORKPLACE PROTECTIONS FOR
DOMESTIC WORKERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
Before The
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 28, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-53
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-475 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina,
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut Ranking Member
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, JOE WILSON, South Carolina
Northern Marina Islands GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
FREDERICA WILSON, Florida TIM WALBERG, Michigan
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 JIM BANKS, Indiana
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey JAMES COMER, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington RUSS FULCHER, Idaho
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
LUCY McBATH, Georgia BURGESS OWENS, Utah
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut BOB GOOD, Virginia
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan, Vice Chairman LISA McCLAIN, Michigan
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan MARY MILLER, Illinios
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
MONDAIRE JONES, New York SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
KATHY MANNING, North Carolina MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana MICHELLE STEEL, California
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York CHRIS JACOBS, New York
SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, Florida VACANCY
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin VACANCY
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina, Chairwoman
MARK TAKANO, California FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania,
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey Ranking Member
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan BURGESS OWENS, Utah
MONDAIRE JONES, New York BOB GOOD, Virginia
SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, Florida MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia MICHELLE STEEL, California
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Ex
Officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 28, 2022.................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Adams, Hon. Alma, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections:............................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Keller, Hon. Fred, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections:............................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
WITNESSES
Poo, Ai-jen, President, National Domestic Workers Alliance... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Mason, Dr. C. Nicole, President, Institute for Women's Policy
Research................................................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
DeCamp, Paul, Member, Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C........... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Barnett, Dana, Washington State Organizer, Hand in Hand, The
Domestic Employers Network................................. 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Ranking Member Keller:
Letter dated July 27, 2022, from the Home Care
Association of America (HCAOA)......................... 62
Letter dated July 26, 2022, from the Private Care
Association, Inc....................................... 64
Additional materials submitted by Dana Barnett........... 74
Jayapal, Hon. Pramila, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington:
Statement of June Barrett dated July 28, 2022............ 71
ESSENTIAL BUT UNDERVALUED: EXAMINING
WORKPLACE PROTECTIONS FOR
DOMESTIC WORKERS
----------
Thursday, July 28, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m.,
2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Alma
Adams (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Adams, Takano, Jayapal, Stevens,
Scott (Ex Officio), Keller, Stefanik, Miller-Meeks, Good,
Cawthorn, Steel, and Foxx (Ex Officio).
Staff present: Brittany Alston, Staff Assistant; Nekea
Brown, Director of Operations; Ilana Brunner, General Counsel;
Rashage Green, Director of Education Policy; Rasheedah Hasan,
Chief Clerk; Sheila Havenner, Director of Information
Technology; Eli Hovland, Policy Associate; Stephanie Lalle,
Communications Director; Kevin McDermott, Director of Labor
Policy; Kota Mizutani, Deputy Communication Director; Max
Moore, Policy Associate; Kayla Pennebecker, Staff Assistant;
Mason Pesek, Labor Policy Counsel; Veronique Pluviose, Staff
Director; Dhrtvan Sherman, Staff Assistant; Banyon Vassar,
Deputy Director of Information Technology; Sam Varie, Press
Secretary; ArRone Washington, Clerk/Special Assistant to the
Staff Director; Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director; Caitlin
Burke, Minority Professional Staff Member; Michael Davis,
Minority Legislative Assistant; Cate Dillon, Minority Director
of Operations; Mini Ganesh, Minority Staff Assistant; Trey
Kovacs, Minority Professional Staff Member; John Martin,
Minority Deputy Director of Workplace Policy/ Counsel; Hannah
Matesic, Minority Director of Member Services and Coalitions;
Audra McGeorge, Minority Communications Director; and Ethan
Pann, Minority Press Assistant; Gabriella Pistone, Minority
Staff Assistant; Krystina Skurk, Minority Speechwriter; Ben
Ridder, Minority Professional Staff Member; Kelly Tyroler,
Minority Professional Staff Member; Joe Wheeler, Minority
Professional Staff Member.
Chairwoman Adams. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
will come to order. Welcome everyone. I note that a quorum is
present. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
``Essential But Undervalued: Examining Workplace Protections
for Domestic Workers''. This is a hybrid hearing pursuant to
House Resolution 8 and the regulations thereto. All microphones
both in the room and on the platform will be kept muted as a
general rule to avoid unnecessary background noise.
Members and witnesses will be responsible for unmuting
themselves when they are recognized to speak or when they wish
to seek recognition. When members wish to speak or seek
recognition, they should unmute themselves and allow a pause of
2 seconds to ensure the microphone picks up their speech. I
also ask that members please identify themselves before they
speak. Members who are participating in person should not be
logged onto remote platform--should not be logged onto the
remote platform, in order to avoid feedback, echoes, and
distortion.
Members participating remotely shall be considered present
in the proceeding when they are visible on camera, and they
shall be considered not present when they are not visible on
camera. The only exception to this is if they are experiencing
technical difficulty and inform the Committee staff of such
difficulty. If any member experiences technical difficulty
during the hearing, you should stay connected on the platform,
make sure you are muted, and use your phone to immediately call
the Committee's IT director, whose number was provided in
advance.
Should the Chair need to step away for any reason, another
Majority member is hereby authorized to assume the gavel in the
Chair's absence. In order to ensure that the Committee's 5-
minute rule is adhered to, staff will be keeping track of time
using the Committee's digital timer on the remote platform. For
members participating in person, the timer will be broadcast in
the Committee room on the television monitor as part of the
platform gallery view, and visible in its own thumbnail window.
The Committee room timer will not be in use. For members
participating remotely, this will be visible in gallery view in
its own thumbnail window on the remote platform.
Members are asked to wrap up promptly when their time has
expired. Finally, when the recent guidance--while the recent
guidance from the Office of the Attending Physician has made
mask-wearing optional at this time, please know that we have in
our midst at both the member and staff levels individuals who
are immune-compromised, and who will have immediate--and who
may have immediate family members who are immune compromised as
well, or those who are not vaccinated either due to medical
reasons or because the vaccine is not yet available to children
under 6 months of age.
Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends that masks
continue to be worn out of concern for the safety of
unvaccinated and immune-compromised Committee members and staff
and their families.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c), opening statements are
limited to the Chair, excuse me, and the Ranking Member. 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 meeting to examine the important role
domestic workers play in our Nation's households and economy,
as well as our responsibility to better meet their needs. As a
daughter of a domestic worker, I am proud to serve as Chair for
this hearing. Across the country, domestic workers are the
professionals who care for our children, support our older or
disabled family members, and care for our homes. Most of these
workers serve as home care aides and direct support
professionals, helping older and disabled Americans with daily
tasks, including preparing meals, managing medications, and
providing transportation.
No matter who they support, domestic workers' services are
incredibly valuable not only to those who receive them, but
also to the family caregivers who would otherwise spend their
time on this important work. In other words, domestic workers
allow Americans to live with dignity and independence and make
it possible for family caretakers to contribute to their
communities. Although domestic workers vital to the everyday
lives of countless Americans, Federal labor laws do not
sufficiently protect domestic workers.
In fact, employment protections for domestic workers were
explicitly carved out for our foundational labor and employment
law in the 1930's, the result of racist efforts to exclude
industries in which Black workers were concentrated. To this
day, domestic workers who remain overwhelmingly women of color,
are denied collective bargaining rights, safety and hazard
protections, and protections against discrimination,
harassment, or retaliation.
The lack of basic protections and the historic segregation
of women of color in employment has created a severe wealth gap
for domestic workers and left them with vulnerable--and left
them vulnerable to abuse and discriminate. For example, on
average domestic workers earn just over $12 per hour, compared
to a median wage of nearly $20 for other workers. Even worse,
reports have found high rates of wage theft against domestic
workers. As a result, domestic workers are three times as
likely to be living in poverty as other workers, and almost
three times as likely to either be in poverty or be above the
poverty line but still without sufficient income to make ends
meet. Tragically, we know domestic workers are also vulnerable
to sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and other forms of physical
violence. Simply put, our Nation relies on domestic workers to
care for our children, families, and homes, without giving them
the basic resources to care for themselves and their families.
This injustice does not just hurt domestic workers. It also
directly affects those who rely on them, particularly as the
demand for domestic workers rapidly increases. Over the next
decade, domestic worker occupations are expected to increase
more than three times faster than other occupations. According
to the Service Employees International Union, the country will
require 4.7 million domestic workers by 2028. In 2019, there
were only roughly 2.2 million domestic workers.
If we want to meet this expected demand and successfully
recruit and retain domestic workers to address this care
deficient, and if we believe these professionals deserve fair
pay and decent working conditions, then we must give greater
attention to legislative solutions. To that end, Representative
Jayapal's Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act would take
critical steps to support these invaluable workers.
I applaud Representative Jayapal's leadership, and her
long-standing commitment to fighting for our domestic workers,
and I'm glad to be a co-sponsor on this important legislation.
As we will hear today, Representative Jayapal's legislation
would finally extend basic workplace protections to domestic
workers and strengthen the means to enforce those protections.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and working with
my colleagues on improving the lives of domestic workers and
ensuring that our loved ones can access the care they need. I
now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for the purpose
of making an opening statement.
[The Statement of Chairwoman Adams follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. All work and all people
have dignity and respect. The last thing in-home care providers
and employers need is more government mandates such as H.R.
4826. Instead, Congress should advance pro-growth policies that
reflect the needs of our modern economy and workforce.
Unfortunately, many of the Nation's workforce laws and policies
are outdated. The Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA was enacted
84 years ago and affects nearly every workplace across the
country.
Committee Republicans understand the reality and are ready
to work to streamline and modernize Federal wage and hour
policies to meet the needs of our 21st century workforce. H.R.
4826 fails to do this. This legislation looks backward, harms
every worker's--the very workers Democrats claim they intend to
help, and limits consumer access to desperately needed in-home
care services. This excessively broad legislation also wrongly
lumps health care workers and home health aides in with workers
traditionally considered domestic staff.
The legislation goes too far. It authorizes the Labor
Department to enter and inspect individuals' homes. H.R. 4826
also applies Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to all employers
with just one employee instead of 15. This unprecedented law,
few families have the resources to navigate complex wage and
hour laws. This could drive Americans to find alternatives that
put home health aides and personal care assistants out of work,
exacerbating the existing labor shortage of in-home care
workers.
Less access to home health care will force more Americans
into institutionalized settings, which will hurt the
individuals who prefer to remain at home. This legislation is
overly punitive, threatens American families with massive
regulatory penalties for first-time violations, and puts
families at greater risk of lawsuits. This kind of punitive
enforcement is not the answer, particularly for families
already struggling to navigate a worker shortage, record high
inflation, and rising labor costs.
Republicans are committed to a forward-looking agenda that
will offer all Americans more opportunities to achieve success.
Modernizing the FLSA to meet the ever-evolving needs of a
workforce that increasingly desires flexibility, choice and
mobility will be an important part of that effort. In contrast,
Democrats are pushing legislation that will take decisions out
of the hands of workers and job creators and put them in the
hands of Washington politicians. Thank you, and I yield back.
[Pause.]
[The Statement of Ranking Member Keller follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Ms. Jayapal. 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 August 11th. I will now
introduce the witnesses.
Ms. Ai-jen Poo is the president of the National Domestic
Workers Alliance and the executive director of Caring Across
Generations. Ms. Poo is a nationally recognized expert on elder
and family care and a leading advocate for the rights of
domestic workers.
Dr. C. Nicole Mason is the president and chief executive
officer of the Institute for Women's Policy Research. Dr. Mason
is an expert, one of the Nation's more foremost experts on
intersectional research and has spearheaded research on issues
relating to economic security, poverty, and women's issues. Her
expertise provides a deep understanding of the issues facing
our Nation's domestic workers, and the potential policy
solutions to address them.
Mr. Paul DeCamp is a member of the law firm Epstein Becker
and Green PC. Mr. Decamp is an expert on wage and hour issues
and has previously served as the administrator of the
Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division under the George
W. Bush administration.
Ms. Dana Barnett is the Washington State organizer for Hand
in Hand, the Domestic Employers Network. As an employer of a
domestic worker herself, Ms. Barnett is an advocate for strong
labor standards for domestic workers and has previously served
as chair of Seattle's Domestic Workers Standards Board and of
course that is my district. Thank you so much to you for being
with us and thank you to all of our witnesses for being with
us.
We appreciate all of you for participating today, and we
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 8(d)
and Committee practice, each of you is asked to limit your oral
presentation to a 5-minute summary of your written statement.
Before you begin your testimony, please remember to unmute your
microphone and during your testimony staff will be keeping
track of your time, and the timer is visible to you at the
witness table.
Please be attentive to the time, wrap up when your time is
over and remute your microphone. We will let all the witnesses
make their presentations before we move to member questions.
When answering a question, please remember to unmute your
microphone. The witnesses are aware of their responsibility to
provide accurate information to the Subcommittee, and therefore
we will proceed with their testimony. I will first recognize
with Ms. Poo.
STATEMENT OF AI-JEN POO, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL DOMESTIC WORKERS
ALLIANCE
Ms. Poo. Thank you Congresswoman, Congresswoman Adams,
Chairwoman Adams, Ranking Member Keller, Chairman Scott,
Ranking Member Foxx and members of the Committee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify in support of the Domestic Workers
Bill of Rights, introduced by Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal,
and by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Ben Ray Lujan. I commend
you for holding this groundbreaking hearing today for a
workforce composed overwhelmingly of women, majority women of
color, and immigrants who have struggled for generations to be
recognized as workers equal to others.
This moment is historic. To all the domestic workers who
are watching and to all who have come before, this is your
moment. Thank you for the essential work you do. As we speak,
there are millions of working parents and family caregivers
counting on nannies, home care workers and cleaners to enable
them to work. This is the work that produces the human
potential of our children, the quality of life of our aging
elders, and supports the dignity and independence of our loved
ones with disabilities.
The act of caring for others is what makes us human, and
the COVID-19 pandemic helped us remember how essential care is
to our lives, especially for women. It remains some of the most
insecure and undervalued work in the economy. Rather than the
dignified profession it is, domestic work is still treated as
``help'' and less than real work. The jobs are low-quality,
low-wage jobs, where women work incredibly hard and still live
in poverty, face rampant discrimination and harassment, and
find themselves without a simple sick day when a pandemic hits.
This is due in part to a long history of exclusion from
foundational labor laws rooted in the legacy of slavery in
America, and because this workplace is hidden, isolated behind
closed doors in private homes. The Domestic Workers Bill of
Rights Act, H.R. 4826, is designed to specifically address this
reality. It will ensure the workforce is treated like other
workers in our economy, with access to safe workplaces, sick
leave, overtime pay and protection from discrimination and
harassment.
A standards board will allow employers, enforcement
agencies, and workers to work together to improve the industry,
and finally this bill makes these protections real by providing
resources for implementation. Ever since they were carved out
of protections in the 1930's, domestic workers have sought to
reverse their exclusion. Nearly a 100 years later, domestic
workers are galvanized behind this bill, building upon years of
legislative progress we have made in ten states and two major
cities.
Employers, family caregivers and consumers also support
this bill, recognizing that a protected care workforce is the
backbone of a strong economy. As the Nation ages, we will need
this workforce more than ever, and because this work cannot be
automated or outsourced, care jobs will be a large share of the
jobs of the future and must be protected.
In the 24 years I have organized alongside domestic
workers, I have seen nannies show up for every milestone in a
child's life, decades after they are no longer in their care.
Home care workers who are the most emotional person at a
funeral of a client that they have just lost. House cleaners
who are the last to be evacuated during a fire, and the first
to return to clean in the aftermath. I would like to recommend
this Committee hear directly from the women who care for the
most precious elements of our lives. You will find domestic
work is much more than meets the eye. They are teachers,
nurses, confidantes, coaches, event planners and much more. We
must pass the National Domestic Workers Bill of Rights to help
make these jobs good jobs, and to finally recognize this
essential workforce for the dignified profession it is. I look
forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ai-jen Poo follows:]
[ GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Ms. Poo. The Chair now recognizes
Dr. Mason for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. C. NICOLE MASON, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF
INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN'S POLICY RESEARCH
Dr. Mason. Good afternoon, Chair Adams, Ranking Member
Keller, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Dr. C.
Nicole Mason, and I am the president and CEO of the Institute
for Women's Policy Research, an economic think tank focused on
women's economic security, and understanding women's labor
force participation.
Thank you for holding this hearing and for the invitation
to testify today about essential workplace protections for
domestic workers. The title of this hearing, ``Essential But
Undervalued,'' regrettably but aptly describes the situation
facing domestic workers. This work, ranging from caring for our
children to caring for our homes, to ensuring the health of our
elders, makes all other work possible.
While the pandemic shined a light on the harm resulting
from the lack of employment protections for this workforce, it
is important to note that this harm long predates the pandemic.
Despite the essential nature of domestic work, it is and has
been undervalued in our economy due to its roots, enforced
enslavement, and indentured servitude. As a result, domestic
workers, who are disproportionately women of color, were left
out of a variety of Federal labor protections throughout the
20th century, leaving these workers particularly vulnerable to
poverty and exploitation.
The vulnerability of this workforce due to the lack of
labor protections was exposed clearly during the COVID-19
``she-cession.'' Domestic workers were among those most
impacted as employers closed their homes. Many of these workers
were unable to access unemployment support and did not have
sufficient access to paid sick leave or health insurance.
Nevertheless, domestic workers are a growing segment of the
economy, and the demand for such care work will continue to
increase as our population ages. The most recent data from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics show that 15,000 home health care
jobs have been added since February 2020. The International
Labor Organization estimates that domestic workers make up 2.3
percent of total employment worldwide, with more than 2.2
million workers in the United States.
Over 90 percent of these workers are women, and more than
half are black, Latina, or Asian American/Pacific Islander. The
domestic worker labor force is a clear example of occupational
segregation, resulting in women's work being undervalued and
Congress can and should act to address these issues. The
Institute for Women's Policy Research has long researched many
of the labor issues included in Congresswoman Jayapal's
legislation, The Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, and we
support the inclusion of domestic workers in common workplace
rights and protections, such as paid sick days and protection
from harassment and discrimination.
We also support the establishment of additional protections
such as fair scheduling and access to affordable health care
and retirement benefits. We have been advocating for paid
family and medical leave since 1987. A 2021 IWPR survey of
women workers found that over one-third, 37.5 percent, employed
full-time report they do not have paid sick leave, and 65
percent of full-time workers surveyed report they do not have
paid family leave.
Domestic workers are significantly less likely to have
access to paid sick days or family and medical leave, a problem
that this legislation would address. Additionally, domestic
workers often lack clearly defined working hours and control
over their schedules, resulting in low wages, uncompensated
overtime and fickle scheduling. Literature, the literature
consistently show that temporal instability in the workforce is
associated with psychological distress, poor sleep quality and
unhappiness. Unpredictable work schedules have been found to
increase workers reporting work/life conflict. Just-in-time
scheduling practices put workers in a vulnerable financial
position, both by destabilizing earnings and by disrupting
their access to safety net programs, and make it difficult for
them to arrange childcare, attend school or pick up a second
job.
Domestic workers experience multiple compounding negative
consequences due to the lack of necessary workplace
protections, many of which we have studied. For example, in
2018 we found that only 13 percent of women domestic workers
had access to a pension plan, and only 24 percent had access to
employer-provided insurance. In 2020, we conducted a study that
estimated the lifetime cost of sexual harassment on workers and
found that physically isolated workplaces rife with power
imbalances were the No. 1 risk factor for sexual harassment.
Fundamentally, the workplace structure of domestic worker--
domestic work systematically creates vulnerability for workers.
We estimate that the cost of sexual harassment for a home
health aide was more than $128,000 over the course of a
lifetime. These costs further exacerbate an economically
insecure situation for domestic workers. These women face a
workplace in which many of our basic, many of our basic labor
rights do not apply, and their wages consistently fall behind
the wages of all other workers.
Domestic workers make at least $7 an hour less than all
other workers. This is the widest gap--this gap is widest for
nannies, who make a median average of $11.60. Enacting the
Domestic Workers Bill of Rights is essential, and will ensure
domestic workers receive basic workplace----
Ms. Jayapal. Dr. Mason, if you could just wrap up. Your
time has expired.
Dr. Mason. Yes, oh, oh, goodness. In addition to the
important provisions of the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights,
IWPR supports pay equity, enhanced enforcement of anti-
harassment law and other protections. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. C. Nicole Mason follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Dr. Mason. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. DeCamp for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAUL DeCAMP, MEMBER OF THE FIRM, EPSTEIN, BECKER &
GREEN.
Mr. DeCamp. Good morning, Chair Adams, Ranking Member
Keller and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank you
for inviting me to testify at this hearing to address H.R.
4826, the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act. I am here today
to express my opposition to this bill. I would like to begin by
stating my support for a number of the policy goals reflected
in the legislation. Domestic service workers are an important
part of the workforce, and they deserve the opportunity to
perform their work free of harassment, discrimination or
deprivation of the wages they have earned.
This particular bill, however, is not the way to further
these goals. H.R. 4826 would impose extraordinary costs and
burdens on the individuals and families who employ these
workers, far out of proportion to any benefit the workers would
receive, while at the same time all but ensuring a
constitutional challenge that could result in the sharp
curtailing of congressional power under the Commerce clause. In
this instance, Federal legislation is not the answer.
A few of the provisions of H.R. 4826, which would apply to
families who employ a covered nanny, babysitter, housekeeper,
nurse, home health aide or personal care assistant in their
home for as little as 8 hours a week, illustrate the sweeping
nature of what the bill would require. Detailed written
agreements setting forth all job duties, the frequency of those
duties and the worker's schedule or anticipated hours of work;
paid sick leave of up to 56 hours per year; written notice of
any change in scheduled working hours at least 72 hours in
advance; uninterrupted 30-minute meal breaks for each 5 hours'
work and uninterrupted 10-minute rest breaks for each 4 hours'
work.
Damages and penalties under the bill include such items as
economic damages and recovery for non-monetary injury,
including injury to reputation, character, or feelings.
Interest-liquidated damages, attorney fees, expert witness fees
and litigation costs. An hour of pay for each meal or rest
period missed, up to two total hours of additional pay per
workday. A $5,000 penalty for any flaw in the mandatory written
agreement, and civil money penalties of up to $15,000 for each
and every violation of these new requirements, or up to $25,000
for any subsequent violation, without any requirement that the
violation was intentional or willful.
In addition, this bill would change the definition of
employer in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which
currently applies only to businesses that employ 15 or more
employees, by lowering that threshold to just a single
employee. That change would apply to every industry and worker,
not just to domestic service employment. This enormous
expansion of Federal authority into household employment and
into plainly local arrangements raises at least two significant
problems.
The first is a practical one. Most Federal employment laws
have long-excluded small employers for a variety of reasons,
mainly involving the disproportionate burden that compliance
imposes on small businesses. The rights reflected in our laws
are very important to workers, but they come at a cost in terms
of added expense and time employers must spend in learning the
laws, maintaining proper records, and responding to allegations
of violations.
In short, our legal system is not particularly efficient at
sorting out which employment law claims have or lack merit. As
a society, we tend to view coping with inefficient agency and
judicial proceedings as a cost of doing business, an obligation
that companies of a certain size need to shoulder as part of
participating in our economy. Congress has also long understood
that employment law compliance and defending against claims can
overwhelm and destroy a small business, the typical mom-and-pop
operation. This is true with much greater force with respect to
household employment, where it is literally individuals,
mothers, fathers and other family members who will shoulder the
burdens under H.R. 4826.
These burdens will arise in the context where the
households are not conducting a business and cannot simply
adjust their prices to make up for these compliance costs.
The second major problem with such a dramatic extension of
Federal regulatory authority into people's homes is that it
pushes and likely exceeds the boundaries of congressional
authority under the Commerce clause. Given the current
configuration of the Supreme Court, along with Justice Thomas's
long-standing and clearly expressed desire to rewrite entirely
the Court's approach to interpreting the Commerce clause,
enacting this bill would likely result in a pyrrhic victory.
Congress may find itself with substantially less authority
to legislate, and with many current statutes vulnerable to
challenge. This concludes my prepared remarks. I welcome any
questions the members of the Subcommittee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Paul DeCamp follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. DeCamp. We will now hear from
Ms. Barnett. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DANA BARNETT, WASHINGTON STATE ORGANIZER, HAND IN
HAND, THE DOMESTIC EMPLOYER NETWORK
Ms. Barnett. Thank you to Chair Adams, Ranking Member
Keller and members of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee for
inviting me to speak today and thank you Representative Jayapal
for your leadership on this issue. I am here today to provide
testimony in support of creating rights and protections for
domestic workers through a National Domestic Workers Bill of
Rights, and to share my experiences both as a nanny and house
cleaner employer, and as an advocate for the rights of domestic
workers.
My husband Dan and I moved to Seattle from Philadelphia 10
years ago for his job. A couple of years after we moved, we
were overjoyed to welcome our child. Being new to Seattle,
however, we did not have a local support network of family and
friends, and we felt overwhelmed juggling childcare and
returning to work outside the home. When my maternity leave
ended, we decided to hire a nanny to take care of our newborn.
Our nanny took amazing care of our 3-month-old and made us feel
he was safe and in good hands.
Initially it was challenging, because we had never employed
someone in our home. I later found a sample work contract from
Hand in Hand. The contract provided guidance on wages,
benefits, working conditions, and other employer
responsibilities. In the stress of transitioning from being
with my new baby full time to going back to working outside the
home, it was so helpful to have clear guidelines and
expectations for managing his care with our nanny, work that I
was already doing.
Later, we hired a house cleaner to come to our home once a
month. Having a house professionally cleaned helped us balance
our work and parenting schedules and brought more order to our
household. Our son was touched by the care that she took in
assembling his stuffed animals on his freshly made bed. Once
again, we used the resources from Hand in Hand to create clear
agreements, as well as to understand local labor law.
Seattle was the first city to pass a municipal law creating
protections for domestic workers. The domestic workers'
ordinance created a Domestic Workers Standards Board of workers
and employers. In 2019, I had the honor of being appointed to
the Standards Board, where I then served as the co-chair for 2
years alongside Silvia Gonzalez, an extraordinary domestic
worker leader. The Board held focus groups and conducted
surveys with workers and employers in Seattle. We conducted
outreach and education to inform the community about the law.
We made additional policy recommendations based on the input
that we gathered.
The Board also created, provided critical feedback to the
City about how to best implement and enforce the ordinance. A
domestic workers' standards board is one way that a disparate
industry can come together to discuss challenges and
opportunities. In Seattle, our outreach implementation support
and recommendations to the City Council and Mayor's Office have
provided much-needed clarity for employers and workers.
A national standards board is part of the Domestic Worker
Bill of Rights and would ensure that the workers are not--and
employers are not struggling to find information and resources,
and that employees can understand their rights at work.
The ordinance is making a difference for domestic workers.
Just this past month, a live-in domestic worker won a
settlement of over $71,000, because her household employer had
not paid the minimum wage and overtime mandated by law. It is
critical that bad actors in industries, all industries, face
consequences. The ordinance is not just about providing
accountability for bad actors. The employers I speak with every
day want to know their responsibilities and how to comply with
them. They are relieved to know the workers in their homes have
protections. The ordinance is also making a difference for
employers. I now work with Hand in Hand, where I conduct
education and outreach to domestic employers in Seattle. I hear
time and time again that the guidance created by the law is
beneficial to them. It leads to better care, better quality of
work and less stress for everyone involved, worker and
employer.
The pandemic has brought into sharper relief what we have
always known that care is essential and that domestic workers
are essential workers. Domestic work takes place in our homes,
our most intimate space. These are the workers who are taking
care of our children, our elders, ourselves. Why would we not
want to ensure that we take care of the people who are taking
care of us? Everyone benefits when domestic workers have
rights. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dana Barnett follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much Ms. Barnett, and I see that
our wonderful Chairwoman Adams has returned, so let me return
the gavel back to you, Madam Chair, and inform the Chair that
we are at member questions.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much and thank you
Representative Jayapal for helping out. Under Rule Committee
9(a), we will now question witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I
will be recognizing Subcommittee members in seniority order.
Again, to ensure that the members' 5-minute rule is adhered to,
staff will be keeping track of time. Please be attentive to the
time, wrap up when your time is over and remute your
microphone. As Chair, I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Mason, domestic workers are especially vulnerable to
being misclassified as independent contractors rather than
employees, stripping them of the few existing rights under the
law, such as minimum wage and overtime. Can you talk more about
the impact that this misclassification has on domestic workers
in terms of underpayment of wages?
Dr. Mason. Thank you so much for this question. When
domestic workers are excluded from basic protections, we saw
what happened during the COVID-19 recession. Many domestic
workers did not have access to unemployment insurance. They
also, during a health care--a global pandemic, did not have
paid sick or family medical leave or health insurance. When we
think about and talk about the wages, we know that domestic
workers are paid significantly less than other workers on
average by $7.
The lack of basic protections that we are advocating for in
the National Domestic Workers Bill of Rights would remedy that,
and provide very basic protections for domestic workers,
including higher wages, paid sick and family leave, and
flexible and fair scheduling.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Ms. Poo, can you talk more in
detail about why domestic workers are more vulnerable to
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and how is the
bill addressing these issues?
Ms. Poo. Yes, Madam Chair. Domestic workers, it has been
well-documented that there is a long history of exclusion of
basic, from basic rights and protections that Dr. Mason
mentioned. What it creates is a power imbalance in the
workplace, which makes it extraordinarily difficult for
domestic workers to negotiate for something as simple as a sick
day or a morning to go to a child's PTO meeting. The
vulnerability is really heightened with lack of job security,
and therefore rights are incredibly hard to enforce, and many
rights that most of us take for granted simply don't exist.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Dr. Mason, what is the cost to
families, especially to women, in terms of labor force
participation and earnings if they cannot work because they do
not have someone to take care of the children, elders, and
disabled relatives at home?
Dr. Mason. At the start of the pandemic, women made up more
than 50 percent of the U.S. workforce. Two months later, many
millions of women had exited the workforce, and a lot of it is
due to the lack of care, employers closing their homes, and so
women were not able, you know, excuse me, remote work, women
having to stay home. Right now, we are in a place where women
are trying to reenter the workforce but without care and
workers, they will not be able to not only reenter the
workforce but sustain employment.
Many workers, care workers, because of the lack of
protections, were forced out of the labor force. We lost a
significant number of care workers over the pandemic when
employers closed their homes and childcare centers closed down.
Many of those workers have not returned to the workforce, and
what became really crystal clear during the pandemic is that
those workers were underpaid, they did not have access to paid
sick and family leave, and they were having trouble providing
for their own families.
Many of those workers have not returned. This bill would
make sure that workers are paid fairly, they have access to
benefits like paid sick and family leave and health insurance,
those things that all workers need in order to not only provide
for their families, but make sure they have adequate care for
themselves.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you so much. I want to thank both
of you for underscoring the importance of this vital workforce.
They do so much to ensure our society functions smoothly, and
we as Congress now must do it with them to protect and support
them. I want to now recognize the Ranking Member for the
purpose of questioning the witnesses.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. DeCamp, a provision
in this bill gives domestic employees a right of action to
recover damages for the cost reasonably related to any injury,
to their reputation, character or feelings sustained. Could you
discuss some of the unintended consequences of providing
employees the right to recover damages related to the injury of
their feelings?
Mr. DeCamp. Expanding recoveries into that sort of area
invites litigation. It invites adversarial relationships
between the workers and the employers. It creates dollar signs
in the eyes of plaintiffs' lawyers when workers have an issue
with their employer, to go out and make demands for very large
sums of money. These are not figures that are capped in the
bill. It is not $50 or $100; it could be millions of dollars.
We do not know, and that presents enormous pressure and
challenges for a small employer when that small employer is
literally a household, to deal with that kind of pressure. It
creates all kinds of additional costs associated with employing
individuals.
Mr. Keller. Thank you. Also, Mr. DeCamp, it has been well-
documented that there is a shortage of home health care aides
across the country, forcing many individuals with disabilities,
people that are sick and the elderly out of their homes into
institutional settings. As America's population ages, there
will be an increased demand for home health aides. If Congress
were to pass H.R. 4826, what impact do you believe this radical
policy change would have on the domestic services industry?
Mr. DeCamp. I think it could have a lot of consequences,
the first of which would be to increase the cost to employers
of having these workers come and do their work in the first
place. I think the bill creates lots of challenges with regard
to who exactly is the employer when we are talking about home
health aides and we are talking about personal care assistants.
That is separate from the issue of nannies and housekeepers and
the like.
When we are talking about individuals who are often
employed by third parties, oftentimes paid in part through
Federal funds, it can create blurred lines as to who is even
the employer. When you are creating this kind of liability
here, and you are increasing the costs to employers of even
having this work available, you price people, consumers out of
the market for those services. I think that puts pressure on
the market. It makes the services less accessible to the
individuals who need them.
Mr. Keller. Okay, the other thing that I would just say is
the Fair Labor Standards Act is over 80 years old, and there is
bipartisan agreement that many of the FLSA's provisions and
regulations are outdated and overly complex. Do you agree with
that view?
Mr. DeCamp. Yes.
Mr. Keller. Okay, and can you identify elements of the FLSA
that should be updated to meet the needs of our 21st-century
workforce?
Mr. DeCamp. We are 84 years into the statute, and we still
have serious challenges identifying who is even a covered
employee under the statute, in terms of who is an employee
versus who is an independent contractor or other type of
worker, who is a joint employer. These are largely unsettled
issues. There are some clear lines, but there are a lot of gray
lines, especially when we are talking about smaller employers
and this type of informal relationship.
The standards for figuring out what is compensable work. We
still see cases going to the Supreme Court on that issue,
identifying what counts as work, how we count--how we identify
and pay for that. We also see significant challenges figuring
out who ought to be exempt from the overtime provisions, the
standards regarding who is exempt. Who is an exempt
administrative employee, for example, is--it befuddles
everyone, including the Department of Labor.
I think the clearest example of this is that the U.S.
Department of Labor itself, the Wage and Hour Division, the
agency that I used to run, misclassified its own investigators
for the first 30 plus years of the agency's existence. That was
not through any kind of willful intention; that was not through
any desire on the part of the agency to cheat its workers. It
just did not know what the administrative exemption meant and
got it wrong with regard to its investigators.
If the Wage and Hour Division cannot get these issues
right, what hope does the moms and pops have in their household
for applying these rules?
Mr. Keller. There would be additional rules then under this
legislation that people would have to try and navigate and
determine how to apply?
Mr. DeCamp. On top of their day job and on top of managing
their household, yes.
Mr. Keller. It certainly does not seem to be conducive to
making sure people have the care they need in their homes, but
also are able to treat the people that come in fairly. There
are people that if they treat somebody else unfairly, that's
tragic and should not happen. I think there is a better way to
do things, and I appreciate your time today. Thank you.
Mr. DeCamp. Thank you.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much, and I want to now
recognize the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Jayapal. You are
recognized for 5 minutes ma'am.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you so much
for your leadership and for bringing into the room your own
personal story, being the daughter of domestic workers. I
actually think there are a number of people. I remember the
late, great, wonderful colleagues of ours John Lewis when I
introduced the bill, telling me about his mother, who was a
domestic worker as well. I also want to thank Chairman Scott
for making this hearing happen today, and for his leadership on
this issue.
These workers were on the front lines of the pandemic, and
yet as you have heard, domestic workers are denied the same
health and safety and wage protections that most workers get,
and they lack much-needed paid sick leave. I think the pandemic
really put in focus the importance of domestic workers, but the
demand for childcare workers and home care aides was
skyrocketing even before the pandemic. My Domestic Workers Bill
of Rights Act, which enjoys the support of President Biden,
Vice President Harris and Labor Secretary Walsh, would ensure
that domestic workers are afforded safe workplaces, paid sick
leave, fair hours and will help us to fill the urgent need for
childcare and home care.
I would venture a guess that there is not a single member
on this Committee that does not in some way, shape or form act
as an employer of a domestic worker, and I hope that as we go
through this hearing, people will keep those people in mind
because these are real people that we are talking about.
Ms. Poo, if I desperately needed help to care for an
elderly parent or a child with a disability, how long might it
take me to hire a domestic worker?
Ms. Poo. Right now, there are many domestic workers who are
looking for work, and in fact we are at about in our--according
to our most recent surveys, there is about a 20 percent
unemployment rate among domestic workers, and many who are
currently employed are underemployed. This part of the impact
of the COVID-19 pandemic.
At the same time, the low wages in this workforce make it
really difficult for domestic workers to sustain in this work,
which is why the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights is so very
important. When it comes to cost to families, the most costly
thing is actually not having access to a strong workforce, to
be able to meet the care needs that we have as families.
Ms. Jayapal. How will this bill increase the supply of
childcare workers and home health aides, and I might just point
out that there's about 120,000 people on the Medicaid waiting
list right now. How would this bill help with that?
Ms. Poo. This bill would ensure basic protections equal to
other workers for this workforce, which is the foundation of
the CARE economy. We have already talked about how this work
enables millions of working people to go to work every day.
Having access to sick days, meal and rest breaks, workplace
protections and training, all of which are addressed in this
legislation, will help secure and also attract a strong
workforce for the future.
Ms. Jayapal. What about the quality of care? Would it help
increase the quality of care, and if so, how?
Ms. Poo. It would absolutely increase the quality of care.
There is significant data that shows that when wages and
quality of jobs improve, so does the quality of care.
Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Barnett, as a parent employing a domestic
worker, and thank you for telling us your story, what changes
did you notice in the quality of care that your children
received after the implementation of Seattle's Domestic Workers
Bill of Rights?
Ms. Barnett. Thank you for the question. Well, first off, I
think the fact of the ordinance existing helped establish more
fair and reasonable employment relationships in our workplaces.
I think just bringing the conversation, bringing the
recognition to us employers that our home is a workplace helps
to create a better workplace and work environment.
For me, recognizing that I was now an employer, especially
as somebody who had not been an employer before and in the past
I had even been a nanny myself when I was younger. Just
recognizing that although this relationship might feel very
personal, might feel like the worker, my home, you know, I care
about her, feels like family to me, recognizing that I am her
employer and there is an imbalance there, and there are a lot
of things that I need to consider and think about to help that
relationship much and increase the quality because she is
happier in the home, and felt comfortable coming to us to talk
to us about any issues that arose, any things, you know. It
just gave us all more space to have a better relationship and
to have better care for my child.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much. My time has expired. Care
work is the foundation of our economy. It is the work that
makes all other work possible. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield
back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I want to yield to
the gentlelady from Iowa, Ms. Miller-Meeks. You are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much Madam Chair, and I
thank our witnesses for being here. Interestingly enough,
although I am a physician now, both my husband as nurses, and
when I was a student nurse, we both were domestic workers.
I am very concerned about some of the provisions in this
bill. Having had a mother who had Alzheimer's, who I cared for
her and also utilized care, I am very concerned about
provisions in this bill that would allow workers to notify that
they needed a temporary schedule change or a schedule change,
and then how families would adapt to that as families are now
considered to be employers under this bill.
I am concerned about whether a babysitter or a childcare
sitter would be considered to be a domestic worker, and whether
those provisions of this bill would apply to them. I have
tremendous concerns with this bill in the format that it is
presented to us today. I can also tell you, having traveled my
district both as a physician, delivering care in numerous
communities, doing voluntary care, that I have already had
related to me how individuals who, with disabilities, in
wheelchairs, have had already problems under current existing
regulation, of how current existing regulation is limiting
their access to care.
Mr. DeCamp, the Government Accountability Office conducted
an analysis of the Obama administration's companion care rule,
and this is the reference I am saying when I have had people
with disabilities contact me, which extended wage and hour
requirements to more home care employees. The GAO's analysis
found that some home care providers discontinued certain live-
in care programs due to the increased cost of the rule. Do you
think this bill would cause similar problems and limit access
of people who need in-home care?
Mr. DeCamp. Yes, and I think that is the same dynamic that
I testified to briefly earlier. I think that as the cost to
employers of purchasing these services goes up because of these
ancillary issues, the litigation expense, the other costs that
go with this bill, it prices consumers out of the market for
these services. I think that that will limit care.
Ms. Miller-Meeks. We just heard that supposedly this bill
would increase quality, and I can tell you, having been
throughout the entire health care system both as--in academic
medicine, in military medicine, in private practice, as an
employee, that I have yet to see all of those studies come
forth that we have an increase in quality. Our overburdensome
regulations actually push care down to lower-level providers,
not higher level providers.
For example, the bill requires a study of domestic
employees' access to benefits and training opportunities.
However, the bill fails to require any study on the impact of
the bill's mandates and the effect they may have on consumers
and access to in-home services, and whether or not they are
quality services. When Congress proposes radical amendments to
long-standing legislation, do you think it is important for
legislators to study the potential impact of their legislation
and what it would have on the industry, especially we are now
talking about families before imposing such burdensome
mandates?
Mr. DeCamp. Well, of course. I mean any kind of significant
Federal legislation will have costs, and it will have
unintended costs as well, unintended consequences, and these
need to be anticipated and they need to quantify so that
Congress can make an informed decision about the costs and
benefits of the full scope of what the bill will involve.
I think that is critical here. Among other things, we see
the economic data relied on for the wage levels, from a study
from 2019. Those numbers may be good for 2019, but the numbers
for today may be very different. I mean I looked at
ZipRecruiter.com this morning, and it indicated that the
average wage for domestic service is about $20 an hour, and
that for live-in domestic service, it is about $37.55 per hour.
That does not purport to be a definitive economic study.
That is just what is available today on ZipRecruiter.com. It is
an indication of the need to make sure that we are dealing with
current valid data in making these assessments.
Ms. Miller-Meeks. It would be your opinion, your learned
opinion, that the increased cost of compliance and mandates of
this bill would limit families' ability to afford adequate care
services?
Mr. DeCamp. Absolutely.
Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much. I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I want to yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Good. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Good. Thank you, Madam Chairman, thank you to our
witnesses. Thank you for holding this hearing today. It
continues to--this hearing continues to illustrate what I have
said many times, the disdain, the contempt with which the
Majority party looks at business owners, employers, job
creators generally, and the attitude that is continued to be
demonstrated, that left to their own devices, employers would
abuse and exploit, or are abusing and exploiting their workers,
and you continue to have government-proposed solutions to
problems that largely do not exist, and to just make it more
difficult for employers and businesses and job creators again
across the country.
In this case here, in this proposal and this bill, that
would, for example that would mandate that domestic workers--so
home health care workers--many of us are caring for our
parents, our grandparents. That is a cultural array, a
widespread issue now today for so many folks taking care of
those who need help at home. This would mandate that in-home
health care workers, in-home caretakers, for example, would
have to be paid--have earned sick time and would have to have
rest breaks and meal breaks for which I presume they would not
be permitted to do any work or to be on call.
We have, you have an in-home health care worker for your
mother or your grandparent, who now you have to provide, under
this proposal, time off during the day, break time, meal time,
during which they couldn't be on call or have--be able to, be
asked to provide, to do work for the individual. I guess you
would need two people now instead of one, would you? You would
have to bring somebody in to cover? I mean how would that
impact practically? How would that apply practically in the
home there?
Mr. DeCamp, I am sorry.
Mr. DeCamp. I will note in fairness there is an exception
to the meal and rest requirements for individuals who are
responsible for the personal safety of an individual, so that
requirement is alleviated where personal safety would be at
issue. For a number of these types of workers, that exemption
might not apply. The issue is if the coverage is essential, if
you have to have somebody and it is not a personal safety
issue, then you would need a second worker there, or you would
have the option of paying for two additional hours of pay at
the employee's regular rate for every day worked.
Mr. Good. One of the other provisions is that it would
amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to apply to every
employer, not just those with 15 or more. If a family, let us
say a Christian family wants to have a Christian in-home health
care worker to look after their loved one, someone that is
going to help take care of them and that was a part of what
they were looking for, someone like them, if you will, in the
home, how would this impact that ability.
Mr. DeCamp. Oh goodness, nobody knows. I think that that
would potentially raise serious constitutional issues, and
right now Title VII would not allow an employer to choose or
not choose a worker based on religion, when religion was not
essential to the function itself. Here, trying to figure out
whether the law would allow a Christian family or a family of
any denomination to choose a care provider based on their
denomination. The bill on its face does not allow it. I think
that would be a matter left for litigation, and a litigation on
that kind of matter could bankrupt a family.
Mr. Good. To think that we would open up a family to
punitive action by the Federal Government on that basis, let
alone litigious action because they want to choose whomever
they want to take care of, on whatever basis they want to
basically, to come into the home to take care of their loved
one, whether it was a child who had a special need, whether it
was again a parent or someone who had a special need. Further
thoughts that you might have on what that would do to those
individuals?
Mr. DeCamp. I think it would drive a lot of people out of
the market for purchasing those services in the first place
because it is just too much of a headache. It is too much of a
risk to take. You are going to expose yourself as a family to
bankrupting level litigation and enforcement exposure to have
somebody in your home.
Mr. Good. Thank you for your candid answers, and I yield
back, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I want to recognize
the Ranking Member of Ed and Labor, the gentlelady from North
Carolina, Dr. Foxx. You have 5 minutes.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to thank
the witnesses for being here. Mr. DeCamp, the Jayapal bill
grants new enforcement authority to the Secretary of Labor, to
investigate employers of domestic employees. This would seem to
permit the Secretary to enter and inspect people's homes as he
may deem necessary, to determine whether there is a violation
of the bill.
Since most domestic services take place in individuals'
private residence, are you concerned about granting DOL the
authority to enter and inspect the homes of individuals without
due process?
Mr. DeCamp. Yes, but I think the dirty little secret of the
FLSA is that the Secretary already has that authority by virtue
of the 1974 amendments. The Secretary has not used that
authority because for the most part people have not had these
issues come up. Most people do not even realize that the 1974
amendments applied minimum wage and overtime to domestic
service employment, and when these cases come up the Secretary
typically does not have to go into people's homes. I think the
kind of enforcement mechanisms we are talking about in this
bill takes it to a whole new level. It is exponentially greater
in terms of the involvement that the Secretary and the
Department of Labor would have in these working relationships,
and I think it would really lead to this, exactly this concern
you are talking about, of investigators showing up at people's
homes knocking on the door.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. DeCamp. I should have said at the
beginning by the way, just to establish my own bona fides, I
worked as a domestic worker. My mother worked as a domestic
worker. I did it when I was extremely young, and my mother did
it for very many years. I am grateful for all the work
experiences that I have had.
Mr. DeCamp, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies only
to employers with 15 or more employees. H.R. 4826 includes a
provision to apply Title VII to any employer with at least one
employee, eliminating the small business exemption. You have
alluded to this before. Could you discuss the radical nature of
this change, and what this would mean for small businesses in
the United States, in terms of litigation, risk, and compliance
costs?
Mr. DeCamp. It would Federalize all employment throughout
the country. It would render the EEOC able to collect data to
conduct enforcement proceedings, to authorize individual
lawsuits. It would create enormous incentives for workers to be
adversarial with their employers, which again for a large
employer is part of the cost of doing business. For a home, for
a small business, for a mom-and-pop operation, they are not set
up to deal with that. They cannot deal with it, and one claim
can overwhelm and destroy a business or a home.
Mrs. Foxx. Mr. DeCamp, I am very familiar with the fact
that many elderly Americans and individuals with disabilities
employ domestic employees directly. In many cases, these
individuals need assistance to get dressed, use the restroom
and prepare meals. Can you explain the difficulties these
individuals who need assistance to accomplish routine tasks,
will have complying with the excessive mandates and
recordkeeping requirements of the Jayapal bill?
Mr. DeCamp. I think about my practice and the businesses
that I represent, typically sophisticated entities with lawyers
and H.R. staff and people with MBAs and lots of degrees and
lots of money, and they find it next to impossible to comply
fully with the Fair Labor Standards Act, the law that is
currently on the books. I cannot imagine what individuals, even
setting aside the aged and those who have illnesses or
disabilities or impairments; even normal individuals, non-
lawyers, non-sophisticated entities, trying to deal with the
FLSA would be next to impossible.
I cannot even imagine foisting these on my mother, for
example, who is in her 70's, and I cannot imagine her trying to
work through regulations and to make any sense of it.
Mrs. Foxx. Well, we thank you very much for bringing your
perspective and I think the perspective of many here. Committee
Republicans understand the reality of the fact that the Fair
Labor Standards Act, FLSA, has been in existence for 83 years,
and that we need to bring reforms. We are ready to work on a
bipartisan manner to streamline and modernize Federal wage and
hour policy to meet the needs of the 21st century workforce.
This bill is certainly not the way to go. With that Madam
Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to
yield now to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Cawthorn.
You have 5 minutes sir.
Mr. Cawthorn. Thank you, Madam, Chair, and thank you to all
our witnesses. Mr. DeCamp, thank you for being with us today.
My question is about the portion of your testimony that talks
about the types of evidence that can be used in discrimination
lawsuits. Many in this world of politics are lawyers well-
versed in the ins and outs of policy and statute. For many of
my constituents and myself included, this is an alien world.
You argue with regard to discrimination laws, that these
provide a plausible basis for argument in many cases, in which
the evidence is mainly subjective and circumstantial. Can you
expand a bit on how creating circumstances that incentivize
subjective and circumstantial evidence could be detrimental to
small companies?
Mr. DeCamp. Sure absolutely, and that comes back to the
part of my testimony where I talk about how our system is not
good at weeding out claims with merit from claims that do not
have merit. The laws have important policies behind them, and
those are good policies. In figuring out is this individual
asserting a right under this law that is an actual violation or
are they lying, our system is not good at sorting that out.
When we are talking about whether it is discrimination or
these wage and hour issues, you end up with a he said/she said
about what happened behind closed doors in somebody's
residence, or how many hours somebody worked or didn't work, or
did somebody let somebody use the cellphone when they wanted
to. There's a $2,000 penalty for violation in that in the
statute, in the bill. These are all circumstances where there
would not be easy, objective evidence to verify one way or the
other, which means you end up with a proceeding that goes
forward in court, requires expenditures of tens or hundreds of
thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees, which even if you win
the case as an employer, you don't get your money back. It is
devastating.
Mr. Cawthorn. Wow. That would be awful for a small
employer. Well Mr. DeCamp, one more question. In your
testimony, you make the point that at least some members of the
Supreme Court have a strong desire to rewrite the Nation's
Commerce clause jurisprudence. You argue that the Supreme Court
could either adhere to the Wickard v. Filburn, or take the
position of Justice Thomas, concurrence in both the United
States v. Lopez or United States v. Morrison. If H.R. 4826 were
to become law, what legal ramifications or challenges could we
see appear before the Supreme Court in the future.
Mr. DeCamp. I think the law would very quickly, if passed,
be subject to a declaratory relief challenge. I think it would
likely be upheld in the lower courts, and then it would end up
in the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court, it is anybody's
guess as to whether the Court would adhere to a precedent that
a majority of the members think is incorrectly decided or go in
a different direction.
We know Justice Thomas's view on these issues, and since
the decisions in Lopez and Morrison, one was in 1995, the other
was in 2000, every member of the Court has turned over except
Justice Thomas. It is a very different court now, and I think
that we would be very likely to see at least five justices in
the Court adopt Justice Thomas's view of the Commerce clause,
which frankly is that if you read Commerce the way that the
Supreme Court has read Commerce since 1942, the Commerce clause
subsumes 12 of the 18 enumerated powers in Article 1, Section
8.
His argument is it cannot mean that, or you would never
have had the Constitution written the way it was written. It is
an interesting argument. We do not know whether the Court would
take the case. We do not know for sure how it would end up.
There are interesting and serious issues that this law would
raise if it were enacted.
Mr. Cawthorn. Well, Mr. DeCamp, thank you very much, and to
both of our other witnesses, thank you. To my fellow North
Carolinian, Chairwoman Adams, thank you very much, and with
that I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, thank you Mr. Cawthorn. I want
to yield now to the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Stevens. You
are recognized for 5 minutes ma'am.
Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you Madam Chair and thank you to
Congresswoman Jayapal for both of your leadership on this
incredibly important issue and topic, something that is quite
profound to bring into the halls of Congress. Essential, But
Unvalued: Examining Workplace Protections for Domestic Workers.
We know, given how the last couple of years have unfolded, that
domestic workers are, and their work is only increased in
demand, and yet our communities continue to suffer from a
national care deficit.
I certainly find this topic quite alarming. I know we have
recently had hearings on this Committee focused on the wage
theft that has taken place, and we have also had hearing after
hearing as we have been pushing to raise the minimum wage,
about how women of color in particular are impacted not only by
wage theft but by chronic low wages that undervalue their work.
I wanted to ask a question of panelists, and in particular,
Ms. Ai-jen Poo, around why have we been seeing women of color
in particular be undervalued as domestic workers? Who is rising
up to advocate for them and who do they go to as they try and
advocate for our domestic workers? Are there State agencies
that are receptive to this, to these issues and these
complaints, or is this just a missing gap in the process here?
Ms. Poo. There are--thank you for the question,
Congresswoman. There are several reasons for why this work has
been so devalued, and it is rooted in a history of slavery and
racism, and also of the devaluing of the work that women do
within our homes to care for our families. This work has
largely been associated with work that women should do
individually inside of our homes, in addition to everything
else they do and working full-time outside of the home, and it
has also as a profession been associated with women of color.
The first domestic workers in this country were enslaved
black women and indigenous women, and to this day the majority
women of color are doing this work. This has led to the
discriminatory exclusion of this workforce from protections
from some of our most basic labor laws, and an ongoing cultural
devaluing of this work and relegating it to the individual
responsibilities of women in our households.
Domestic workers have always organized. Ever since the
1880's, when in 1881 the first domestic workers in Atlanta,
Georgia went on strike for better pay and better working
conditions, to Dorothy Bolden and the National Domestic Workers
Union in Atlanta, Georgia in the 1960's and 70's organizing.
Today, the affiliates of the National Domestic Workers Alliance
all over this country, more than 70 local affiliate
organizations advocate on behalf of this workforce and have
been successful in passing State laws in ten states and two
cities around the country.
Those laws and the last 20 years of lessons from those laws
are the building blocks of this Federal Domestic Workers Bill
of Rights. We have proven the impact in terms of improving
working conditions, allowing workers to negotiate for better
protections, preventing wage theft and increasing the quality
of care, improving the quality of care for families as a
result.
Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you. Thank you so much for that
beautiful articulation steeped in history that we must be
recognizing of, and Madam Chair if it is okay, I would just
like to yield the remainder of my time to Congresswoman
Jayapal.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Representative Stevens, for
yielding. Ms. Poo, I just wanted to ask you a question. What
would happen in the next couple of years or so if Congress did
nothing to address the current shortage of quality care?
Ms. Poo. I am glad you framed the question in terms of the
shortage of quality care because it is often talked about as a
labor shortage, and actually it is a shortage of quality jobs.
There are many people who want to do this work and simply
cannot make ends meet doing it because these jobs are
unprotected, they are unstable. In fact, in the small business
sector, the biggest pain point among care providers is the
inability to attract and retain workers at low pay, without
sick pay, without health insurance.
The quality of jobs is simply too low, and as 10,000 people
turn 65 every day and we live longer than ever and chronic
illnesses like Alzheimer's and other dementias take hold, we
will not have a strong workforce in place unless we protect
these jobs and make them good jobs.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I want to yield now
to the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Steel. You are
recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all the
witnesses coming out today. Narrowing the companionship
services exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act could drive
up health care costs across Southern California and the United
States. Changing regulations will cause burdens on families who
chose to hire home health aides. As we leave the pandemic, this
bill will, could add more complications to these industries
that provide vital care for the elderly and disabled.
H.R. 4827 imposes burdensome mandates on families that will
inevitably raise the cost of domestic services. Mr. DeCamp,
could this legislation eliminate choice for families in need of
health care?
Mr. DeCamp. Absolutely. By increasing the cost of services,
by increasing the cost of being an employer of someone
purchasing these services, it will price people out of the
market. It will squeeze those who can afford to do it, who can
afford to bring on these types of workers. It will squeeze them
in other ways when dollars are tight in today's economy. It
will put immense pressure on families, on working families, and
it will result, I believe in less care because people being
priced out of the market for these services.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, and how does this bill compare to
the Obama administration's companion care rule?
Mr. DeCamp. They are different in focus, but I think the
net result is the same. The companion care rule, among other
things, sharply curtailed the overtime and minimum wage
exemption for certain companion care services provided in the
home, and that increased the cost. We heard remarks earlier
today about how that has limited availability, and some people
have left the market in terms of providers and also consumers
have found it more difficult to get those services. This bill
would achieve a similar dynamic by increasing the cost of those
services.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you very much your answers and as you
heard from the witness, that H.R. 4827 imposes burdensome
mandates, and it is going to be--health care cost is just going
to rise up. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. I want to yield now 5 minutes
to the gentleman from California. Mr. Takano, you are
recognized for 5 minutes sir.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Madam, Chair, and thank you to all
the witnesses who are with us today. Ms. Poo, Medicaid as you
know is the largest funder of long-term care services. What
role does Medicaid funding play in improving the wages and
working conditions of domestic workers, and ensuring that
people with disabilities have access to the care and support
that they need to live in the community, rather than in
institutional settings?
Ms. Poo. Funding for Medicaid is absolutely essential for
home and community-based services. There are over 800,000
people currently eligible for these services who are on a
waiting list and cannot get access to the services because of
lack of funding and the lack of a strong workforce in the
Medicaid program. The average wage of a home care worker in the
United States is $18,200 per year.
That is why we deal with high rates of turnover, and we
cannot attract and sustain a strong workforce in the home and
community-based service program, and also why it was so
important that there was funding in the Build Back Better Act
to increase resources for the home and community-based service
program, that would both expand access to services for people
who need them, and to raise wages for the workforce. I do want
to urge that Congress consider increasing funding for Medicaid,
and as a part of this program as well.
Mr. Takano. Well, thank you for that. I have a question, if
any of you can answer Ms. Poo, about how Medicaid funds
transportation of, you know, the beneficiaries, people that
don't have their automobiles. How is transportation funded?
Ms. Poo. I do know that within the Medicaid Home and
Community-Based Services Program, there is funding for
transportation services for consumers who need them. In terms
of the details of that, I can look into it and get back to the
Committee.
Mr. Takano. Yes, I just--I do not expect an answer now,
because it is a little bit--the question is a little far
afield, but it struck me that I was just in Vermont speaking a
owner of a cab company in Burlington, and I was surprised that
they actually have taxicabs in a city that is the size of
Burlington. He told me that one of the things that is part of
his bread and butter is the Medicaid patients that the
hospitals contract his firm with. This particular taxicab has
employees, not independent contractors. There is another impact
on workers here, and how Medicaid interacts with these
transportation services is of interest to me now.
Dr. Mason, what is the domestic worker pay gap? Why is pay
for domestic workers so low compared to occupations with
similar experience or educational levels in other industries?
Dr. Mason. That is a really good question. The domestic
worker pay gap refers to the gap of almost $7 per hour between
domestic workers and all other workers. The gap exists for
several reasons. Historically, this work has been performed by
women of color, and leading to a systemic devaluing of this
labor, as Ms. Poo suggested. Though most of domestics, 64
percent of domestic workers are U.S.-born, they are more likely
than other workers to be born outside of the U.S., and they
also tend to be older, older than other workers.
What this means is that when we look at the jobs and
because of the lack of labor protections and wage regulation,
these workers are less likely to have recourse if they are
forced to work overtime or not paid a fair wage, and are also
not eligible for benefits like unemployment insurance when they
lose a job or do not have enough hours.
Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. You know, I am one of the
leaders in Congress. I take lead, I have taken the lead on the
32-hour work week, which would start overtime pay at 32 hours.
I note that I think, I believe the SEIU, who has a strong role
in organizing home care workers, took an interest in this
legislation. How would maybe with overtime pay that would begin
after 32 hours, have a positive effect on this industry?
Dr. Mason. Well, it would absolutely have a positive effect
in terms of overall earnings for domestic care workers and
other workers as well, and one of the--one of my colleagues
points out that workers who--employers would be less likely to
pay overtime and cut the hours. We have to know that this work
is critical and essential, and so employers depend on this
workforce. We need to ensure that those workers have
protections, are paid fairly and have access to overtime pay
when there is a need.
Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I want to yield now
to the distinguished Chair of the Ed and Labor Committee, the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam, Chair, and thank you. I want
to thank Ms. Jayapal for her leadership on this issue. Let me
ask Mr. DeCamp and Ms. Barnett just to quickly comment on
whether or not there is a different analysis if we are talking
about people that freelance, that is make their own
arrangements and get their own jobs, and those that are placed
by an agency.
Mr. DeCamp. Thank you for the question. In full disclosure,
you are actually the only member on the Committee to whom I
have made a donation, so I wanted to be clear about that. The
answer is there is a lot of ambiguity with regard to
freelancers, the status of freelancers. Are they employees, are
they independent contractors? People employed by agencies are
clearly employees of the agencies, but may also be joint
employees, jointly employed by the households in the
circumstance where they would work.
Those are very gray lines, and the Department of Labor has
issued regulations on that topic that have been issued and been
revoked, and then the revocation got invalidated and the
Department's working on new regulations. This has been a gray
area in the law under the Fair Labor Standards Act for about 80
years.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Ms. Barnett, do you want to comment on
that?
Ms. Barnett. Well, I can speak to in our municipal
ordinance in Seattle, that there are clear differences made
between who are independent contractors and , who is liability,
who is the employer and who is the liability of employers, and
so in some cases it might be a joint liability between an
employer and an agency. I think there are really clear tests
for independent contractors, and the majority of domestic
workers are not independent contractors. They are hired by
employers, the employers of the household manage their time,
tell them the work they want done and often provide the tools
of labor. Yes, so I think that it is an issue that has to be
really worked out.
Mr. Scott. Okay, and we know that several states that have
domestic workers have none of the provisions of these laws, a
couple of cities. What has been the experience of these laws?
Is there any confusion and complications or unintended
consequences that have occurred because of that? Let me ask Ms.
Poo and again, Mr. DeCamp to comment on that.
Ms. Poo. In my 20 years of working on these laws, I have
not heard of complications. In fact, what I have heard is that
there are improved conditions and enforcement of laws with
these laws. For example, the laws that have strengthened
overtime protections in states have enabled, have prevented
extreme cases of abuse from happening and encouraged workers
who are facing extreme forms of abuse and wage theft to come
forward, including a recent case from Seattle.
Following the ordinance, a worker came forward with extreme
wage theft abuse and was recently awarded a settlement of
$71,000 as a result. It has established that and reinforced
this idea that the hallmark of a healthy democracy is one where
there are fair and equal protections for workers across the
economy, and that domestic workers are workers.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr.
eCamp.
Mr. DeCamp. I think a point to note here is that when an
original bill that looked more like this first came before the
California legislature, it passed and Governor Brown vetoed it,
and then ultimately California enacted and Governor Brown
signed, then Governor Brown signed a much more pared back
version. I think there was concern, even in California, that
this type of set of requirements went too far. They now have a
statute, as do a number of other states and some localities.
This was concerning even in California.
Mr. Scott. The pared-down bill is working in California.
Mr. DeCamp. I do not know whether it is working in
California. I have not heard of significant challenges with
regard to the application of the bill in California.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Mr. Takano just mentioned an 800,000-
waiting list on Medicaid. Is that because of limited slots or a
limited number of workers willing to take the reimbursement
rate?
Ms. Poo.
Ms. Poo. Limited funding to states to support expanded
access to services and wages that are at or lower----
Mr. Scott. Well in Medicaid if you are eligible, you get
the services.
Ms. Poo. Except that many states are not able to deliver on
the services to people who are eligible.
Mr. Scott. They limit the number of slots?
Ms. Poo. Yes.
Mr. Scott. That is where you need funding?
Ms. Poo. Yes.
Mr. Scott. Somebody mentioned, you mentioned a 20 percent
unemployment rate. Obviously, that is not for lack of need, and
it is because those who are paying it cannot pay the bill. How
are we going to increase salaries if people cannot afford it
now, unless you do subsidies?
Ms. Poo. This is a really important question, and the truth
is, is that in this country we are far behind in supporting
affordability and accessibility of care for working families
across the board. We need a strong childcare program, a strong
home and community-based service program. We need paid family
and medical leave, and we simply do not have any of those
things. Yes, we do need subsidies. We need stronger programs.
Mr. Scott. Those programs are--you hooked the fact that
they cannot afford, people cannot afford the services to people
need more money. You connect the dots with subsidies. Mr.
DeCamp, do you want to make a comment on that?
Mr. DeCamp. No, I just think--I think it is an excellent
point sir.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Let me just thank my colleagues. I want to remind my
colleagues that pursuant to Committee practice, materials for
submission to the hearing record must be submitted to the
Committee Clerk within 14 days following the last day of the
hearing. By the close of business August 11th, 2022, preferably
in Microsoft Word format.
The materials submitted must address the subject matter of
the hearing. Only a member of the Subcommittee 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 via
an Internet link that you must provide to the Committee Clerk
within the preferred, the required timeframe. Please recognize
that in the future, that link may no longer work.
Pursuant to House Rules and regulations, items for the
record should be submitted to the Clerk electronically by
emailing submissions to [email protected].
Again, I do want to thank the witnesses for their participation
today. Members of the Subcommittee 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. I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for a
closing statement.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record letters raising concerns with
H.R. 4826 from the Home Health Care Association of America and
the Private Care Association.
Chairwoman Adams. Without objection, so ordered.
[The letters from Mr. Keller follow:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Keller. Thank you. Thank you to the witnesses for
participating in today's hearing. It is time to move past the
Democrats' permanent pandemic mindset, which has been used to
justify more and more harmful government intervention. This
hearing has shown us that once again, Democrats fail to
recognize that the vast majority of employers care about
treating their employees with dignity and respect.
A lot of times we talk about making employees part of the
family of the workplace. Now we have legislation that wants to
take people being treated like family and create them to be--
families and create them to be employers. Committee Republicans
support enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act and holding
bad actors accountable.
However, the crushing mandates and penalties in H.R. 4826
are just another handout to trial lawyers. Employers should be
able to operate and families, families, we are talking about
families here, should be able to operate without fear of
bankruptcy or needing a law degree to understand the complex
regulatory environment. The last thing families who have
relatives requiring in-home care need is more inflation caused
by the Biden administration.
Increased compliance costs will put these valuable services
out of reach for more Americans. Democrats should work with
Republicans to promote pro-growth and pro-opportunity policies
that work for a 21st century economy. I would like to thank our
witnesses again for testifying, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, Mr. Keller. I now recognize
myself for the purpose of making my closing statement. Again,
thank you to our witnesses for your time and for your
testimoneys. Domestic workers provide essential care that
allows Americans to live with dignity and independence and
makes it possible for family caretakers to contribute to their
communities. Regrettably, as we have heard today, Federal labor
laws do not sufficiently protect workers from abuse and
exploitation. As a result, many domestic workers, the majority
of whom are women of color, continue to live in poverty. As our
witnesses made clear, congressional action is particularly
important as demand for domestic care increases amid the
national care deficit.
To that end, I look forward to advancing Representative
Jayapal's Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act, to provide
domestic workers with fair and decent working conditions, and
to ensure that our Nation can recruit and retain the workers we
need to care for our loved ones. Thank you. If there is no
further business, without objection the Subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT