    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        IN SOLIDARITY: REMOVING BARRIERS
                              TO UNION ORGANIZING

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

                                    HEARING

                                   Before The

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

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

               HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 14, 2022

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-56

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    59-484 PDF                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

                                     ------

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on September 14, 2022...............................     1

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

        Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Chairman, Committee on
          Education and Labor........................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     5
        Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Ranking Member, Committee on Education
          and Labor..................................................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     9

                                   WITNESSES

        Bronfenbrenner, Dr. Kate, Director and Senior Lecturer, Labor
          Education Research, Cornell University School of Industrial
          and Labor Relations........................................    11
            Prepared statement of....................................    14
        Pearce, Mark, Visiting Professor and Executive Director,
          Workers' Rights Institute, Georgetown Law School...........    33
            Prepared statement of....................................    36
        King, Roger, Senior Labor and Employment Policy Counsel, H.R.
          Policy Association.........................................    50
            Prepared statement of....................................    53
        Eisen, Michelle, Barista, Starbucks..........................    73
            Prepared statement of....................................    75

                             ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

        Ranking Member Foxx:
            E&L Blog dated September 14, 2022, titled ``Debunking
              Democrats' Union Myths''...............................   139
            Letter dated September 12, 2022, from Coalition for a
              Democratic Workplace (CDW).............................   145
            Letter dated September 14, 2022, from the National
              Association of Home Builders (NAHB)....................   149
            Letter dated September 14, 2022, from the National
              Restaurant Association.................................   150
            Letter dated September 13, 2022, from Independent
              Electrical Contractors (IEC)...........................   152
            Letter dated August 15, 2022, from Starbucks Corporation.   154
            Exhibit A document.......................................   170
            Exhibit B & C documents..................................   174
            District Court document--Petitioner's opposition to
              Respondent's motion for fees...........................   181
            District Court document--Respondent's motion for fees....   198
            District Court document--Respondent's reply memorandum in
              support of its motion for fees.........................   215
            Letter dated September 16, 2022, from American Hotel &
              Lodging Association (AHLA).............................   231
            Letter from the National Right to Work Committee.........   233
        Norcross, Hon. Donald, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New Jersey:
            Letter supporting the Protecting the Right to Organize
              Act....................................................   238

                            QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

        Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
            Mr. Mark Pearce..........................................   243

                        IN SOLIDARITY: REMOVING BARRIERS
                              TO UNION ORGANIZING

                                  ----------

                         Wednesday, September 14, 2022

                      House of Representatives,
                      Committee on Education and Labor,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:21 a.m., 2175
    Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Scott, Courtney, Bonamici, Takano,
    Adams, DeSaulnier, Norcross, Jayapal, Wild, McBath, Hayes,
    Omar, Leger Fernandez, Jones, Manning, Mrvan, Bowman,
    Cherfilus-McCormick, Pocan, Castro, Espaillat, Foxx, Wilson of
    South Carolina, Thompson, Walberg, Grothman, Allen, Banks,
    Comer, Fulcher, Keller, Good, Miller, Fitzgerald, Cawthorn,
    Steel, Jacobs, Finstae, and Sempolinski.
        Staff present: Brittany Alston, Operations Assistant; Ilana
    Brunner, General Counsel; Kyle deCant, Labor Policy Counsel;
    Rasheedah Hasan, Chief Clerk; Sheila Havenner, Director of
    Information Technology; Eli Hovland, Policy Associate; Carrie
    Hughes, Director of Health and Human Services; Stephanie Lalle,
    Communications Director; Kevin McDermott, Director of Labor
    Policy; Kota Mizutani, Deputy Communication Director; Max
    Moore, Staff Assistant; Kayla Pennebecker, Policy Associate;
    Mason Pesek, Labor Policy Counsel; Veronique Pluviose, Staff
    Director; Jessica Schieder, Economic Policy Advisor; Dhrtvan
    Sherman, Staff Assistant; Michele Simensky, Oversight Counsel;
    Banyon Vassar, Deputy Director of Information Technology; Sam
    Varie Press Secretary; ArRone Washingtin, Clerk and Special
    Assistant to the Staff Director; Tanisha Wilburn, Director of
    Labor Oversight and Counsel; Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff
    Director; Caitlin Burke, Minority Professional Staff Member;
    Michael Davis, Minority Legislative Assistant; Cate Dillon,
    Minority Director of Operations; Taylor Hittle, Minority
    Professional Staff Member; Trey Kovacs, Minority Professional
    Staff Member; Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of Member
    Services and Coalitions; Audra McGeorge, Minority
    Communications Director; Ethan Pann, Minority Press Assistant;
    Gabriella Pistone, Minority Staff Assistant; Krystina Skurk,
    Minority Speechwriter; Katy Roberts, Minority Staff Assistant;
    Kelly Tyroler, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Joe
    Wheeler, Minority Professional Staff Member.
        Chairman Scott. The Committee will come to order, and
    before we begin I want to first yield to the Ranking Member to
    introduce our two new members. Is the Ranking Member with us?
    Dr. Foxx--Oh, I am sorry.
        Ms. Foxx. Yes, I am here. We only have one of our new
    Ranking Members with us. The other one is not here right now,
    but we are very pleased to have Mr. Sempolinski with us. He was
    sworn in last night, and he made a wonderful speech on the
    floor about what an honor it is to be in the House of
    Representatives, and I certainly share his opinion.
        I do not believe Mr. Finstad is with us yet, and we will be
    happy to introduce him at the next opportunity. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you very much. I also want to thank
    the gentleman from New York, Mr. Morelle of New York's 25th
    congressional District, for your service on the Education and
    Labor Committee. He will be regrettably leaving us for what he
    thinks is a better committee, the Appropriations Committee, and
    while we know that members there will benefit from the same
    thoughtfulness and dedication, which he approaches his duties
    in Congress and on this committee, he will be sorely missed
    right here.
        Joe, your contributions over the years with children,
    workers, and families, and the good work on legislation and
    healthcare will be very much missed, but we know you are going
    to continue, and when we need appropriations we know who to
    look to. I know you will still be there doing good work on that
    committee, so Mr. Morelle thank you so much for your service.
        As this hearing--we will begin the hearing. One week and a
    half after the Nation celebrated Labor Day, the committee is
    meeting today to discuss the growing popularity of unions among
    the American people, and the steps Congress must take to ensure
    every worker has an opportunity to reap the benefits of joining
    a union.
        Some of our Nation's greatest advances were made because of
    the labor movement. Decades ago, the labor movement created the
    40-hour work week, curbed dangerous child labor practices, and
    ensured that workers had a fair minimum wage. Today unions
    continue to press employers to secure livable wages, better
    benefits, and safer workplaces for America's workers.
        On average a worker covered by a collective bargaining
    agreement earns more than 10 percent more in wages than a peer
    with similar education, occupation, and experience in a non-
    union workplace in the same sector. The private sector workers
    covered by union contracts are 27 percent more likely to be
    offered health insurance through their employer, and data also
    showed that unions close the racial and gender gaps by creating
    an engine of economic mobility for workers, because under a
    union contract everyone gets equal pay for equal work.
        Ultimately the labor movement built the middle class by
    giving the workers a voice on the job, and as such it should be
    no surprise that unions are popular among American people. In
    fact, according to the recent Gallop poll more than 70 percent,
    7-0, 70 percent of the American people approve of unions, the
    highest approval rate since 1965.
        This is a direct result of Americans rejecting practices
    made worse during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. As we
    know too many workers are forced to endure unsafe working
    conditions, and now as we've seen workers time and time again,
    workers are turning to unions to help secure safer workplaces,
    livable wages, and opportunities for promotion.
        According to the Nation's Labor Relations Board, or the
    NLRB, demand for union representation increased by nearly 60
    percent in the first three quarters of 2022, compared to the
    same period last year. Importantly, unions won 641 elections in
    the first half of 2022, almost double the victories in all of
    2021.
        The spike in labor organizing is in part due to several
    high-profile victories of organizers at Starbucks, Amazon,
    Apple and Trader Joe's. While the organizers of these campaigns
    were victorious, they and many others have been met with a slew
    of unfair labor practices and serious obstacles to reaching the
    first collective bargaining agreement.
        Just recently, the National Labor Relations Board found
    over 200 violations of the National Labor Relations Act, or the
    NLRA, at Starbucks locations in Buffalo, New York alone.
    Violations included: Firing organizers, closing stores,
    reducing compensation and surveilling workers' organizing
    activities. The anti-union campaigns conducted by Starbucks
    represents a growing trend.
        For example, for decades unscrupulous employers have eroded
    unions by taking advantages of the weaknesses in the NLRA. Just
    between 2016 and 2021, 87 percent of employers conducted anti-
    union campaigns during union elections, even though the choice
    of organizing is up to the employee, and the employer is never
    on the ballot.
        While NLRB facilitates union elections and investigates
    violations, the agency has been put on its back foot with low
    staffing levels and flat funding. Since 2014, the agency's
    budget has remained consistent, which accounting for inflation
    amounts to a 25 percent decrease in funding since Fiscal Year
    2010.
        This is yet another barrier to supporting workers and
    holding employers accountable. In response to anti-union
    campaigns and weaknesses in the NLRB, House Democrats have
    twice passed the Protecting the Right to Organize Act or the
    PRO Act. The PRO Act is the most significant upgrade in U.S.
    labor law in nearly 80 years.
        Specifically, this legislation sets meaningful penalties
    for employers who violate the workers' rights, requires workers
    whose rights have been violated to be temporarily reinstated
    while their cases are pending, and ensures that unions can
    collect a fair share of dues from all workers who they are
    obligated to represent for their representational obligations--
    and that does not mean the political activities, or the holiday
    party, or the summer cookout, just what you are legally
    obligated to perform.
        Also, we remain committed to working with our colleagues in
    the Biden-Harris Administration to provide the NLRB with the
    funding it needs to protect workers' rights to organize, and
    while I am encouraged the House Labor H appropriations includes
    319 million for the NLRB, a 45 million dollar increase over its
    current budget, it is imperative that this increase be actually
    enacted.
        The surge in organizing requires some urgent response from
    Congress and the administration, and the response is to end the
    funding crisis that has left the agency straining under the
    weight of new caseloads. The history has shown us that when we
    invest in workers, we build the economy from the bottom up, and
    the middle out, and so I look forward to delivering on that
    goal, ensuring that joining a union will be a right and not a
    fight. With that I yield to the distinguished Ranking Member,
    Dr. Foxx.
        [The statement of Chairman Scott follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Despite Democrats'
    aggressive attempts to force union representation on workers,
    republicans are committed to ensuring workers have the freedom
    to choose whether they want to join a union. I would like to
    remind my colleagues that Federal law already protects the
    right of employees to organize, or to refrain from doing so.
        Any reforms to our labor laws should help workers inspire
    economic growth, not exclusively promote the interest of union
    bosses. There is a reason why the PRO Act cannot clear the
    Senate. It is a deeply unpopular bill that undermines basic
    long-standing worker rights and would take a wrecking ball to
    Main Street.
        Republicans just want fair and neutral labor laws. Instead
    of working together to create a level playing field, Democrats
    want to pass a union wish list bill to build on what they claim
    is a historic surge in unionizing. The Democrats are cherry-
    picking data to sell the narrative that unions are on the rise.
        For example, Democrats will likely point out that Workers
    United has unionized more than 200 Starbucks locations, but
    they will fail to mention this is less than 3 percent of the
    company's more than 9,000 wholly owned stores. Not on the list
    of Democrat talking points is that only one out of 270 Apple
    stores have voted to unionize.
        They will also probably ignore the fact that the private
    sector union membership rate is the lowest it has ever been.
    Bottom line, Democrat claims that interest in unionization is
    on the rise is another drummed up narrative by the left-wing
    media and Democrat politicians. If unions want to know why they
    do not appeal to workers they need to take a long hard look in
    the mirror.
        Most unions spend a significant amount of their money on
    radical political activity, not advocating for workers.
    Further, union corruption has been a major issue which previous
    administrations worked hard to tackle, yet Democrats are in the
    pocket of big labor, continue to resist transparency measures
    that would keep workers informed on how their union dues are
    being spent.
        Unions are relying on the Biden Administration to twist the
    arms of workers into unionizing. President Biden, who promised
    to have the most pro union administration in history is
    complying. He established the Task Force on Worker Organizing
    and Empowerment to mobilize all Federal agencies in his crusade
    to unionize as many workers as possible.
        Many Federal departments are taking this mandate seriously,
    especially the Department of Labor. For example, Labor
    Secretary Marty Walsh, a former union boss, marched in the
    picket line at a Kellogg's plant in Lancaster, Pennsylvania
    last October. Mr. Walsh apparently forgot that he is supposed
    to promote the interest of all workers, not act as an activist
    on behalf of unions.
        Perhaps most egregious, the Biden Administration is working
    to implement provisions of the PRO Act by executive fiat. The
    radical PRO Union Boss's Act would ban right-to-work laws,
    forcing workers to pay union dues, even if they object to union
    representation. If the Democrats had their way free choice
    would be a thing of the past in the American workforce.
        It would also, among other things, undermine the
    independent contractor and franchise models by codifying the
    Obama era job killing joint employer standard in California's
    disastrous ABC test.
        To make matters worse for the job creators and workers the
    National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, is being used as the
    litigation arm of big labor. Instead of promoting fair labor
    practices, the NLRB is exhuming decades old policies like the
    Joy Silk Doctrine, which would allow unions to organize a
    workplace without ever receiving majority support in a secret
    ballot election.
        Replacing the secret ballot with the card check system
    would open the door for intimidation and coercion of workers.
    The Biden appointed NLRB general counsel is also challenging
    long-standing precedent regarding employer's rights to educate
    workers on the down side of union representation. This would
    dramatically infringe on an employer's freedom of speech and
    deprive workers of hearing both sides of the argument regarding
    unionization.
        To Democrats there is only one choice, unionize or bust.
    Additionally, the NLRB has yet to answer for its alleged
    collusion with Workers United during a recent Starbucks union
    election. According to an NLRB whistleblower, certain NLRB
    officials colluded with agents of Workers United to arrange for
    unobserved in person voting in NLRB offices during NLRB ordered
    mail ballot elections.
        NLRB officials also shared voting data with Workers United
    to increase turnout among pro union employees. Republicans will
    continue to demand answers and accountability from the NLRB,
    and I encourage my Democrat colleagues to do the same.
    Democrats are beholden to union bosses. Unions send huge
    portions of their worker funded war chest to democrat political
    organizations, campaigns, and left-wing organizations.
        It is no wonder Democrats cow down to union bosses. Being
    pro-union does not mean being pro-worker, and in too many
    instances workers and job creators are being harmed by unions.
    Republicans will continue to stand for a worker's right to
    choose. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement of Ranking Member Foxx follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Scott. Thank you. Thank you. I want to remind the
    members that 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 for a pause of 2 seconds to ensure
    the microphone picks up their speech. I would also ask that
    members identify themselves before they speak. Members who are
    participating in person should not be logged onto the remote
    platform in order to avoid feedback, echoes, and distortion.
        Members participating remotely will be considered present
    in the proceeding when they are visible on camera and be
    considered not present when they are not visible on camera. The
    only exception is if you are experiencing technical difficulty
    and inform the staff, any staff of such difficulty.
        If you are experiencing technical difficulties during the
    hearing, you should stay connected on the platform, and make
    sure you are muted, and use your phone to immediately contact
    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 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 a remote platform. Members are
    asked to wrap up promptly when your time is expired. Finally,
    the recent guidance from the Office of Attending Physician has
    made mask wearing optional at this time, but please know that
    there are people who are immuno-compromised, so you should take
    their situation in consideration.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c), opening statements are
    limited to the Chair and the Ranking Member, and so those
    statements have been made, and without objection all other
    members who wish to insert written statements into the record
    may do so by submitting them to the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m.
    on September 28, hopefully in Microsoft Word format.
        We will now hear from our witnesses. Dr. Kate
    Bronfenbrenner is the Senior Lecturer and Director of Labor
    Education Research at the Cornell University School of
    Industrial and Labor Relations.
        Mark Pearce is the former Chairman of the National Labor
    Relations Board and Executive Director and visiting professor
    at Georgetown Law Center's Workers' Rights Institute.
        Roger G. King is the Senior Labor and Employment Counsel
    for the H.R. Policy Association. Ms. Michelle Eisen is a
    Barista at Starbucks at their Elmwood Avenue location in
    Buffalo, New York.
        We appreciate the witnesses for participating today. We
    look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses
    that your statements will appear in full in the hearing record
    pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d) of the 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. During your testimony, staff will be keeping
    track of time, and the timer will be visible at the witness
    table. Please be attentive to time, and wrap up when your time
    is over, and remute your microphone.
        We will let all of the witnesses make their presentations
    before we move to member questions. When answering a question
    please remember to unmute your microphone. Witnesses are aware
    of their responsibility to provide accurate information to the
    community and therefore we will proceed directly to their
    testimony. We will first recognize Dr. Bronfenbrenner. You are
    recognized for 5 minutes.

        STATEMENT OF DR. KATE BRONFENBRENNER, DIRECTOR OF LABOR
      EDUCATION RESEARCH AND SENIOR LECTURER, CORNELL UNIVERSITY
      SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS, ITHACA, NEW YORK.

        Ms. Bronfenbrenner. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking
    Member Foxx, and members of the Committee for this opportunity
    to testify before you today about the current wave of union
    organization and employer opposition. The findings I present
    today are the latest in a series of studies I have done over
    the past 30 years on employer opposition to organizing under
    the National Labor Relations Act.
        These studies have found that the majority of employers
    engage in aggressive opposition to organizing, including
    coercive and retaliatory practices such as threats of plant
    closure, interrogation, discharge, bribes, discipline,
    harassment, and surveillance. Employer opposition has grown in
    intensity and sophistication over time as companies have
    globalized and restructured, and gained access to new tools to
    monitor and surveil their workers.
        As already was mentioned, this is a pivotal moment for
    worker organizing. In the first half of Fiscal Year 2022,
    unions won 77 percent of elections, more than any year since
    2000, and have organized twice as many workers in the first 6
    months of this year as they did in the first 6 months of 2021.
        New workers, previously seen as unorganizable, are
    organizing in retail, non-profits, communications, IT, such as
    Starbucks, Amazon, Trader Joe's, the Art Institute of Chicago,
    the Audubon Society, the New York Times and Act Division.
        Public approval is at the highest it has been since 1965 at
    71 percent. The majority of workers say they would vote for a
    union if given the opportunity, yet union density remains at
    6.1 percent in the private sector, and 10.3 percent overall.
        U.S. employers have spent decades protecting an anti-union
    strategy that works, so much so that unions are shifting their
    organizing away from traditional sectors in manufacturing,
    construction and transportation, to front-facing industries and
    firms in service, retail, and communications, where more
    coercive and retaliatory tactics may backfire.
        They are choosing tactics where they have the power to
    restrain an employer campaign, so much so that in 13 percent of
    the sample, employers did not run any campaign at all,
    primarily because neutrality agreements were negotiated. While
    employers may adjust the permeation and combination of tactics
    they use, essential elements remain the same.
        Our data show that 74 percent use management consultants,
    85 percent use captive audience meetings. 71 percent use
    supervisor one-on-ones, 44 percent interrogate, 32 percent
    threaten, 45 percent engage in plant closing threats, 49
    percent promote union activists out of the unit, and 16 percent
    discharge union activists. 23 percent bought or engaged in
    bribes, and 36 percent used surveillance.
        This does not stop with the election. Employer opposition
    continues to the first contract campaign so that only 38
    percent have a first contract within a year, and a third still
    do not have a contract 3 years after the election. For all of
    these reasons, it is imperative that there be labor law reform.
        Most important is full funding for the NLRB. With the surge
    of elections and a 16 percent increase in unfair labor
    practices, the National Labor Relations Board is stretched to
    the absolute bare bones. When they do not have resources,
    workers have a delay in their ability to organize.
        Second, there must be the passage of the PRO Act and all
    its components, including outlying captive audience meetings
    where intimidation and coercion occurs, establishing punitive
    penalties for labor law violations, with super compounding
    penalties for multiple labor law violators, and forced first
    contract arbitration when parties are unable to negotiate a
    first agreement.
        Authorize card check certification and provide for
    automatic certification and bargaining order in cases where
    there are multiple serious unfair labor practices. Absent these
    kind of changes, workers will not be able to exercise their
    rights to organize in collective bargaining under the act,
    which has an adverse effect on our entire society. Thank you
    very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bronfenbrenner follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Pearce.

    STATEMENT OF MARK PEARCE, VISITING PROFESSOR/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
       WORKERS' RIGHTS INSTITUTE, GEORGETOWN LAW SCHOOL, SILVER
                            SPRING, MARYLAND

        Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
    Foxx for the opportunity to testify before you today at this
    hearing In Solidarity: Removing Barriers to Organizing. This is
    a special privilege for me having spent practically half my 43-
    year career with the National Labor Relations Board, first as a
    lawyer, and then ultimately as a Board Member and Chairman.
        The National Labor Relations Board is the agency charged
    with enforcing the foremost labor law in the country, the
    National Labor Relations Act, and the Act because of its
    inadequacy and its remedies--inferior remedies and other
    enforcement mechanisms--has become regrettably inadequate to
    deal with the labor relations issues of today.
        Compounded with that is the inadequate funding that this
    agency has been given in order to effectively do its job. The
    National Labor Relations Act has among its fundamental
    purposes, the encouragement of collective bargaining, and the
    protection of workers' rights to organize.
        The NLRA, also known as the Wagner Act, was passed by
    Congress in 1935 out of recognition that workers' rights were
    fundamental rights, and despite its many flaws the National
    Labor Relations Act was the first law to provide these
    protections--even with the exclusion of agricultural and
    domestic workers, the majority of whom were people of color.
        The substantial decrease in union density that we have
    experienced over time as compared to the one-third of the
    workforce that we experienced in the mid-40's has resulted in a
    vast inequality of labor and wealth in this country.
        While union density has yet to show signs of improvement,
    perceptions and reception has decidedly changed. Last month a
    Gallup poll as was indicated in prior testimony shows 71
    percent of Americans now approve of labor unions. These numbers
    are up from 64 percent before the pandemic, and is the highest
    Gallup has recorded since 1965.
        There are many reasons for this. I will just mention a few
    that I think are most significant. During the pandemic
    corporate profits--corporations profited exponentially while
    workers were left behind. The shareholders of 22 of the
    Nation's best-known companies employed more than 7 million
    frontline workers in sectors spanning retail, delivery, fast
    food, hotels, entertainment.
        It grew by 1.5 million dollars, and it made those
    shareholders that rich while 7 million workers received
    additional pay equally less than 2 percent of the shareholder's
    gain. More than half of these workers were non-white. The
    pandemic exposed workers' vulnerability and corporate
    insensitivity. Various industries like computer chip
    manufacturers, fast food and medical services experienced
    guidelines and directors that weakened protections for
    frontline workers during the height of the pandemic.
        However, it is the meat packing industry that is the prime
    example. 59,000 workers at five of the companies controlling
    the lion's share of U.S. meat market were infected by the
    Coronavirus. During the pandemic's first year, at least 269
    workers across these meat packing companies died of Coronavirus
    between February and March 2020.
        That is in a workplace that is made up of over 50 percent
    immigrants. The previous administration's failure to provide
    essential workers with basic protections during the Coronavirus
    pandemic has underscored the importance of unions. The United
    Food and Commercial Workers secured increased pay and benefits
    for workers for more than a dozen meat packing and food
    processing companies, as well as premium pay for thousands of
    grocery store employees.
        The UAW persuaded General Motors, Ford and Fiat, Chrysler
    to shut down operations for 2 weeks to slow the spread of the
    virus. They negotiated that the companies provide all workers
    with protective gear, including masks. Let us not forget the
    Communications Workers of America. We secured additional paid,
    sick, and family leave for unionized Verizon workers, including
    26 weeks of paid sick leave for those diagnosed with COVID-19,
    and 8 weeks of paid leave for those caring for individuals
    medically diagnosed with that disease.
        Chairman Scott. Mr. Pearce, your time is just about over.
        Mr. Pearce. Okay. Well, if I could end by saying this.
    Everything does not have to be that way. The Microsoft approach
    is indicative of that. They have had an agreement for card
    check recognition and giving the employees the opportunity to
    make free choice unencumbered by employer influences. I thank
    you for this opportunity, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pearce follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. King.

    STATEMENT OF MR. ROGER KING, SENIOR LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT POLICY
                    COUNSEL, H.R. POLICY ASSOCIATION

        Mr. King. Chairman Scott. Best of health to you. Nice to be
    with you again albeit by a virtual connection this morning.
    Ranking Member Foxx, Dr. Foxx, great to see you, great to be
    with you again, and new members of the Committee welcome.
        I am appearing here this morning not in my capacity as
    Senior Labor and Employment Counsel of the H.R. Policy
    Association. Timing just did not permit me to vet the testimony
    your various organizations that I know otherwise I would be
    appearing on behalf of.
        I do want to level set the testimony I am about to give. I
    am not appearing here this morning on behalf of Starbucks.
    Starbucks is not a member of our trade association. I have had
    no contact whatsoever with the company preparing my testimony.
    With that said, I am deeply troubled by the attacks on that
    company and other employers in this country.
        The so-called public shaming, incorrect information,
    misleading information is very troubling. As many have noted
    Starbucks yes, has received increased union activity, but Dr.
    Foxx, as you have mentioned when you look at their--look at the
    stores, less than 3 percent of Starbucks employees have
    decided, at least at this point, that they desire union
    representation.
        When you put into that mix the licensed stores it is less
    than 1 percent. We do not see that in the media. Furthermore,
    thousands of workers of Starbucks have rejected union
    representation. What you do not see are the elections that the
    union did not prevail in.
        In all due respect to my fellow witness thousands of
    workers at Starbucks do not desire union representation. Let us
    take these so-called allegations also for what they are worth.
    Virtually every union organizing campaign, many unfair labor
    practice charges are filed, but later dismissed. Indeed, the
    dismissal factor is 70, 80, 90 percent.
        There has been no final adjudication that I am aware of
    finding Starbucks in violation of our Nation's labor laws. Just
    let us make that clear. Just on a personal note, my wife and I
    go to Starbucks stores all over the country. I think they are
    well-run, they are clean, they are efficient. I like the Wi-Fi
    service. The coffee is great.
        By the way, the internet service is great. Let us stop
    publicly shaming a company that has provided thousands and
    thousands of jobs in this country, and has provided good
    community relations, and has been a leader in benefits. That
    should not happen.
        Second, on a general note other employers in this country
    seem to be publicly shamed inappropriately. We have
    particularly new companies that are providing thousands and
    thousands of jobs in this country, good-paying jobs.
        The litmus test apparently is if they speak out at all on a
    different perspective of whether unionization makes sense at
    all, they are publicly shamed or criticized and that is wrong.
        The narrative clearly appears to be to muzzle the employer
    community, not permit them to have any voice whatsoever in this
    discussion of whether it makes sense or not, and unions may
    have a place in certain instances. Unions have new leadership
    and Ms. Shuler, she is a very bright lady, maybe they will
    change some of their approaches.
        Let us not publicly shame the job providers in this country
    that have provided literally thousands of jobs. You should not
    be a second-class citizen in this country because you are one
    of 94 percent that do not work under a union contract in the
    private sector. Employers that employ those 94 plus percent of
    our population should not be publicly shamed.
        They are providing jobs to this country. We have got the
    narrative all wrong. Just a few points in my written testimony
    that I would like to review. First, as noted by Chairman Scott,
    and also by you Dr. Foxx, approval rating of unions just are
    generally in the 70-percentile pursuant to a recent Gallop
    poll.
        What is not noted is that only about 11 percent of the
    polling individuals really expressed an interest in joining the
    union, and perhaps even more importantly, 58 percent said they
    had no interest in specifically becoming a union member.
        Now why is that? There are a number of reasons, but
    according to polling of American Compass and other
    organizations, workers in this country if they are going to be
    represented, do not want a union that is adversarial, and I am
    quite concerned about the potential pending rail strike, by the
    way that could shut down this country.
        They do not want confrontation. They do not want
    adversarial unions. They do not want their unions going out on
    political and social ventures. They want them to represent
    their interest and voice. For reasons I have stated in my
    testimony, unions do not appear to be doing that.
        They have lost sight of their central function. As stated
    in my testimony, unions are not going after their potential
    population of growth. Indeed, their spend on traditional union
    organizing activity is very low.
        Now they can speak for themselves why that is, but when
    they come to the halls of Congress and want you to pass the PRO
    Act, the worst--and I will stand by this statement, and I know
    others will, the worst one-sided proposal in labor relations
    ever in the halls of this Congress.
        It is so tilted in one matter that it really does not
    deserve much time or attention, but unfortunately I guess we
    will have to talk about it under the heated political rhetoric
    that we are seeing today. Specifically, I hope the committee
    will look deeply at any allegations of employer misconduct.
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner's testify should be looked at under the
    guise of footnote 2. She has all these statistics, but she does
    disclose, to her credit, that they are the result of
    interviewing professional union organizers. It is a very one
    sided study. It has been discredited continually.
        I do not give any credit whatever to that data. If you are
    going to have a full and complete study you need to talk to all
    individuals involved in organizing. Certainly, union organizers
    have a perspective. I respect that. It is not an accurate or an
    objective perspective.
        Chairman Scott. Mr. King, you are running a little over.
        Mr. King. Just one final point and I will quit. Mr. Pearce,
    who I have great respect for, properly stated that the policy
    of this country is to promote collective bargaining. He is
    right. What he did not share with you is that employees first
    have to decide whether they wish to have union representation.
        The Act is very clear on that. We need to preserve our
    right by secret ballot elections. I think we have got the cart
    before the horse here. Let us make sure employees have an
    uncoerced, fair and ample opportunity to hear both sides, and
    then make a decision. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Scott. Thank you. Ms. Eisen, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF MS. MICHELLE EISEN, BARISTA, STARBUCKS, BUFFALO,
                                NEW YORK

        Ms. Eisen. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Foxx, and members
    of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    today. My name is Michelle Eisen, and I am a barista at the
    Starbucks on Elmwood Avenue in Buffalo, New York. The first
    Starbucks to unionize.
        I began my career with Starbucks in 2010. I needed a part-
    time job that would provide me with health benefits, and also
    complement my other career as a theatrical stage manager.
    Starbucks offered both of those things, as well as the
    opportunity to work for a company that had the reputation of
    being progressive, caring about its communities and most
    importantly, taking care of its employees.
        For a time I felt that to be true. Unfortunately, over the
    last several years things began to shift within the company.
    The cost of the benefits increased while the coverage
    decreased, and wages did not keep up. Other benefits were
    completely taken away without warning or explanation.
        The clearest difference was the overall decline in the
    everyday working conditions on the floors of the cafes. This
    decline became drastic during the COVID-19 pandemic when
    Starbucks boasted record profits, but simply treated us, its
    workers, as disposable.
        This nearly led to me leaving a company I devoted over a
    decade of my life to, but instead I was presented with the
    opportunity to try to unionize my store. The company's response
    to our organizing campaign was not at all what I expected. I
    realize now how naive that was, but I truly believed that
    Starbucks was at heart the progressive company it proclaimed
    itself to be.
        We were simply expressing our desire for reasonable
    improvements to our working conditions, particularly when it
    came to our health and safety. The only way to accomplish this
    was to make sure we had a true voice in the company policies
    that affected us.
        Within 2 weeks of filing our first petitions with the NLRB,
    the company shut down two stores it perceived had strong union
    support, one permanently and the other for months. They also
    quickly shipped in over 100 out of town managers and upper
    level corporate to infiltrate our cafes, surveil and intimidate
    workers, and shut down our stores in order to hold anti-union
    meetings, which workers needed to attend in order to get paid.
        They went from offering us the world if we voted no, to
    threatening to take away our benefits if we voted to unionize.
    When that did not work, and we want our union anyway, they
    began to discipline us, then fire us, then permanently close
    our stores. As our campaign moved from Buffalo to a national
    scale, so did Starbucks's union busting.
        That behavior has only increased tenfold since the return
    of Howard Shultz as interim CEO in April of this year.
    Starbucks has fired over 100 union leaders and supporters to
    date, many just in the previous weeks. Starbucks has no regard
    for our legal rights, and they will never stop on their own.
        In the last year the union has filed over 350 unfair labor
    practice charges against Starbucks with the NLRB. The NLRB has
    so far issued administrative complaints against Starbucks and
    almost 100 ULPs alleging over 600 legal violations.
        Some of these alleged violations affected every Starbucks
    worker in the country, and Starbucks workers are not alone in
    this struggle. Workers involved in other large organizing
    efforts at places such as Amazon, Chipotle, Trade Joe's and
    Apple have faced very similar union busting from their
    companies.
        Despite this overwhelmingly negative response from
    Starbucks, we find ourselves at the forefront of a new labor
    movement. Over 6,300 Starbucks workers have unionized at over
    237 locations across the U.S. so far.
        These victories are due entirely to the courage of these
    workers in the face of this abusive conduct by the company. It
    should not take an act of bravery to ensure that you have a
    voice at work. We need Starbucks to recognize our desire to
    organize, which the NLRB explicitly states is our right. We
    need Starbucks to stop mistreating the workers it claims to
    care about, and to fulfill its legal obligation to come to the
    table and negotiate with us in good faith.
        We are tired of fighting a company that can afford to do
    better by its hourly workers. We are tired of listening to
    billionaire CEOs take sole credit for the billions of dollars
    of profit made off our labor. We are tired of watching
    Starbucks continue to violate workers' rights knowing that the
    law will fair to offer any meaningful consequences. Most of
    all, we are tired of fighting Howard Shultz's ego.
        We need people in power to call Starbucks out for this
    repulsive behavior because worker rights are human rights. We
    need labor law reform like the PRO Act, so that the laws work
    to protect the people they were put in place for. We need
    better funding for the NLRB so that the agency has the
    resources it needs to enforce the law. We need you to stand
    with us as the American labor movement does what it always has:
    fight for a future that is just, and works for all of us. Thank
    you. I look forward to taking your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Eisen follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Scott. Thank you. Now we will go to member
    questions, and we will begin with the gentlelady from Oregon,
    Ms. Bonamici. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    holding this hearing today--did my time start Mr. Chairman? I
    am not clear.
        Chairman Scott. Yes.
        Ms. Bonamici. Okay, thank you for holding this hearing
    today to focus on the importance of protecting workers and the
    right to organize for better wages, better benefits, and safer
    working conditions, and thank you to the witnesses for being
    here.
        It is an honor to represent a district in one of the most
    labor and worker friendly states in the Nation. Liz Shuler, the
    President of the AFL-CIO, I am proud to say, is from Oregon.
    Oregon had the second largest year over year increase in total
    union election petitions to the NLRB between `21 and 2022.
    Oregon also had the third highest number of Starbucks election
    petitions of any State in the country at 24.
        I was pleased to see that in the district I represent,
    Starbucks workers at five locations have successfully completed
    union elections, although we have not seen any retaliatory
    efforts as we have heard from Ms. Eisen, from any of the
    Starbucks locations in Northwest Oregon.
        We know that food service workers in other parts of the
    country and in other companies such as Chipotle, are
    experiencing employer retaliation against their organizing
    efforts. The sharp increase in union petitions and NLRB cases
    over the last year affirms the need for more funding and
    capacity at that agency which Ms. Eisen just mentioned in her
    testimony.
        I want to ask Dr. Bronfenbrenner and Ms. Eisen, what is
    your perspective on how limited capacity at the NLRB, and the
    NLRB funding crisis, how does that affect elections and the
    ability of workers to seek and obtain legal recourse when their
    rights are violated, and I will start with Ms. Eisen and then
    Dr. Bronfenbrenner and I do want to get another question in.
        Ms. Eisen. Thank you for that question. The longer it takes
    for an election to go forward, a lot of that is determined by
    the funding of the agency that oversees that. The longer these
    companies have to enact their union busting behavior and abuse
    these workers. I mean that is simply just the rule of what it
    is.
        The longer it takes for us to have that vote, the longer
    the company has the ability to come in and surveil and
    intimidate, and make workers afraid of expressing their desire
    to organize. We also see an issue when it comes to dealing with
    the complaints and the charges filed regarding unfair labor
    practices.
        There have been hundreds of unfair labor practice charges
    filed during this union campaign at Starbucks, and as of today
    the NLRB has only been able to investigate 30 percent of those
    charges.
        Ms. Bonamici. Wow. Dr. Bronfenbrenner, what can you add in
    terms of what increased funding would mean at the NLRB?
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner. Workers at Chipotle in Maine organized
    9 months ago, they are waiting 9 months for an election to be
    set. Nine months just because of the delay, because of the
    staffing at the NLRB. Nine months, that is 9 months where
    employers are engaging in threats, intimidation and coercion,
    acts like waves against the support for the unionization.
        Ms. Bonamici. I do not want to cut you off Dr.
    Bronfenbrenner, but I want to move on to another delay. I am
    concerned by reports of employers that try to quash a new union
    by prolonging bargaining through a combination of legal appeals
    and delays.
        In some cases, that has taken years, as we have seen
    particularly in the healthcare sector in Northwest Oregon,
    Willamette Valley Medical Center prolonged negotiations of the
    Oregon Nurses Association to the extent that it took 2 years to
    reach a first contract. We are seeing similar things at the
    Legacy's Unity Center for Behavioral Health where it took 18
    months to reach a first contract with the Oregon Nurses
    Association.
        Dr. Bronfenbrenner, and I want to ask Mr. Pearce to weigh
    in quickly on this. How often do we see similar cases, and what
    would the PRO Act do to hold employers whose workers have
    successfully unionized accountable if they deliberately prolong
    contract negotiations? Maybe about a half a minute each, I am
    sorry.
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner. Under our labor law, if an employer
    decides to refuse to bargain the only penalty we have is a
    notice telling them to bargain in good faith. That has allowed
    employers to just refuse to honor the Act, and we see delays
    that go as I said earlier. That we have only 36 percent have a
    contract within a year, but a third of unions who won elections
    don't have a contract 4 years after the election.
        Ms. Bonamici. Mr. Pearce, can you add to that in my
    remaining half a minute please, what would the PRO Act do to
    help?
        Mr. Pearce. What the PRO Act would do is create a road map
    for workers in management to reach a first contract because the
    workers would be required, employers would be required to start
    bargaining within 10 days of being certified for an election.
    If there are problems with that it can go to arbitration,
    interest arbitration and the like.
        There is a full court press to make sure that dilatory
    tactics do not take place under the PRO Act.
        Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. This is after workers have
    decided to unionize. Sometimes it can take years to reach a
    first contract, and that is unacceptable, and that is why we
    need the PRO Act, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Scott. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
    gentleman from South Carolina Mr. Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    each of you for being here today as witnesses. Mr. King,
    economic research shows that right-to-work states like my home
    State of South Carolina, enjoy greater job growth and higher
    per capital disposable income when adjusted for costs of living
    when compared to forced union states.
        South Carolina has especially benefited from a right-to-
    work environment where people can voluntarily join a union.
    They are not forced to join a union, in fact, right-to-work
    means jobs. Specifically, it is amazing in the last 35 years
    South Carolina has developed an automobile manufacturing
    capability, a tire manufacturing capability.
        South Carolina now is the leading exporter of cars of any
    State in the union with no unions being forced. Additionally,
    South Carolina we want everybody to know is also the leading
    manufacturer of tires. Of any State in the United States, we
    benefit from investments from France, from Japan, from Germany,
    from Singapore.
        To go from zero manufacturing of tires to be the leading
    manufacturer and exporter, and a reason for that is right-to-
    work, that people have a choice joining a union or not. Could
    you give why you believe that right-to-work states are more----
        Mr. King. I am sorry, I think your microphone went off, Mr.
    Wilson. Right at the end, I did not hear the end of the
    question.
        Mr. Wilson. I blame anybody for doing that. Anyway, why are
    right-to-work states more attractive to entrepreneurs and for
    workers alike?
        Mr. King. Thank you. I have been to South Carolina many
    times. Great State.
        Mr. Wilson. We still have one condo left.
        Mr. King. Workers today want flexibility. They do not want
    to be told what to do, whether by the employer every day, every
    hour. They want flexibility, they want voice, but they do not
    want to be told what to do by a union also. They do not want to
    be required to pay dues and fees if they choose not to.
        In South Carolina, like 26 other states in the country have
    decided that the right-to-work approach is the better approach.
    We can debate that. The PRO Act, Mr. Wilson, would overrule
    that. It would permit employers and unions to say right-to-work
    makes no difference even though the electorate of South
    Carolina have voted to have a right-to-work status, which is
    their right currently under the law.
        The PRO Act takes that away. Many members of this committee
    are from states that have right-to-work status, so the PRO Act
    would overrule that, a big mistake.
        Mr. Wilson. I am personally concerned for the hospitality
    industry. We benefit so much from Myrtle Beach to Charleston to
    Hilton Head. The jobs that are created, particularly entry
    level jobs, and card check would just be catastrophic. I have
    in the past represented the Indian American community, AAHO,
    Asian American Hotel Owners, and they would just be
    catastrophically affected if they could not run their motels
    and hotels, and restaurants.
        I particularly identify with what you said. Along with
    that, I am grateful to be the sponsor of the National Right to
    Work Act, which erases automatic dues clauses and Federal
    statute without adding a single letter to Federal law. The PRO
    Act bans right-to-work laws as you have stated, which are
    implemented in 27 states.
        Democrats claim it is necessary to avoid a free rider
    problem of workers benefiting from union representation without
    paying for it, but many workers do not want union
    representation making them forced riders, rather than free
    riders. Again, how do we--what do we say to workers who want to
    represent themselves?
        Mr. King. What we ought to be saying is they ought to have
    that opportunity, and what we are seeing consistently, Mr.
    Wilson, from polling data that workers today do not want to be
    represented by any entity, any union that gets so involved in
    an adversarial approach with their employer, and spends
    thousands of dollars political and social activities that they
    do not agree with.
        The American Compass polling was very informed on this.
    Workers want, if they are going to have a union, a union that
    would work with their employer, partner with their employer,
    and concentrate on terms and conditions of employment, but that
    is not the case.
        The American worker today is very sophisticated, and they
    can tell when they are being abused or used, and when their
    dues moneys are being spent inappropriately. I think back to
    choice is very important. Why should this body, or any body of
    government overrule employee choice? Let us have free and fair
    elections, secret ballot elections, hard check is a subterfuge.
    It does not work.
        Electronic voting does not work. We need to have free and
    fair secret ballot elections. If workers decide they wish
    representation that is acceptable, but do not force it on the
    employee. Do not muzzle the employer from at least having an
    opportunity to speak.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, and I yield back my time.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady from North
    Carolina, Ms. Adams.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In September 2020,
    registered nurses at Mission Hospital in Ashville, North
    Carolina, won the first ever private sector hospital union,
    NLRB election in North Carolina. During that election, which
    occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospital corporation
    that owns Mission started pulling nurses away from patients
    that attend anti-union meetings, union busting, inviting
    consultants to walk through the hospital without masks to
    spread anti-union misinformation.
        A few days before ballots were mailed out by the email RB,
    a supervisor, threatened if nurses successfully organized a
    union, the nurses' childcare needs would not be accommodated.
    Professor Bronfenbrenner, would you say that these tactics are
    typical of what employers engage in during an organizing
    campaign? How would increasing NLRB funding help with this?
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner. Yes. These tactics that happened at
    Mission Hospital represent what the traditional anti-union
    campaign is. Employer campaigns rest on the principle abusing
    threats, intimidation, promises, interrogation and retaliation,
    and those were all elements of the campaign, and a majority of
    employers engage in those tactics.
        When those are repeated over time it has a cumulative
    effect which intensifies the effect. What would happen with
    increased NLRB funding is we would get investigations sooner,
    unfair labor practices would be determined sooner, and they
    would be able to enforce the Act sooner.
        When they are understaffed, it means these campaigns go on
    without any decision from the NLRB, even though the unfair
    labor practices have occurred.
        Ms. Adams. Wow. Thank you for that. Would you, you know,
    research indicates--and this is for you again, that union
    organizing helps to narrow the gender wealth gap, so with Black
    Women's Equal Pay Day coming up next week, have you seen
    similar trends with the racial wealth also becoming narrower
    with the increase in union activity and collective bargaining?
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner. There is no question that unionization
    narrows the gap in terms of race, gender, disability, because
    unions end arbitrary supervisor power and ensure equality in
    the workplace, the true raising wages across the board and
    providing benefits across the board, and improving the standard
    of living of all workers.
        The majority of union contracts, first contract have
    language that allows workers to grieve discrimination or
    unfairness in these economic decisions. I would also add that
    women of color are the workers most likely to organize in this
    country, and with good reason. They see the benefits for
    unionization.
        Ms. Wilson. Okay. Are they more successful in organizing?
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner. Yes, they are.
        Ms. Wilson. Okay. Well, that is a good thing. Well, thank
    you very much. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Pennsylvania,
    Mr. Thompson.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. King, thank you for
    taking the time to be with us today. As you know labor union
    membership continues to plummet due to modern economy, economic
    growth, and unions' own failings. Workers disenchantment with
    union representations create a real crisis for union
    professionals, union bosses.
        Despite these facts, my colleagues on the other side of the
    aisle introduced H.R. 842, the Protecting the Right to Organize
    Act, or more commonly referred to as the PRO Act, which
    fulfills their campaign promises to union bosses and trial
    lawyers, really at the expense of business owners, workers and
    the American public.
        Specifically, this bill imposes force unionization,
    eliminates employees' rights to privacy, abolishes employer
    rights, undermines the independent contractor status, and
    disrupts the economy so much more.
        Instead of increasing transparency and accountability to
    better serve their members, union leaders are exerting their
    political influence to demand radical national labor laws like
    the PRO Act, which would allow them to further consolidate
    power to workers, and bolster their own political agendas.
        Mr. King, the PRO Act requires employers to turn over
    workers' home addresses, cell phone numbers, and personal email
    addresses. My democratic colleagues are getting as bad as
    Facebook in terms of disrespecting people's privacy. That is
    regardless of whether a worker wants that information shared or
    not.
        Does the bill, the first question for you based on your
    knowledge Mr. King, does the bill, the PRO Act, include any
    restrictions on how that information can be used and stored, or
    could unions sell it to other organizations such as political
    action committees?
        Mr. King. The first answer to your question is yes. Most
    people are not aware of these privacy intrusions that the PRO
    Act would implement. You are absolutely right. Under the PRO
    Act a worker would have no opportunity, no right to opt out,
    and her or his personal information, her or his cell phone
    number, email address, would all be disclosed to the
    petitioning union and the Federal Government.
        There are no restrictions whatsoever on how that
    [inaudible], no protections for the worker, and the misuse or
    abuse of that information, even inadvertent is well documented.
    The Federal Government as we all know could not keep track of
    personal records, and had massive hacking and leaks.
        Unfortunately, employers have also had that experience, so
    the privacy intrusions that the PRO Act would implement are not
    known, maybe to many Members of Congress frankly, that even
    voted for this bill, but the American general public does not
    have, I think, any knowledge of any great depth of how
    intrusive this bill would be.
        Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you. The followup to that. Could
    this bill potentially result in workers' information falling
    into the wrong hands, or more specifically, workers receiving
    more unsolicited calls and emails?
        Mr. King. Absolutely because their email addresses I noted,
    the personal cell phone information as I noted, would be given
    to the union and to the Federal Government, the National Labor
    Relations Board, and there's no way to protect that. Why is
    that needed frankly, there are other means of communication,
    but to intrude in an individual's privacy, irrespective to how
    you even feel about unions and employers, is a policy mistake,
    and that is one of the major deficiencies of the PRO Act, among
    many others.
        Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you Mr. King. I have one more
    question. The PRO Act makes it significantly more difficult for
    workers to be classified as independent contractors. What
    impact would this have on workforce innovations like the ag
    based economy that has created countless new opportunities for
    workers, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic as we
    observed?
        Mr. King. Once again, a major policy error. Individuals
    want flexibility. They want to work when they want to work,
    where they want to work. They want to work for multiple
    employers. They want to be independent, and the PRO Act would
    take that option away.
        That is again a major policy mistake, and of course the
    ultimate objective here is, at least from an organized labor
    perspective, is to make every individual an employee so the
    union then could attempt to organize that individual.
        As I show in my testimony the union has not done a very
    effective job at even trying to reach out to the regular
    employees in this country, let alone potential change in
    independent contractor status.
        Mr. Thompson. All right. Thank you, Mr. King. Thank you,
    Chairman. I yield.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from California,
    Mr. Takano.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairman Scott for holding this
    important hearing highlighting the increase in worker
    organizing across the country, and while we have seen a
    significant spike in worker attempts to organize, the
    government agency tasked with the U.S. labor law, the National
    Labor Relations Board, has been chronically underfunded.
        The NLRB has divested power to safeguard the rights of
    employees interested in organizing labor unions. This
    government agency also acts to prevent unscrupulous labor
    practices committed by private sector employees. As a result of
    the agency's flat funding, staffing shortages and delays in
    decisions and elections have been commonplace.
        This poses an inherent problem for workers as efforts to
    unionize have recently surged. The NLRB has publicly docketed
    349 election petitions for Starbucks workers across the country
    in 37 states. These workers are organizing and advocating for
    higher wages, better benefits, and safer workplaces.
        When we strengthen and protect the collective bargaining
    rights of workers, we are improving the lives of workers and
    strengthening the economy. Congress must pass the Protecting
    the Right to Organize, or PRO Act, and adequately fund the
    NLRB. The House passed this measure in March 2021, and if
    passed, would stand as the most significant improvement to
    labor law in decades.
        California, like most of the country, has seen a big
    increase in union election petitions, and unfair labor
    practices, practice charges right now. In my own district, a
    Starbucks location has had their employees vote to unionize,
    and a majority of employees voted in favor of creating a union,
    and their employer has challenged the results of that election.
        My first question is to Ms. Eisen. Ms. Eisen, in June the
    NLRB's General Counsel filed a complaint against Starbucks for
    among other things, telling a transgender employee that they
    could lose gender affirming healthcare benefits if they
    organized. News reports indicate that this is a tactic the
    company has used at multiple locations.
        Can you explain the chilling effect that these threats have
    had on trans workers, and how it has affected the organizing
    drive?
        Ms. Eisen. Yes, thank you so much for that question. The
    threat of the loss of benefits has been a talking point from
    Starbucks corporate since day 1 of our campaign. This is going
    back to August 2021.
        Specifically targeting transgender partners is particularly
    sickening in my opinion because the company has prided itself
    on its reputation of attracting all sorts of workers and
    people, and offering them benefits that they can't get anywhere
    else.
        To purposefully offer that to our transgender workers and
    then tell them but those benefits no longer apply to you if you
    decide you would like to have a voice in your workplace. It
    does not even go along with Starbucks' own mission and values.
        As far as what the chilling effect is people are afraid.
    They are afraid that the place that they came to, to work for
    who said that they could help them, could offer these benefits
    and help them become the people that they want to be. That no
    longer applies to them because they chose to stand with their
    fellow workers at that store and demand that the company have
    some level of accountability.
        Mr. Takano. Well, thank you, Ms. Eisen. I have another
    question for you. The cafe where you work organized in late
    December of last year, and it has been almost 9 months since
    the workers won their election, but they have not yet reached
    their first collective bargaining agreement with Starbucks. Why
    has it taken so long to reach an agreement, and what have been
    the sticking points at the table?
        Ms. Eisen. The simple answer is that we have not reached an
    agreement because Starbucks does not want to. We were certified
    on December 16 of 2021, and we sent our demands to bargain a
    few days later. It took them far longer than it should have to
    respond to a simple email. It took almost I think 2 months to
    get to that first bargaining session.
        The workers at my store have been ready to bargain from day
    one. The sticking points have been mostly just delay tactics,
    and insults from the company and their spokespeople. We
    actually do not really talk to many of the corporate members.
    Their main spokesperson is a Littler Mendelson attorney who
    spends more time being condescending, and not taking our
    concerns seriously, than they do actually looking at proposals.
        Mr. Takano. Well, thank you, thank you Ms. Eisner. Mr.
    Chairman, it is very clear to me that you know our law, the PRO
    Act is on the side of workers, and we are looking to reduce the
    polarization of our workforce in terms of wages and the income
    disparities. The big key solution to that is empowering workers
    through their ability to organize, and I yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
    Walberg.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
    panel for being with us today. Empowering employers and their
    employees to succeed and prosper is a leading priority for this
    committee. Unfortunately, working families and job creators
    seem to be facing an onslaught of activist policies and
    decisions by the current National Labor Relations Board aimed
    at chilling employer free speech, and crippling worker free
    choice.
        I grew up in a union household on the south side of
    Chicago. My father was a machinist and union organizer for part
    of his career. Americans have the right to organize, and join a
    union if they choose, and they should be armed with all of the
    information they need to make an informed decision before
    casting their vote.
        Unfortunately, the PRO Act would codify the Obama era
    NLRB's ambush election rule, which would significantly shorten
    the period of time between a union filing for an election, and
    the election being held to as little as 11 days. Additionally,
    we have recently seen the NLRB under General Counsel Abruzzo
    discard decades of case law and NLRB precedents upholding an
    employer's right to educate its employees about unionization.
        Instead, the General Counsel is arguing that it is an
    unfair labor practice for employers to require employees on
    paid work time to attend meetings where the employer expresses
    its opinion concerning unionization. Mr. King, do you think the
    General Counsel's legal argument is sound?
        Mr. King. No. Mr. Walburg, nice to see you again, and you
    nailed it. This attempt to muzzle an employer from citing a
    position, and I certainly would counsel and implore to say so,
    in a non-coercive thoughtful way, which virtually every
    employer does. The attempt by this General Counsel is in this
    scenario, a direct violation of Section 8(c) of the National
    Relations Act, which is the free speech provision.
        It is an attempt not to have all perspectives, all
    thoughts, all ideas regarding unionization out on the table for
    the worker to decide. It is an attempt to stop a free flow of
    communication, and that is throughout the PRO Act, and through
    this public shaming that I mentioned at the outset of my
    testimony.
        Mr. Walberg. Let me just ask this question that I almost
    hesitate to ask because it sounds so common sense the answer, I
    think so common sense and simplistic. Why is it important for
    workers to hear from both the union and employer before casting
    a vote in a representational election having more than 11 days
    to make the decision?
        Mr. King. Well first of all, Mr. Walberg, the union can
    take years, months to put an organizing campaign together, and
    then file a petition. It is had a great advantage already in
    time, and then to tell workers that they only have 11 days to
    make an informed decision and gather information from all
    sides. The union certainly has a right to have a voice, but so
    does the employer.
        Here is the real sticking point here. A decision as to
    whether a bargaining unit is established at a place of
    employment, has decades and decades of impact. Once the union
    is certified, it stays there virtually for the entire life of
    that company's presence at that location.
        This is very serious decision. It has consequences
    regarding dues payments, fees payments, potential for strike,
    et cetera. This is a decision that ought to be made seriously,
    thoughtfully, and over at least a 30 to 60 day period, not 11
    days.
        Mr. Walberg. If we are concerned about transparency, it
    seems that that would be helpful. In your experience do workers
    generally want to hear from employers?
        Mr. King. Well, I think they want to hear from all sides
    yes. I think what we are seeing in the polling data, what we
    are hearing, at least from our members, and we represent most
    of the Fortune 400 companies in the country. Their employees
    want a voice. They want to be heard. They want to listen. They
    want information.
        They do not want to have only one side of the story. I keep
    hearing these allegations against Starbucks. Let us set the
    record straight. That is just not fact. Yes, there are
    allegations, but there has not been one final adjudication of
    guilt against this company. Let us get that clear.
        These allegations are part of an ongoing public smear
    campaign that we often seen in union organizing. Let us wait
    until we get a final adjudication. If the company did something
    wrong, so be it. Let us not find them guilty until they have
    had a fair trial, or any employer has had a fair trial.
        Mr. Walburg. I think the best aspect is transparency,
    opportunity to have all sides, and let the employee decide, so
    thank you, I yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady from Washington,
    Ms. Jayapal.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to talk
    about surveillance, but I want to give Ms. Eisen----
        Chairman Scott. Ms. Jayapal are you on screen?
        Ms. Jayapal. No. I am in the room, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Scott. Oh, there you are, okay. I am sorry. Thank
    you.
        Ms. Jayapal. Yes. Thank you. I wanted to just give Ms.
    Eisen a chance to respond to what we just heard in terms of
    employees wanting to hear from the company. It sounds really
    good, but tell us about what a captive audience meeting is like
    actually Ms. Eisen. Do you feel like you get a chance to hear
    from the company in sort of a mutual way, or how would you
    describe that?
        Ms. Eisen. My apologies. I can say from my own experience
    in captive audience meetings held by Starbucks during our
    organizing campaign, they are far from impartial. You are not
    hearing both sides of the story. You are hearing one side. We
    were brought to hotel conference rooms located far from our
    store.
        Most Starbucks workers had to find transportation because
    we are a city store that most of our workers do not drive. That
    was not offered to them. You need to find a way to get to
    these. Then we had to sit in a room with high-ranking members
    of corporate as far up as the President of Starbucks North
    America who we only just met, where we were talked at for
    nearly an hour about why we should feel ashamed of asking for
    more from a company that had already given us so much.
        They were only giving us the facts. They were giving us the
    facts about what the company was, what the company wanted. They
    wanted us to vote no. They were there to take care of
    everything. They were going to make sure that any grievance we
    had was handled. If we needed facts from the union, we needed
    to contact a union organizer.
        When presented with the fact that the union organizers as
    far as the Starbucks campaign, were Starbucks workers, some of
    whom were sitting in that room with them. That is not something
    that they wanted to hear. They did not want to be presented
    with the fact that it was not a third-party
        There was not some big union boss out there corralling
    these workers and convincing them that this was their best
    interest. It was the workers making that decision for
    themselves. We were not given the same time or opportunity to
    speak in that room to our coworkers about why we felt this was
    a better option for us.
        Ms. Jayapal. Hardly an impartial discussion of facts and
    all sides being presented. I wanted to talk about surveillance
    because I think that changing technology and employer
    strategies have increased the surveillance of workers,
    especially when employers are confronted with the union
    campaign.
        Employers are monitoring social media accounts, installing
    hidden cameras, analyzing GPS data, and exploiting phone and
    computer applications to keep tabs on organizing efforts in
    addition to the more conventional forms of management scrutiny.
        Ms. Eisen, in your experience organizing with Starbucks
    Workers United, how has Starbucks surveilled unionization
    campaigns?
        Ms. Eisen. Well, the in-person surveillance is the most
    apparent. I think I mentioned in my testimony the out of town
    corporate and support managers that were shipped in. What the
    support managers were shipped in for was to be stationed in all
    of our stores under the guise that we had only filed for union
    petitions because the management was so poor in Buffalo that it
    necessitated that.
        These managers were supposed to come in and support our
    store managers. The actuality was it turned our stores so that
    every operating hour that the store was open there was
    managerial presence, not just there to support our store
    manager, but on the floors with us, interrupting conversations,
    or trying to prevent any conversations from happening about the
    union.
        It also forced a lot of the workers who were pro-union and
    were wearing pins from the onset of the campaign to remove
    those pins, not because they were no longer for the union, but
    because they felt that wearing that pin made them a target. It
    was, intimidating does not seem like a strong enough word.
        It is a job that requires a lot of skill, and when you feel
    like you are doing that under a microscope it has quite a toll
    on your mental health.
        Ms. Jayapal. A chilling effect. In July, Chipotle abruptly
    announced the closure of a store in Augusta, Maine hours before
    a union vote was slated to take place. About 20 Starbucks
    locations have been closed in recent months, including a couple
    in my home district of Seattle, Starbucks hometown. A
    disproportionate number of these stores were organizing. What
    message are these closures sending, and how does it impact
    workers' livelihoods?
        Ms. Eisen. I mean the only message that it could be sending
    is that if you choose to unionize your workplace the company is
    going to come in and shut down your store. It is breeding fear.
    It is following through on threats that they had made
    throughout the campaign, and it is inappropriate and not right.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you very much Ms. Eisen, I appreciate
    your courage. I yield back Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin,
    Mr. Grothman.
        Mr. Grothman. I do not know if it was the intent, but it
    seems like a lot of the rhetoric here today is kind of blasting
    Howard Shultz on saying what a horrible boss he is I guess. I
    will not point out that Howard Shultz has won the National
    League Justice Award from the NAACP, so you can take whatever
    lessons you want out of that.
        Now Mr. King, a couple questions. It seems to me one of the
    reasons for upward mobility in the United States, or one of the
    ways to make more money is to work hard. Unionization, what
    effect does that have on hard working? Does it make it more
    difficult for a person who really works hard and wants to move
    up to distinguish himself from his fellow employees?
        Mr. King. Unfortunately, most union contracts are strict
    seniority type of agreements, so promotions, job
        [inaudible]--not necessarily merit, now that does vary from
    location to location. It certainly can be an impediment. If you
    have multiple unions at a location, if an employee is in a
    union covered contract X, she or he will not have an ability as
    a general rule, to bid on work for a contract that's covered
    through union Y.
        They are foreclosed. The lack of mobility and flexibility
    is hampered considerable.
        Mr. Grothman. We penalize the more ambitious, or more hard
    working. Next question. Sometimes I hear, I know a guy that has
    got a union place, and he feels one of the things that is
    frustrating is if he wants to do things differently to make
    things more efficient. That could be subject to bargains.
        In other words, it becomes more difficult to make a
    factory, I guess a factory is a lot because manufacturing is so
    important for this country's survival. Does this make things
    more difficult to change things in the factory and try to make
    it more efficient, which is so vital if we are going to
    continue to compete with the Chinese, the Indians, what have
    you?
        Mr. King. Yes, you are correct. One of the things we hear
    consistently is that union contracts, union presence hampers
    the speed of decisionmaking, which is critical for economic
    survival for employers in this country, particularly given
    increased global competition.
        If you have a collective bargaining agreement in place it
    is harder to make decisions to shift work to different areas,
    perhaps as a plant, to adjust wages and benefits. You have to
    bargain about that. That is part of our law, and we understand
    that. The lack of flexibility, the lack of the ability to make
    expeditious decisions is certainly hindering.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Next question. I like the little guy. I
    like it when somebody goes into business themselves and likes
    the independence. I really did not like this COVID thing where
    at least in my State they let Walmart stay open, but the little
    retail houses had to shut down, and I think it is because some
    politicians just I guess prefer the big guy.
        They wish everybody had to shop at Walmart, the little gift
    shop they would like to have them go under. One of the ways you
    can start out and own your own business is buy a franchise. I
    think it is good we have a lot of McDonalds, there is a place
    in West End called Culvers, a lot of these franchised places
    allow a little guy to build some equity and be his own boss.
        I am told that this PRO Act would make it more difficult,
    and instead would kind of force anybody one more time into the
    big corporate model. Is that true?
        Mr. King. Yes. The PRO Act provisions that would embody the
    joint employer test that has being articulated by some in this
    country to make everyone one employer----
        Mr. Grothman. Oh my God.
        Mr. King [continuing]. Would interfere with franchise
    operations. There is an all-out attack unfortunately on the
    franchise community in this country, and it is really wrong.
        Mr. Grothman. It is just another way to hurt the little
    guy, the little hard working ambitious guy. Cannot start your
    own McDonalds, cannot start you own Culvers, got to work under
    the big--and we want to make everybody have to work for Walmart
    in that situation.
        Next question, as I understand when you vote under this
    card check thing, this vote is not necessarily anymore a
    private vote. Now I know there are people who like on a
    national level, on regular elections, they like to have
    absentee voting for somebody you do not know for sure who is
    filling out the ballot, or maybe you know your boyfriend/
    girlfriend fill it out for you and say here, sign here.
        I would be shocked the people--does this really mean that
    people are going to have to vote publicly, take away the right
    of the private ballot? That seems almost unbelievable. Is that
    true?
        Mr. King. Well, frankly I am not sure where the proponents
    are coming from, whether the electronic voting, or some other
    type of open voting process. What the real tragedy is here, we
    have had a very successful onsite manual voting election
    process in this country under the National labor Relations Act,
    where 80-90 percent of the potential voters show up.
        They mark their ballots in secrecy, and in a closed
    setting. No one knows how they vote. Why are we changing that,
    or even considering changing it?
        Mr. Grothman. Well, the only reason I can think of is you
    want to force people to vote the way they do not want to vote.
    In other words, you want to take away the right to vote by
    their own conscious. That is the only reason you do it. Thank
    you, Mr. King.
        Mr. King. Well, I just would add one thing to your
    question, and/or the proponents of these proposals do not want
    people to vote at all because unless you are [inaudible],
    employment from your desk or wherever and vote, people forget,
    or they just do not vote. That is wrong.
        We ought to encourage as many people to vote in these
    elections as possible.
        Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady form----
        Mr. Grothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Scott. You are welcome, Mr. Grothman. The
    gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Wild.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to do a speed
    round here. I have a lot of questions to ask, and I will
    probably speak quickly, and I would ask that the witnesses try
    to keep their answers brief so that I can get through them. I
    want to start with you, Mr. Pearce.
        On July 15 of this year, the NLRB announced that its staff
    in the field offices was a mere 50 percent, 50 percent of what
    it was in 2002, 20 years ago. As we examine the agency's
    staffing crisis right in the middle of an organizing boom, how
    does the Board's current level of staffing and funding compare
    to when you were Chairman, and could you also just comment on
    how that flat funding has harmed the agency, and how it has
    affected the Board's ability to investigate and resolve complex
    or large scale cases such as the current investigations into
    Amazon?
        Mr. Pearce. Well, it is a radical decrease from when I was
    Chair. When the Republican administration came the first thing
    that they did was offer buyouts, so all of the experienced
    people took advantage of that. Then they did not backfill.
        Statistics show that the hiring was approximately 13 people
    as opposed to the 94 percent of backfilling that takes place
    when reductions in staff took place. 50 percent at the regional
    level is devastating toward the processing of the agenda of the
    National Labor Relations Board investigating and dealing with
    elections are at the heart and the soul of what the Board does.
        It is what the public is seeing. The Board at its
    investigative stage is the stage where unfair labor practices
    are flushed out, and it has determined whether or not the law
    has been broken. During the pandemic you had a situation where
    many more elections had to be because of for health reasons,
    conducted by mail ballot election. That is labor intensive.
        Ms. Wild. Sure.
        Mr. Pearce. To have less people to be able to do that job
    affects the process substantially, so the American public
    throws up its hands in frustration because of the
    ineffectiveness.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you. I appreciate it. Dr. Bronfenbrenner, I
    have a quick question for you. You discussed the alarming trend
    of employer surveillance of workers' social media. Can you talk
    about the form that that surveillance takes, and to what extent
    you have seen social media used for blacklisting?
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner. If you do a quick search on the
    internet, you will find that there are numerous companies that
    advertise themselves and their ability to track social media,
    and employers encourage them. These companies then search
    social media for employers and quickly ascertain you know who's
    posting information.
        Then what we find is that employers discharge workers,
    eliminate their jobs, and a perfect example is what happened at
    you know Eagle Foods where you know just 2 weeks after workers
    posted a petition about health and safety conditions on the
    internet, a majority of the workers who signed that petition
    lost their jobs.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you very much. Ms. Eisen, in your testimony
    you refer to Starbucks's relentless abuse and delay tactics
    when it comes to first contract negotiations. Can you discuss
    with us a little bit how management has stalled contract
    negotiations, and do you believe that the goal is to decertify
    the union?
        Ms. Eisen. I do personally believe that and being at the
    very first store to be certified, that is troublesome to me.
    What we have seen is a very slow, and I would say sluggish
    response to demands to bargain. Sometimes taking months to
    respond to an initial demand to bargain from a certified
    location.
        Then when a response does come in it looks like an
    automated response. ``Thank you for sending us your demand to
    bargain. We look forward to talking to you,'' and we will
    always send a date range with our----
        Ms. Wild. It takes months to get that automated response?
        Ms. Eisen. Yes, it has.
        Ms. Wild. Okay. Can you also talk just briefly about the
    impact of mandatory captive audience meetings and other tactics
    used to intimidate workers?
        Ms. Eisen. Absolutely. I mean first of all, they will never
    call it a captive audience meeting. They call them listening
    sessions, not that that is any better. What they were doing in
    Buffalo was shutting the stores down in order to hold these
    captive audience meetings.
        If you were one of the workers who was supposed to work the
    shift that was canceled because the store was being closed, you
    were told that in order to be paid for what was your scheduled
    shift, you will need to attend this meeting. You are telling an
    hourly worker living paycheck to paycheck that the only way to
    be paid for their scheduled shift is to come to a captive
    audience meeting.
        You can say that is not a mandatory meeting, but I do not
    see that these workers have any other choice.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you very much, Ms. Eisen. With that I yield
    back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
    Allen.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
    witnesses for being here today and sharing with us your
    thoughts about the workforce. We have been in our districts the
    last 30 days, and I have got to tell you I have got an earful.
    What I am hearing from my constituents, they are sick and tired
    of this government trying to tell them what is morally right
    and wrong, what to drive, and by the way you have to live with
    our policies whether you like it or not.
        We know what is best for you. You know I realized early on
    in my business career that the workforce was evolving, and now
    we have the modern workforce. They are very entrepreneurial. I
    mean, when you start imposing what you have to do this, you
    have to donate to this political candidate or whatever, I mean
    and in fact you know over 40 percent of them support you know
    different parties in different elections.
        This modern workforce is very entrepreneurial. You know our
    business model changed drastically from we were doing work
    basically we were doing a lot of self-performed work. In fact,
    the company I started with, the union company, we did a lot of
    self-perform.
        We got the workers out of the unions. In fact, I was with
    the construction trades union at Plant Vogel just and you know
    I said hey, we need workers. They cannot recruit workers. They
    cannot bring in apprenticeship. I mean nobody wants to join the
    union, and of course you hit on some of the things.
        I mean today you know I think at least the surveys we did
    in our company is that No. 1, paperwork created and wired to--
    and they got to find out where they fit, and you know you are
    just not going to fit with some companies. It is up to the
    company to provide that fit for the employee.
        When that fit works, you better get out of the way because
    that company is going to be very productive, and it is going to
    grow, and those workers are going to benefit. In my State of
    Georgia, we have right-to-work laws, okay. Every State is very
    different.
        That is why Senator Scott, and I introduced the Employee
    Rights Act. We did this because of the importance of assuring
    that elections are conducted by secret ballot. It requires
    union dues transparency, it protects the joint employee model
    for franchises, which the franchise business has been a huge
    economic engine in this country.
        It maintains worker status as independent contractors,
    which is a big part of the construction world, and it protects
    employee privacy, among other provisions. Mr. King, it is
    interesting that about 77 democrats and the Biden NLRB urged--
    remember under President Trump urging that Mexico markets had
    the right to a secret ballot, yet we do not want that in this
    country. I mean the height of hypocrisy. Can you explain that?
        Mr. King. Yes, I wish I could, Mr. Allen, but I cannot. It
    is interesting while secret ballots are under attack here, and
    that is the way we make decisions in this country. Everybody
    that is in this room as a Member of Congress is elected by
    secret ballot.
        Union officers are elected by secret ballot. Church
    elections, you name it. What is wrong with the secret ballot
    election process? I do not think anything. Back to your
    question, the U.S. MCA agreement is imposing a secret ballot
    approach on Mexico, and I support that. Our association
    supports it, that is the way it should be.
        Mexico workers should have secret ballot election rights.
    Why do we not have the same standard here? It is total
    hypocrisy.
        Mr. Allen. Yes. It makes no sense. It is like we demand
    other countries protect their borders, yet ours is wide open. I
    mean it makes no sense at all. The other thing that is
    disturbing is that like I said, Georgia is a right-to-work
    State. We have great leadership in our State.
        We have been voted the best State to do business in for I
    think 10 years reign. We have got a lot of economic activity in
    Georgia. In fact, we are at pre-pandemic economic levels right
    now. Why is it that other states want us to have to do what
    they do with their terrible policies where people are moving
    out, companies are moving out, businesses are moving out, and
    they want us to succumb to these same policies.
        In other words, like I said, what drives my constituents
    crazy is you know this town says okay, these are the policies.
    I do not care whether you like them or not, and it is for all
    the states. Why cannot Georgia and other states decide what is
    best for them?
        Mr. King. Well, as you know Mr. Allen, the PRO Act would
    take away and in essence a right-to-work State for Georgia and
    26 other states. Again, it is back to imposing a so-called
    Federal will on the entire country, and that is not what people
    want.
        Mr. Allen. I want to tell you the American people are not
    going to stand for this. The American people want choice. I
    heard it loud and clear. Thank you, and my time is out, and I
    yield back.
        Mr. King. Mr. Allen, I just want to say one thing. 94
    percent of the workers in the private sector in this country
    have elected not at this juncture to become part of a union.
    Back to your point, they want that flexibility.
        Chairman Scott. The gentleman's time has expired. The
    gentlelady from Georgia, Mrs. McBath.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Chairman Scott. I move to strike
    the last word.
        Chairman Scott. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much for hosting this hearing and
    thank you to our witnesses here this morning. Thank you so much
    for taking the time out of your busy day, and your schedule to
    speak before this committee. These are really incredibly
    important topics that we are discussing today.
        The right to organize for better wages and working
    condition is a proud American tradition. That is why this
    country created a working middle class that was the envy of the
    world. It is how we will again create an economy that works for
    every single American and their families.
        Employees who commit their blood, their sweat, and their
    tears to their work, they deserve to live with dignity and
    respect. To put food on their tables, and to provide better
    lives for their children and for their grandchildren. Decades
    of working families being left on the outside looking in has
    sparked a new wave of organizing efforts in workplaces all
    across the nation
        The National Labor Relations Board has reported that
    petitions for representation elections during the first three
    quarters of the Fiscal Year 2022 increased by 58 percent,
    compared to the same period last year. Despite a major increase
    in the workload for the NLRB, dedicated funding for this
    critical agency has remained stagnant at 274.4 million dollars,
    just since the Fiscal Year of 2014, effectively resulting in a
    25 percent cut.
        The NLRB has been wrongfully hamstrung in their efforts to
    protect Americans as they exercise their rights in the
    workplace, and a moment and more and more people are interested
    in learning more about the proven benefits that come with
    joining, or organizing a labor union. In order to ensure that
    every worker in the United States can exercise their rights in
    the workplace without fear of retaliation, we must provide the
    NLRB the resources that they need to fulfill their mission to
    protect the rights of the American people.
        My question is for Mr. Pearce. As part of the White House
    Task Force on organizing and empowerment, the Department of
    Labor recently established the Worker Organizing Resource and
    Knowledge Center or Work Center, which provides workers and the
    public with critical information on how to organize, the proven
    benefits that come with joining the union, and also the
    importance of labor management cooperation. Workers cannot
    exercise their rights if they do not know that they have access
    to these benefits and to these rights, and outreach like this
    is just really critical for the government to fulfill its
    statutory mission of protecting freedom of association and
    promoting collective bargaining.
        How would ending the NLRB's funding crisis further help
    this effort?
        Mr. Pearce. Thank you for that question. While I was
    Chairman of the NLRB, it was very important that there be
    opportunity for strong outreach and education of the American
    public. When General Counsel Abruzzo first took the job and
    thought that there was opportunity to enhance that outreach,
    she promoted agendas that would promote that.
        When we have flat funding, when the agency has flat funding
    like that, resources have to go toward the processing of the
    cases, and consequently a lot of the efforts toward educating
    the American public because as you know the Board is reactive.
    They have to wait for charges to come to them.
        There is a presumption that people understand what their
    rights are before they come into the door. If they do not have
    that understanding the Board is responsible for having to
    provide that education, where outreach is taken away because
    the Board has designated its resources just to get the cases
    processed.
        The American public loses because the American public
    regrettably remains unaware of what their rights are under the
    law.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much for that answer, and I just
    spent time on Labor Day with our labor unions and just really
    celebrating all of the wonderful work that they have done in
    protecting the workforce and the country, and I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The distinguished Ranking Member
    of the Full Committee, Dr. Foxx.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to
    wish a speedy recovery from your COVID. You do not look to
    worse the wear, so I am happy to know that it is not affecting
    you too negatively.
        Chairman Scott. I think I am just about one test away from
    breaking quarantine.
        Mrs. Foxx. Mr. King, I really appreciate your comments
    today and I have a couple of questions for you. An NLRB
    employer, Whistleblowers, has recently come forward with
    allegations that NLRB officials engaged in substantial
    misconduct regarding Starbuck's and Workers United elections,
    including collaboration with Workers United to increase the
    number of votes casted in favor in the union and effect the
    outcome of elections.
        Congress established the NLRB to be an impartial and
    neutral in union elections. If these allegations are proven,
    does the NLRB risk losing its credibility and legitimacy?
        Mr. King. Absolutely. Now, these are allegations and I've
    stressed the numerous allegations against the company should be
    treated just as that also, allegations. Dr. Foxx, if they are
    proven to be true, they would undermine the credibility and
    neutrality status of the National Labor Relations Board. It is
    very troubling. This agency needs to be totally neutral and not
    take sides in any allegation or in a union-conducted election.
        Mrs. Foxx. I would say that also should be true of the
    Secretary of the Department. Mr. King, in 2015, the Obama NLRB
    issued a decision in the Browning Fairs Industry case. They
    changed the definition of joint employer under the National
    Labor Relations Act. The decisions they test was based on
    indirect and potential control over an employee's terms and
    conditions of employment.
        The Browning Fairs decision replaced the decades old clear
    and predictable standard of direct and immediate control. In
    2020, the Trump NLRB issued a rule restoring the standard of
    direct and immediate control, but last week the Biden NLRB
    issued a proposed rule that would essentially reinState the
    Browning Fair standard. Could an expansive joint employer's
    standard devaState the franchise business model at a time when
    many of these small businesses are facing record-breaking
    inflationary and supply chain pressures?
        Mr. King. Yes. The Joint Employer Initiative just announced
    by the National Labor Relations Board is an attempt to
    virtually make every employer connected with every other
    employer in the country and is a very harmful approach toward
    the franchise industry. As noted in our other testimony,
    franchisee operators are some of the best job creators in the
    country. This is a way for people to better their economic
    status, so an all-out attack on small business trying to make
    them part and parcel of a parent franchisor or try to make them
    part of another employer's organization is simply a way to
    extract more dollars in litigation from these small business
    operators, particularly, and discourage them frankly from
    pursuing these types of business models. It is an incorrect
    policy approach.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. Mr. King, according to union activist
    and many in the media, America's seeing a historic surge in
    union organizing. You have given some statistics as you have
    testified today, but from your analysis of union election data
    and union membership rates, is the union movement experiencing
    a renaissance or has the media overstated the impact of a few
    high-profile organizing campaigns?
        Mr. King. It is certainly, Dr. Foxx, the latter. It is too
    early to tell, but the media hype that we have seen where one
    store with one location asking for potential union
    representation, or a few, even in Starbucks we are talking
    about a very, very small percentage of that total employee
    population. This is being overhyped, whether the union movement
    in this country will have any resurgence or not, I do not know.
    I do not think anybody knows at this point, but the polling
    clearly shows a high degree of skepticism, 58 percent of the
    polling that we've been talking about here today by Gallup
    concluded that individuals don't want to be part of a union
    organization. I think it is good to talk about developments in
    labor law. It makes good maybe headlines, but people that are
    reporting in this area ought to do their homework. They ought
    to be much more objective. Again, 94 percent of the private
    sector workers in this country have decided, for whatever
    reason, they do not desire union representation at this point.
        They are not second-class citizens, and their employers are
    not bad employers. Let us get that straight.
        Mrs. Foxx. We wish that we had more objectivity from
    everybody who pretends to be a journalist. Thank you very much,
    Mr. King.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has
    expired. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and wish you a speedy
    recovery. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Talking
    about objective reality, Ms. Eisen, I want to thank you again
    for your testimony which described in real life what you have
    been going through. Just to buttress that, I can share with you
    that in New England where myself and Congresswoman Hayes are
    from, we are seeing a lot of the same really spontaneous almost
    grassroots organizing at Starbucks. One is in eastern
    Connecticut in Vernon, Connecticut where I am from actually and
    they had a union vote on July 14th, which again, was just
    completely sort of organic movement that took place there and
    the vote was 14 to 1.
        Unfortunately, on August 26th, following the July 14th
    vote, the lead organizer was terminated and has, by all
    accounts, had a good work record while he was there. I actually
    got a text from Congresswoman Pingree, who again was indicating
    that up in Maine, again another successful Starbucks organizing
    drive and the business immediately dramatically cut the store
    hours.
        Chipotle is also another chain that, again, is seeing this
    same phenomenon of people who just basically have been fed up
    and who really on their own, they were not driven by external
    forces coming in. Also, organized in Chellie's district and
    again, the location was closed immediately.
        Mr. Pearce, obviously you have covered a lot of miles in
    this area. These sort of retaliatory measures or certainly
    apparent retaliatory measures, how do we respond to this? I
    mean obviously we passed the PRO Act here in the House, but in
    terms of just what were the tools that NLRB has, maybe if you
    could just sort of comment in terms of what you are seeing with
    incidents like in Connecticut and Maine.
        Mr. Pearce. Well, when you look at Maine, the insidious
    nature of the Maine situation is a place that gets closed as
    soon as a petition gets filed after employees were being
    trained to expand operations at that facility and then they
    offer jobs to the public at a location 40 minutes away, but
    block the emails of those employees that were working at the
    closed facility from applying.
        That kind of devastating, diabolical activity has to be
    looked at very carefully. The law talks about how an employer
    has a right to shutter its business to stop a union from coming
    in, but if you have a corporate employer that has a cluster of
    business and is essentially playing whack-a-mole to drive out
    the union, I think the law looks a little bit differently at
    those kinds of activities and it will be interesting to see
    what the unfair labor practice will result.
        Mr. Courtney. Again, just in terms of legal process at the
    NLRB, the Ranking Member's question about allegations made by
    Starbucks regarding what they described as--what they perceived
    as unfair labor practices, certainly the Inspector General is
    an important player in our system of laws and we certainly, I
    think, welcome any input that they may have. However, it is not
    like Starbucks did not have other options here, which is if
    they really felt that there was something amiss, I mean they
    could have had this issue flushed out at the NLRB itself. I
    mean there are ways that you can raise these questions; is that
    correct?
        Mr. Pearce. Oh, yes. The normal course of action would be
    to file a complaint with the Inspector General, provided that
    you have some kind of proof to back it up. It begs the question
    when Starbucks announces that an undisclosed employee divulged
    that this kind of so-called collusion was taking place, and
    they divulged this to Starbucks rather than themselves making
    the complaint to the Inspector General. I smell something foul
    there.
        Additionally, and this is an important point, if there is
    true collusion between the NLRB and Starbucks, it is
    interesting that in the wake of these bold accusations the NLRB
    was successful in getting an injunction to get the Memphis
    Seven employees reinstated because of the egregious nature of
    the activity that Starbucks has. It calls into question whether
    or not the allegation is that the District Court of the United
    States was part of this collusion. I think not.
        Mr. Courtney. Well, thank you, sir. I yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
    Banks.
        Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. King, as you know,
    Indiana is a Right to Work State and since Right to Work was
    enacted in 2012, the Mackinaw Center for Public Policy recently
    noted that since that time they noted in the Wall Street
    Journal that manufacturing jobs as a share of total jobs in
    Indiana's private sector has increased by 27 percent. That
    seemed significant to me. Can you talk about the benefits of
    that to workers in Indiana, more manufacturing jobs as a result
    of Right to Work laws and what other ways have workers
    benefited from Right to Work laws in states like my State,
    Indiana.
        Mr. King. Well, Indiana is like 26 other states,
    Congressman. You are right that have Right to Work statutes and
    the electorate in your State and those other 26 states have
    decided that that is the policy they want to have for Indiana
    and the economic benefits, as you have just stated, are
    obvious. You can argue back and forth about Right to Work
    status, but we are hearing is the employees want a choice. They
    do not want to be forced into paying fees or dues to any
    organization, whether it be a union or any other third-party
    organization.
        They do not want that third party spending their money for
    social causes, political causes that they do not agree with.
    They want flexibility and flexibility seems to be one of the
    key attraction points for qualified workers and Indiana's done
    an excellent job of attracting qualified workers and employers
    want to go where there are qualified workers. The Hoosier State
    is a perfect example of success in this area.
        Mr. Banks. I think you would agree it is not just a matter
    of fairness, increase of 27 percent of manufacturing jobs since
    that period of times seems as if there are a lot more good
    paying jobs available to workers in my State, as I am sure is
    the case in the 27 other right-to-work states around the
    country as well. There is a benefit here to workers, to
    families, financially as well; would you not agree?
        Mr. King. Absolutely. Why should not the electorate of your
    State or any State decide this question. The PRO Act, as you
    know, Congressman, would effectively eliminate right-to-work
    laws. That should be coming from the halls of Congress. The
    people in the respective states, like Indiana, should be able
    to make that decision.
        Mr. Banks. I could not agree more. Mr. King, could you talk
    for a minute about what grounds states like Indiana might have
    to challenge the PRO Act if it did, God forbid, get passed and
    signed into law by the President. Would states like Indiana
    have legal grounds to challenge that law?
        Mr. King. I am not sure about the State, per se,
    Congressman, but I think employers within the State certainly
    would have standing and let me give you an example. The
    prohibition on employers have a right to communicate in a
    meeting their views on unionization. Let us be clear on this
    point, the testimony here this morning seems to suggest that a
    so-called ``captive audience'' speech, which is an incorrect
    term, by the way, somehow can brainwash employees.
        That sells the American workers short. They are much more
    sophisticated. Ms. Eisen is a perfect example. They can make
    their own decisions. They are not in an half an hour or an hour
    meeting, going to be so brainwashed that they cannot make an
    intelligent decision about unions and its consequences.
        What this is all about is stopping the employer for having
    any type of communication. The minute that employer walks out
    of that meeting, and these meetings are paid for, by the way,
    time, by the employer, she or he is going to go online, talk to
    fellow workers and make their own decision. This is a total
    subterfuge. It is an impediment of free speech.
        Notwithstanding the 8(c) violation that would be, I think,
    legally cognizable, the PRO Act prohibits an employer from
    having any involvement in a representation proceeding. That is
    a due process violation. Again, it is an effort here to cutoff
    free speech, cutoff communication, and irrespective of how you
    feel about politics in general, when anyone is trying to talk
    about cutting off speech, having communication, having an
    ability to exchange ideas back and forth, that is suspect and
    that is what is happening.
        Mr. Banks. Very well put. Thank you for your time. With
    that, I yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady from Connecticut,
    Ms. Hayes.
        Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. According to the
    National Labor Relations Board, Connecticut has seen an 18
    percent increase in union election petitions, lower than the
    national average. However, Connecticut has also seen a 35
    percent increase in unfair labor practice charges, well above
    the national average.
        Over the past several months, workers across my district at
    Fuel Style Energy in Danbury, Durham School Services in
    Waterbury, and registered nurses at Sharon Hospital have filed
    for union elections. I have heard reports that the hospital in
    my district is pulling nurses during their shift to go to
    meetings that discourage unionizing.
        Dr. Bronfenbrenner, your most recent data shows that were
    employers choose to run anti-union campaigns 74 percent brought
    in one or more management consultants to run the campaign,
    while outright union busting is illegal, these management
    consultants often have the same aims.
        What recourse is there for workers who see their employer
    bringing on management consultants with a reputation for unions
    suppression?
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner. Management consultants have become
    basically universal in their organizing process, and they tell
    the company how to run the campaign. Basically, once they are
    in there, they are in charge of everything--productivity,
    profits take second. The No. 1 priority is getting rid of the
    union. Workers are faced with the fact that they really have no
    say whether management consultants are present or not, but
    also, even though management consultants are required to
    register under LMRDA, that many of them do not. A recent study
    found that in 2021 when there were over 1,216 elections that a
    very small percentage of the management consultants actually
    registered any of the forms. With that, unions cannot, and
    workers cannot find out who they are, how much money they are
    spending, and whether they are violating the law.
        Even if they are found to have violated the law, we do not
    have a single case where they are charged with criminal
    penalties or financial penalties. This is in great contrast to
    unions who in violation of LMRDA are very often charged with
    huge fines and criminal penalties. There is no enforcement. The
    only thing that workers can do is talk to other workers of
    other workplaces and try to find the practices of these
    management consultants to be prepared ahead of time what unfair
    labor practices they are going to commit in their workplace.
        Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. When an employee gets fired for
    union organizing activity, their case before NLRB proceeds
    while they are out of the job. Workers sometimes wait months
    for temporary reinstatement. Mr. Pearce, is it a problem that
    NLRB must file for an injunction when the union violates the
    law, but does not have to when an employer fires a pro-union
    employee.
        Mr. Pearce. It is definitely an inequity in the process. As
    you stated, if the union engages in an illegal strike, the
    General Counsel is mandated to go and seek an injunction. When
    an employer engages in wiping out a bargaining unit by firing
    all of the union activists there has to be a petitioning by the
    people bringing the charges to the regional office to have
    10(j) proceedings considered.
        That evaluation has to be done at the regional level. The
    region makes requests to the General Counsel, who then makes a
    request to the Board before an injunction could even proceed.
    All of that is time and labor intensive. Then once that
    happens, it has to go to a district court and the district
    court judge makes a determination as to whether or not an
    injunction is appropriate.
        Mrs. Hayes. Thank you so much for that, sir. My last
    question is for Ms. Eisen. People make life decisions based on
    their healthcare, when to retire, when to change jobs,
    oftentimes, when to buy a home. Do you believe that threatening
    essential health benefits has deterred employees from wanting
    to unionize?
        Ms. Eisen. I think it has brought a lot of fear into
    employees that would like to unionize, and fear is very, very
    powerful. Fear is not only a product of union busting. In most
    cases, it is the intent. Employers are trying to scare their
    employees into making a decision one way or another. That is
    not the way that this should work.
        Mrs. Hayes. Thank you so much. I just will end by saying I
    worked for an employer where we had the choice to vote for a
    union and I voted no. I have worked for an employer where we
    have the choice to vote for a union and I voted yes. All that
    to say, leave it up to the employees to take a vote, present
    your best argument, and let the employees take a vote on what
    is best for them. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. My distinguished colleague from
    Virginia, Mr. Good.
        Mr. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry you are not
    here with me to greet you in person.
        As someone who worked in a unionized auto factory in
    college, I saw first-hand the major problems with unions
    protecting the disgruntled or unproductive workers, reducing
    productivity, increasing costs, creating an unhealthy, us first
    them relationship with management and et cetera.
        As a matter of fact, I worked there 34 years ago and they
    paid me what was then an exorbitant $11 an hour rate as a
    college kid and they actually put me in a supervisory role over
    these lazy union employees who were not doing their jobs, quite
    frankly, because of my work ethic and that might be why the
    plant closed not long after I left there.
        Biden promised that he would be the most pro-union
    president in history and like his war on reliable energy, he
    has kept that promise as well, perhaps because the union spent
    over $27 million to help him during the 2020 campaign. Today
    represents the classic Democrat response to everything and yet
    another example of their anti-freedom, pro-government control
    approach to every issue.
        Force you to get a vaccine, force you to wear a mask, force
    you to close your business or your church. Force you to close
    your school. Force you to buy and drive an electric vehicle.
    Force you to embrace their values on transgender marriage,
    secularization of kids and so forth. Force you to pay for
    everyone else's abortions. Force you to pay for everyone else's
    student loans. Force your kids into the one government school
    in your district. Force you to pay more in taxes, regulation
    and of course inflation. Hey, maybe we should have an inflation
    celebration. Oh, wait, we did that yesterday.
        Force you to join a union and pay union dues. Force you to
    embrace a union or close your business, which is what the PRO
    Act would do, force you to embrace a union or close your
    business. The priorities of unions were on full display these
    past couple of years where the Teachers unions colluded with
    the Biden Administration to shut down our schools at the
    expense of our children.
        These lockdowns we all know now have cost decades of
    progress for our kids, especially, minority students, and we've
    seen the greatest decline in test scores in 30 years as a
    result of the teachers' unions closing of our schools and
    that's why I introduced the Students before Unions Act, which
    would ensure that students are the priority and not unions.
        Mr. King, do you think that the best interest of students
    are served by teachers' unions. Do you think that the students
    are their No. 1 priority the interest of students, the
    teachers' unions?
        Mr. King. Certainly debatable. The closure of schools, even
    some union proponents right now in reading think that was a
    mistake. We are years behind in reading recently in education
    areas, math, and science because we missed these teaching
    opportunities and online can only do so much. That
    interactivity and person between teacher and student is
    critical.
        I think this country is, unfortunately, going to suffer for
    decades perhaps because of these closures. I want to interject
    one point, Mr. Good. The recent colloquy between the
    Congressman and Ms. Eisen, you had an opportunity to vote and
    that is so important. I could not agree with you more. I am
    glad you voted. We want to preserve that right. Back to your
    question, Mr. Good, we need to take a step back and think about
    practicalities here.
        Not every ounce of intelligence comes from these halls
    unfortunately and I used to work here and have a great
    admiration for the Congress. We have got to pay more attention
    to realty in this country and have connectivity with the worker
    and how she or he believes and not force anything upon them
    against their will. That is not the way we should proceed.
        Mr. Good. You are exactly right. I think perhaps the most
    underappreciated, in terms of its danger and its damage to the
    country, a piece of legislation we have voted on in the House
    has been the PRO Act, which would essentially, again, tell a
    business embrace a union because you have no ability to resist
    it whatsoever, force a union upon your workers, force them to
    pay for a union, irrespective of what their wishes or what
    might be best for that company, which would be terribly
    damaging, terribly harmful to the country and to the Nation's
    productivity. What 58 percent of Americans say they are not
    interested in joining a labor union.
        Mr. King. Correct.
        Mr. Good. There is a reason why labor unionization has
    decreased across the country. Mr. King, how is it appropriate
    for the Federal Government to be involved in efforts to
    increase union membership anyway? How is that appropriate for
    the Federal Government to be involved with that?
        MR. King. It is quite suspect. I certainly appreciate and
    can understand President Biden's position. He has a right to
    make that policy decision, but what is wrong is you do not then
    have executive agencies, particularly, the National Labor
    Relations Board take one side or the other on the issue of
    union representation or unfair labor practice charges.
        We have heard a lot of testimony here today about the
    budget of the NLRB. Well, what has not been said is that the
    caseload of the NLRB went down drastically and the stats I have
    in my testimony. The workload for the Board over the years has
    decreased. It is debatable how much money, if any, additional
    money they need.
        Back to the basic point here, the PRO Act is so one sided.
    For example, it provides for fines for employers and employer
    executives, but a rogue union, and there are some inappropriate
    union activities, there is no fine whatsoever, that there is no
    provision to curtail that kind of activity. The secondary
    boycott provision is a drastic policy mistake. Why should you
    involve a neutral employer and its employees, and it could be
    union, in a dispute that a union has with another company? That
    is going to decrease economic productivity, perhaps put that
    employer out of business. That intervention in the secondary
    boycott area is a tragic mistake in that legislation and I
    could go on. It is so one sided. It is so tilted, and I would
    venture a guess that many Members of Congress and in this body
    that voted for it have no idea of what they----
        Mr. Good. Our time has expired the Chairman is saying. That
    is a pretty heavy thumb on the scale from the government but
    thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from California,
    Mr. DeSaulnier.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope you are
    feeling well.
        I am reminded when I attend hearings like this of a quote
    by a Republican President during the largest expansion of the
    American economy in history when one in three workers were
    members of unions. President Eisenhower said that only a fool
    would deprive an American man or woman worker from joining a
    union of their choice.
        Professor Bronfenbrenner, and I empathize with any last
    name that is more than three syllables, could you talk to me a
    little bit about the importance of the PRO Act in the context
    of inequality in this country and the disparity of influence
    between wage earners and capital investors? During COVID when
    we seemed to be all in it together to help employers and help
    employees get through this period. We now have research that
    inequality got even worse.
        Eisenhower was able to get to that period because we
    learned, in my view, from the last great inequality period
    between wages and capital, the glided age. The PRO Act, to me,
    is incredibly important to begin to level the playing field and
    it is encouraging to see that Americans are starting to
    understand the importance, whether they are in a union or not,
    the importance of workers having a voice through union
    membership. Professor, could you respond to that, particularly,
    the importance of PRO Act to help with inequality?
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner. There has been a lot of talk about
    secret ballot elections, but there is no such thing as a secret
    ballot because employers can engage in--they engage in
    interrogation, surveillance, monitoring of their employees, so
    they know exactly which way workers are going to vote at the
    time of the election.
        The PRO Act is needed to make sure that workers who want
    unions can choose unions and workers who do not want unions do
    not have to choose unions, to make sure the process is free and
    fair, which it is not right now.
        We also know that unionization, the decline of union
    density has had a direct correlation with increase in
    inequality in multiple fronts. Union workers are not just
    better paid, but union workers are more likely to have access
    to the legal process which is if you have a collective
    bargaining agreement you can enforce employment and labor laws
    that can decades to get enforced under our current legal system
    because civil litigation comes second to criminal litigation.
        There is less discrimination in union workplaces, but also
    unions have played a major role in our society in pushing for
    legislation that benefits all workers, union workers and non-
    union workers, whether it is antidiscrimination laws, minimum
    wage laws, health and safety laws, and if there is a weak labor
    movement, then we are less likely to get the kind of laws that
    benefit all workers.
        Finally, we have to understand that unions play a role in
    our society in terms of improving education, in terms of
    improving healthcare, and access to protections in the
    workplace. If you do not have a strong labor movement, all of
    these factors decline. Thank you.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. One of the most disturbing things coming
    out of COVID again is this continued disparity between wage
    earners and investors. Nothing against investment. As Lincoln
    said, you need to have a balance between labor and capital and
    if you do not, you have lost democracy. One of the really
    concerning things is research that shows that there is a
    diminishing consumer class, that actually the top 1 percent is
    driving the economy based on consuming within the top 1
    percent--people who make over $7 million in investments a year.
    Care to comment?
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner. One of the biggest driving forces of
    the organizing surge has been that workers--we have seen in the
    last decade their wages stagnant at the same time that the top
    1 percent has had incredible growth in profit and the amount
    they are taking home. During COVID, workers felt that they were
    not just taking cuts in their wages and their benefits, but
    they were also risking their lives. When they went to their
    employers to ask for PPE or paid leave time, these same
    corporations that were making money hand over fist during the
    pandemic said, no, we cannot afford that. That was the driving
    force.
        Workers do not come to work to die, they come to work to
    work, and that was the driving force between not only all the
    organizing, but the strike wave that we have.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Pennsylvania,
    Mr. Keller.
        Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must admit I am a
    little baffled here that we think the individuals that employ
    so many Americans, the people we represent are bad people. That
    is not the people I represent. They care about the people who
    come to work in their businesses, and they want to take care of
    them because they know they are valuable members of their team.
        I know that from when I worked in a factory and I did not
    need the middleman to help me communicate to the people and to
    the organization for which I was a part, but it seems like not
    everybody shares that opinion and I guess they must think that
    the people they represent are not good people. That is not my
    experience and I just want to say inflation continues to hammer
    employees and job creators in Pennsylvania.
        The consumer price index has indicated that inflation
    numbers rose 8.3 percent from August 2021 to August 2022 and
    our economic outlook is getting worse each day. You know we
    talk about earnings. The policies of the Biden Administration
    and the Democrats have taken 1 month's salary, 1 month's
    earnings of America's workers over the last year with 8.3
    percent inflation. House Democrats and the Biden Administration
    seem more determined than ever to implement the harmful
    provisions of the PRO Act, a radical change to our labor laws
    that would benefit union bosses at the expense of workers and
    further worsen the economic challenges we face.
        Workers need to be able to decide for themselves if they
    want to seek union membership or not. It is not the
    government's job to make these decisions for them.
        Mr. King, Democrats have long desired to eliminate workers'
    right to secret ballot elections. The latest attempt is this
    effort is to pressure the NLRB to implement online voting for
    union representation. Like Card Check, online voting provides
    no privacy guarantees and invites voter intimidation and
    coercion. What is the right--why is the right to a secret
    ballot election so important for workers?
        Mr. King. Mr. Keller, it has so many consequences. If a
    union is voted in, that union in all probability will stay at
    that place of employment for decades until that location either
    merges or closes. There is no reoccurring vote like we have for
    Members of Congress, for example, whether the union continues.
    It is a very permanent type of decision that impacts that
    worker's life, whether they pay dues or fees, whether they have
    to go out on strike, or whether they support their union with
    respect to political and other types of social movement
    contributions.
        It impacts so many things over such a long period of time
    and it is a very serious decision and that decision should only
    be made by a secret ballot vote. Now, the colloquy we just had
    the Congresswoman had an opportunity to vote. That is critical,
    a secret ballot vote. An electronic voting you mentioned, I do
    not understand what the objective is. We have high voter
    turnout under very good circumstances right now by the National
    Labor Relations Board. They do an excellent job of that.
        I have yet to understand what the real objective is, if
    any, other than maybe to decrease voter participation and only
    have certain segments of the voter population participate. That
    is not good. We want everyone involved.
        Mr. Keller. Thank you. Mr. King, the PRO Act allows the
    NLRB to impose civil penalties of up to $100,000 on employers
    that commit unfair labor practices and states that the Board
    shall consider the gross income of the employer in imposing the
    fine. Does that mean that a company could be required to pay a
    fine of up to 100,000 even in a year that it loses money
    overall?
        Mr. King. Apparently, so. It is another example of the ill-
    conceived provisions in the PRO Act. This law--excuse me. This
    legislation, if it were to become a law, is so tilted in favor
    of one side. There are no provisions, as I mentioned just
    previously, for any fines whatsoever on rogue union activity.
    It is a totally one-sided approach. It is unfortunate it has
    even gotten this far in the discussion in this country. Friends
    of mine in the union movement, it is honest--and they are often
    off-the-record discussions, they really concede that many of
    these provisions are ill advised.
        Mr. Keller. Yes, I would talk about some of the union
    pension plans that we have had to bail out and subsidize with
    taxpayer expense too. If we want to talk about bad actors, I
    think we should not be forcing people to join unions. I think
    we should allow them to make that decision on their own.
        Mr. King. Mr. Keller, I just want to say one thing before
    we close. You said at the outset of your remarks people in your
    district, 94 percent of the American population, I think as you
    know, does not work under union contract. They are not second-
    class citizens, and their employers are not bad employers. Yes,
    we may have some bad employer actors in this country, but let
    us not diminish the value of these people are providing for our
    country.
        Mr. Keller. The people that take the risk every day and
    that is the whole team, that is the team. That is, I think the
    thing that is important. The people I represent are good people
    and they work hard, and they do not need the government
    interfering with the relationship between themselves and their
    employer. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady from Minnesota,
    Ms. Omar.
        Ms. Omar. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I hope that you will be
    back with us sound and safe soon.
        I just wanted to start out my comment by reminding my
    colleagues that union members are employees themselves. It is
    not some strange entity that exists outside of that, and I hope
    that you also recognize that you do represent the employees who
    are members of those unions. As a former union member myself,
    who has gone on strike and relied on the collective strength of
    my union, I stand behind all of those who fight for fair and
    safe workplaces.
        I am proud to say that Minnesota has one of the largest
    increases in union activity in the country this year, including
    multiple Starbucks locations in my district.
        Dr. Bronfenbrenner, in your testimony, you stated that the
    pandemic combined with skyrocketing corporate profits and an
    increasing tight labor market has created a hot-shop condition
    for union organizing. Even for organized workers responding to
    the pandemic has been critical, especially, in the healthcare
    industry. Right now, 15,000 nurses in Minnesota are currently
    undertaking the largest strike of private sector nurses in U.S.
    history and probably globally.
        These workers have been heavily impacted by severe staffing
    shortages and it has been exasperated by the COVID-19 pandemic
    and they certainly are not the only workplace that is facing
    this unique and escalating concern to the ongoing pandemic.
        Workers also never want to go on strike, but when employers
    refuse to negotiate over improving wages and conditions,
    workers are often left without a choice. Can you speak to the
    rise in strike activity over the past year and what this
    activity says about how workers perceive employer behavior at
    the bargaining table?
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner. Thank you for that question. The strike
    activity there has not just been a dramatic increase in
    organizing activity. There has been a dramatic increase in
    strike activity. In 2021, the upsurge gained extensive
    attention. There were 265 work stoppage involving 140,000
    workers. In the first 8 months of 2022, there has been 267
    strikes in 393 different locations. A third of those strikes
    were unorganized workers striking for not just the right to
    organize, but over health and safety conditions.
        Manufacturing and educational services accounted for the
    majority of total work stoppages, 17.7 percent each, but also
    healthcare accounted for the largest number of overall strikes.
    Across the country workers are striking over health and safety,
    racial justice, scheduling, and deteriorating working
    conditions.
        COVID escalated strike activity because of the overwhelming
    number of workers who felt that they were not able to work in a
    safe workplace during COVID, especially, all the essential
    workers.
        Ms. Omar. Dr. Pearce--Mr. Pearce, for decades the NLRB has
    interpreted Section 8(c) as permitting captive audience
    meetings. Ms. Eisen testified to the numerous captive audience
    meetings dubbed as listening sessions that baristas had to
    attend which ultimately had a powerful effect in intimidating
    workers. The current General Counsel is seeking to change this
    precedent.
        Can you explain how the current interpretation is going
    beyond the speech protected by Section 8(c) and why it is
    actually extremely coercive?
        Mr. Pearce. Well, the speeches that, as Ms. Eisen has
    testified, are speeches that employees are forced to listen to
    and the fact that they are couched as voluntary is a misnomer
    if the employees will not be able to continue to get paid if
    they do not attend.
        Other people on this panel, Mr. King, in particular, has
    talked about how 8(c) requires the employer to have free
    speech. What is being overlooked is that the statute also says
    that employees have a right to refrain, and they have a right
    to refrain from engaging in union activities and engaging in
    anti-union activity, which would include propaganda, and that
    is where the General Counsel is going, I believe.
        Ms. Omar. Wonderful. I appreciate that. I think that part
    is really important because no one is forcing anyone to be part
    of a union, and we are certainly just pushing to make sure that
    people have the right to vote for one if they want and not to
    vote for one if they want. Obviously, organizing is part of the
    activity of getting people involved, which is what Starbucks
    workers and others across this country, and especially in my
    district, are doing. That is the right we want to preserve that
    is a right that exists in this country and should continue to
    exist. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. Next on my list is the gentleman
    from New York, Mr. Jacobs.
        Mr. Jacobs. Thank you. I have a question for Mr. King. Mr.
    King, in regard to the PRO Act, as I read provisions of that
    Act--I am from Buffalo, New York. I served on a Buffalo School
    Board for years. As I read provisions in the PRO Act, one thing
    that really looks to me very similar to a provision that we
    have for some of our public employees in New York State, the
    Tri-Brough Amendment under New York State's Taylor Law, which
    the State law governing public sector labor relations and terms
    and conditions of contract stay in place, even if the contract
    is expired and workers and management have not settled on a new
    deal.
        This law is one of the main contributors, in my mind, to
    New York State's extremely high tax burden, the highest in the
    country, and removes any incentive often for public sector
    unions to compromise. I have seen this quite a bit in our
    contract negotiations with the Buffalo Teachers Federation. We,
    for a long time, did not have a contract because of the fact
    that the deal that had been negotiated in the past was so good
    that there was really no incentive for the union to get back to
    the negotiating table. They were still getting incremental
    raises, they had lifetime healthcare, and the Buffalo Teacher
    Federation contract--they had free cosmetic surgery and that
    cosmetic surgery rider kept going up and up, and up because
    providers were realizing that they had a goldmine of activity,
    and they were popping more facilities to provide cosmetic
    surgery for our teachers, and it got to be over $13-million a
    year, and we had to pay a lot to get that out of the contract
    because it just kept going and going.
        My concern is the PRO Act would do that throughout private
    union negotiations and really tip the scale on the ability to
    have fair bargaining. I am just wondering if you had any
    thoughts on that.
        Mr. King. Yes, I do. The points you made are very important
    practical points. The union particularly will have little or no
    incentive in a first contract situation to reach an agreement
    and then force, as the PRO Act would, a government-imposed
    arbitration panel of three arbitrators who will write the
    contract for the parties and the employer, and the union will
    have limited input in how that contract is written.
        I have negotiated contracts, Congressman, for over 45
    years. If the other party does not have an incentive to reach a
    deal, a deal does not get done. Under the PRO Act, then it
    moves to this government intervention arbitration process. It
    is ill advised. It is not needed and these are first contracts
    that are critical for the relationship between the parties. As
    you mentioned, all kinds of provisions can be included and the
    subject areas that the so-called arbitrators are to look at are
    very subjective and this is an ill-advised policy approach.
        There are other ways to deal with first contract
    situations, which I would be happy to opine on, but this is a
    very deficit part of this proposal.
        Mr. Jacobs. Thank you for that. I just wanted to just
    comment on what I referenced in terms of my experience in the
    Buffalo School Board. What really frustrated me is--well, one,
    the amount of funds that would we be taken out for purpose of
    that institution, which was educating children. The fact is we
    had a situation where all the union negotiators were retired,
    so what they--laying things in place the way they had it and
    not negotiating a new contract benefited those at the higher
    end of the scale, but it really left us in a position where we
    were uncapable of enhancing salaries for teachers that were
    just coming into the system, and it was much harder to
    encourage them to come into the system and reward them for
    serving in an urban school district, so it really hurts a lot
    of the employees as well, this type of structure. With that, I
    will yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from New York, Mr.
    Jones.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing
    and to all of the witnesses for being here today.
        Unions built the middle class, and they built this country.
    For decades, the right of workers to organize for higher wages,
    better benefits, and safer working conditions have been under
    attack from corporate interest and their right-wing allies. Our
    future depends on a robust and thriving middle class and that
    starts with protecting the rights of workers to organized. As a
    steadfast supporter of organized labor, I was proud to support
    the Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act, which as you
    all know, passed the House in early 2021, but has yet to pass
    the U.S. Senate. Since passage in the House, we have seen
    record-breaking approval ratings of unions and organizing
    efforts by workers across the country.
        Over 640 unions won representation elections, the highest
    number of victories we've seen in 17 years. However, this is
    not enough. I urge my Senate colleagues to do their part to
    hold corporations accountable for illegal union busting
    tactics. I urge my Senate colleagues to join this body in
    passing the PRO Act. It is past time to update our labor laws
    so that unions can organize without fear of intimidation by
    their employers and negotiate in a timely manner.
        One reason why companies like Starbucks can withstand a
    high degree of scrutiny from the NLRB is because of statutory
    weaknesses in the NLRB's procedures which fail to deter repeat
    violations. Another reason companies flout the NLRB's oversight
    is because current law permits employers to hold captive
    audience meetings and use other intimidation tactics.
        Ms. Eisen, in your written testimony, you mentioned that
    Starbucks subjected you and other employees to at least five
    listening sessions, that the company sent about seven new,
    untrained staff members to the Elmwood store and that the
    company assigned up to three so-called support managers per
    shift. One of these support managers was the president of
    Starbucks North American.
        In your 11 years with the company, did you ever encounter
    such high-level officials in your stores? Moreover, how did
    their presence in conjunction with the other intimidation
    tactics impact your effectiveness as an employee and your
    overall well-being?
        Ms. Eisen. Thank you for that question. No, in my 11 years
    with the company, the highest person I have ever even seen come
    through our market was a regional director and I think that was
    maybe twice in the 11 years that I had worked for the company.
    Hosting folks as high up the ladder as the President of
    Starbucks North America, who I would say we did not host, she
    relocated to Buffalo for 5 months during our organizing
    campaign.
        As far as how it affected our mental health and our even
    physical health, we have a couple of Starbucks workers at the
    Elmwood location that were high school seniors, children,
    actual children working at the store. One of them confided in
    me that they had been calling off their shifts not long into
    the organizing campaign because they could not take the stress
    of coming in and having to feel like they were under a
    microscope.
        It is a high-volume store and it is a very--can be a very
    difficult job to do. It is hard enough when you are dealing
    with the public on a regular basis, especially, in the middle
    of a global pandemic, but now you have to do it with someone
    who is making $4 million a year breathing down your neck. It is
    inappropriate, it is scary, and it should not be allowed to
    happen.
        Mr. Jones. I agree. After the Supreme Court issued its
    decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which
    overturned the constitutional, fundamental right to abortion in
    this country, Starbucks announced that its healthcare plan
    would cover abortion-related travel for employees, but that it
    could not promise that to workers in union stores. In
    attempting to leverage the Supreme Court's assault on women's
    rights for the purpose of an anti-union campaign Starbucks
    appears to pretend that it has to deny medical benefits to
    union workers. Based upon your interactions with the company,
    does anything actually prevent Starbucks from offering union
    workers coverage for abortion-related travel?
        Ms. Eisen. It does not. The union, the unionized stores
    waived their rights to bargain over the new improved benefits.
    Starbucks likes to use the law as a reason for not being able
    to offer us those benefits, but the reality is that if the
    union waives the right to bargain over those, the only thing
    preventing Starbucks from giving those unionized workers those
    benefits is because Starbucks does not want to.
        Mr. Jones. It is a nefarious tactic to dangle Dobbs over
    workers to make them feel like they have to choose between
    their rights to healthcare and to organize. The fact that
    Starbucks and other corporations continue to employ these
    illegal practices is why the Senate needs to pass the PRO Act
    now. I yield.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from North
    Carolina, Mr. Cawthorn--is he not there?
        Mr. Cawthorn. I am here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much.
        Chairman Scott. Okay.
        Mr. Cawthorn. Mr. Chairman, I wish you a really speedy
    recovery from your COVID.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Cawthorn. Let me see here. Mr. King, thank you for
    being with us today. I appreciate your testimony and shining a
    light on the anti-business and pro-union bias of this
    Committee's Democrat majority. My question today regards the
    assault on independent contracting that the majority is
    contemplating today. An assault that could prove damaging to
    the pursuit of the American dream for many people. I have a
    two-part question for you, Mr. King.
        When California was debating this same, idea, the pro-union
    forces ignored the arguments that curbing independent
    contracting would disproportionately affect minorities. In
    fact, the California Black Chamber of Commerce issued a fiery
    statement, saying, among other things that the gig economy has
    become the gateway to independence and self-employment for
    African Americans, unlike anything seen since the goal made to
    Black entrepreneurship. They concluded with this line,
    ``Efforts by California politicians to shut the gig economy
    down in the name of protecting Black workers is the same as
    burning down a city built with our own dreams to save us from
    ourselves.''
        My first question, Dr. King, is as minority groups continue
    to be among the communities hardest hit by the sluggish economy
    and by inflation, how will destroying independent contracting
    affect these communities?
        Mr. King. Adversely. It is not a good policy decision. I
    want to interject here. The voters in California rejected
    AB(5), Assembly Bill 5, which was essentially the independent
    contractor approach. The people of California, even in their
    so-called ``Red State'' status have looked at this issue and
    said no. Apparently, here in Congress, that voice has not been
    heard.
        Back to your question, minorities, disadvantaged
    individuals in a community often have as their first job
    working for a franchisee, working for a small business entity,
    becoming an independent contractor, and working for a variety
    of different employers. Why should we penalize that? Why should
    we interfere with that? I think the answer is clearly no, and
    the proactive course goes, as you mentioned, the wrong way and
    it diminishes the definition, narrows the definition of where
    we should go in this area.
        Mr. Cawthorn. Well thank you, Mr. King. Now, swiftly
    shifting gears, I have a second question. You note in your
    testimony that adopting this ABC test proved problematic for
    California bureaucrats. What do you think the outlook would be
    on adopting this sort of test nationally without extensive
    carve-outs for the politically well connected?
        Mr. King. Well, AB5 and the PRO Act incorporation of it
    under the National Labor Relations Act is going to attempt, at
    least, to make every individual in the workplace an employee
    and the objective is clear. Therefore, if the individual is an
    employee, the union can organize them and have them be a part
    of a collective bargaining unit.
        It really disregards the flexibility, the independence, and
    the decisionmaking of the worker and it takes us in the wrong
    direction.
        It is really disturbing. It again is another attack on the
    franchisor/franchisee system in this country that has generated
    thousands of jobs, hundreds of thousands of jobs. There is no
    reason or rational for it on a sound policy basis.
        Mr. Cawthorn. Well, Mr. King, I only have about a minute
    and 13 seconds left and so my last question will be do you
    believe that unions sometimes forcibly collect fees from non-
    union employees to be steered for a political agenda that that
    employee does not agree with?
        Mr. King. Well, unfortunately, it occurs on a reoccurring
    basis and the polling data--and I have mentioned this earlier
    today, the polling data clearly shows that workers do not want
    that type of attraction of their money to go to social causes,
    political causes they do not agree with. That is one of the
    reasons that unions are having difficulty, I submit, in
    convincing workers that a union is in their best interest.
        Now, the worker today is intelligent, thoughtful. I keep
    hearing this suggestion on questions that an employer/employee
    meeting is somehow going to poison their minds. That degrades
    the intelligence level of the American worker. At a half an
    hour or hour meeting, they are not going to be poisoned on how
    they believe about a union. They will go out and seek their own
    information.
        Back to the essence of your question, the worker today
    wants to be independent, wants to have a voice, wants to decide
    for herself or himself without having any restrictions imposed
    on them.
        Mr. Cawthorn. Well, Mr. King, thank you very much. All of
    our witnesses, thank you. Ranking Member Foxx, thank you for
    your leadership, and I yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from New York, Mr.
    Bowman.
        Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to wish
    you a speedy recovery from COVID.
        My question is for Ms. Eisen. Ms. Eisen, thank you so much
    for joining us here today and for your immense organizing work,
    just sending you strength and love and please keep up the
    fight.
        I wanted to mention that, as we know, over the last several
    decades we have seen a decrease in unions and unions being
    consistently under attack, and we have a nation that struggles
    with wealth and equality, as well as unemployment and under
    employment. Can you speak a little bit about why unionizing is
    essential to our democracy and a more equity society and how
    you have seen that manifest in your work?
        Ms. Eisen. Well, I think to start, I would like to dispel
    some of the counterpoints that say that the bulk of the workers
    are not in favor of unionization. The Starbucks organizing
    campaign has a 75 percent win rate of the 240 elections, 56 of
    those were unanimous and many, many, many others were at least
    a two-thirds majority, so the workers voices are being heard
    and they are saying that they are wanting to unionize.
        In terms of equitable, unions can help make these
    workplaces--a personal example would be my wages at Starbucks
    after 11 years. At the start of our campaign, I was making just
    16 cents more an hour than someone who was hired the day before
    we went public with our campaign. You are looking at a company
    that can certainly afford to invest in their long-term
    employees and show that they are valued and chooses not to in
    favor of making the bottom line seem more impressive to its
    shareholders.
        With unionization, we have the ability to talk about things
    like seniority pay and to reward those employees for their
    loyalty. Quite frankly, that was one of our talking points from
    the very beginning of our campaign and just mere weeks before
    our vote at Elmwood, the company all of a sudden announced that
    after 50 years, they were going to implement seniority pay.
        Mr. Bowman. Thank you for that response. I also want to
    respond to a comment that was made earlier about unions being
    responsible for closing schools and hurting student learning.
    First and foremost, the decision was made across many parts of
    the country to close schools to make sure our students and our
    teachers remain sound, secure, and alive as we dealt with a
    global pandemic.
        I want to mention that it was the Democratic Party, and
    President Biden, and this Committee that helped to pass the
    American Rescue Plan that sent historic investments to public
    schools across the country and allowed them to open back up
    safely.
        As we talk about student learning and setbacks to student
    learning, Teachers unions have consistently been at the
    forefront of curriculum design and development that has
    contributed to student learning and growth over many years and
    singular test scores are not the only measure of that.
        Being a former middle school principal and educator for 20
    years, I can speak personally to the growth of my students in
    my Bronx schools related to the union and I was a part of as a
    principal's union, as well as being part of a teachers union.
        My next question is for Dr. Bronfenbrenner. I want to focus
    for a moment on the care economy. I am really proud that the
    largest worker-owned cooperative in the country, Cooperative
    Home Care Associates, is in the Bronx and has seen significant
    success in improving job quality and quality of care for many
    of my constituents through its unionized, worker-owned,
    democratic structure.
        Can you talk to the benefits of union representation paired
    with other forms of democratic workplace structures, such as
    worker-owned cooperatives, and how can Congress support and
    empower workers to learn about and participate in these types
    of arrangements?
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner. The primary reason that healthcare
    workers organized is over quality of care. They believe that
    the companies they worked for are not doing enough in terms of
    providing good quality care and they, as nurse, homecare
    workers, technicians feel very concerned that they are not
    doing the best they can by their patients.
        Workers need a voice because workers know best what is
    happening on a day-to-day level with the patients they serve,
    and unionized workplaces have been shown to have higher quality
    healthcare than non-union workplaces. It is essential that
    workers have the ability to express that voice and have a say
    in the conditions of their employment. Whether the workers try
    to do cooperative relationships or union relationships,
    currently, we find that employer opposition is particularly
    high in healthcare.
        It is historically has been. The beginning of the
    management consultant movement actually came after the
    seventies after healthcare workers were added to the National
    Labor Relations Act and so the fight to unionize and be able to
    raise the quality of healthcare in the workplace is a high
    prior which passing the PRO Act would greatly benefit because
    it would restrict the kind of employer opposition that is
    restraining so many workers from organizing.
        We also----
        Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much. I am sorry I have to cut you
    off. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
        Chairman Scott. Okay. Thank you. The gentleman from
    Kentucky, Mr. Comer.
        Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2015, the National
    Labor Relations Board comprised entirely of President Obama's
    appointees, created a broad definition of joint employment that
    put the franchise model at risk and threatened to erode small
    business owners' control of their operations. This action
    costed franchise businesses $33.3 billion per year and
    prevented the creation of 376,000 jobs between 2015 and 2020.
        Recently, we saw the Department of Labor Wage and Hour
    Division rescind the narrowly tailored joint employment
    rulemaking published under the Trump Administration. Now, at a
    time of soaring prices and House Democrats printing money left
    and right, the Biden Administration has decided now is the
    perfect time to release a proposed rulemaking reverting, once
    again, to the harmful Obama era joint employment definition.
    Reversing the previous Administration's actions has once again
    upended business owners' stability and authority oversetting
    the essential terms of employment for their employees.
        Time and time again, those on the other side of the aisle
    have trampled on the rights of small business owners and failed
    to provide clarity for businesses and employees.
        Mr. King, how would the joint employer definition outlined
    in the PRO Act further damage the potential of nation's small
    business owners and franchisees?
        Mr. King. It would be very harmful. What it does, Mr.
    Comer, is incorporate into the--it would incorporate into the
    National Labor Relations Act this very broad definition that
    makes virtually one employer a joint employer with anybody else
    and it would severely impact the franchisee/franchisor
    relationship.
        A franchisee in your district, as a small, independent
    businessperson employing many people in your community, is not
    a joint employer with a large corporate franchisor and the key
    here is to try to put pressure on the franchisor, to put
    pressure on the franchisee to not resist in any way, shape, or
    form union activity. It is a clear push down, top down,
    pressure point.
        Mr. Comer. Absolutely. Your response is exactly why my
    legislation, the Save Local Business Act, is essential, and I
    think the 93 organizations endorsing it would agree. Congress
    must codify a tailored, consistent, joint employer standard to
    prevent infringement from government bureaucrats on our
    Nation's entrepreneurs and job creators.
        Now, speaking of rising barriers to growing industries, we
    have clearly seen within the rail industry over the last
    several weeks, that unionization, no matter if it is in public
    or private workplaces, inevitably leads to a slowdown in
    productivity. The continued negotiations between unions and
    national rail companies have led to the removal of certain
    products from rail lines, like fertilizer critical to American
    farmers.
        The eventual increase in prices because of the union
    demands and threatened work stoppages will cost American
    consumers at the pump and at the register. As Americans are
    paying dearly for bloated congressional spending, corn and
    soybeans will be rotting on railcars, building materials
    already in scarce supply will be stuck far from the projects
    for which they were intended, and chemicals and aluminum
    produced in my district in Kentucky will remain loaded on
    stationary cars.
        This brings back images of boycotts and strikes that deeply
    damage industries, particularly, agriculture in the 1930's and
    1940's. The PRO Act would make such stop gaps a regular
    occurrence and further strain our already fragile supply
    chains.
        Mr. King, can you provide some insight into the economic
    damage such strikes, which will inevitably result from the PRO
    Act will have on American consumers cost of living?
        Mr. King. Mr. Comer, the PRO Act would permit intermittent
    strikes, which can be even more damaging then a long-term
    strike. The PRO Act would permit interference with employer
    operations. It would prohibit employers from hiring, either
    temporary or permanent replacements, but yet permit the union
    to go out on strike. Employers have a right to operate their
    businesses in this country. Unions have a right to strike, but
    it has got to be equal.
        The Rail Act of great concern. Mr. Comer, my trade
    association represents most of the Fortune 400 companies in the
    country. We have already heard from a number of them, saying
    they are going to have to shut down plants if the rail strike
    occurs. It is not just big business, as you mentioned, it is
    the farmer, it is the small business, it is the entire economy.
    People come here and testify, and they think strikes are good.
    They talk about Striketober, Striketober. They are very
    damaging to this country and that is an offshoot of this
    adversarial process that at least some unions have instituted
    in this country, very harmful.
        Mr. Comer. Right. I agree. Thank you so much for testimony.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. At this point we will take a 5-
    minute break, and you can start the timer right now. We will
    reconvene in 5 minutes.
        [Off the record.]
        Chairman Scott. The next questioner was Mrs. Manning, is
    she available? We will convene when Mrs. Manning becomes
    available. Who would be next?
        Mrs. Foxx. We have two members on the floor--I mean in the
    room, if you want to recognize one of them to save time because
    I think we are going to get called to vote.
        Chairman Scott. Okay. Do you have members on your side
    ready to--here is Mrs. Manning. Mrs. Manning, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Manning. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
    our witnesses for hanging in there with us. I would like to
    start with Ms. Eisen. Ms. Eisen, your store managed to
    successfully unionize despite facing the significant opposition
    that you detailed in your testimony. Can you tell us a little
    about how the organizing [inaudible] drive was able to convince
    a majority of your co-workers that unionization was in their
    best interest.
        Ms. Eisen. That was not ultimately my goal. I can only
    speak from personal experience and the conversations I had with
    my co-workers in terms of unionizing our location was not about
    why I thought they should do it. It was about why I was doing
    it. I have a long-standing history and tenure with the company,
    and I have seen a lot of changes happen within that company,
    and the most apparent one was that we had no control over when
    benefits were granted or when benefits were taken away, and I
    saw that happen a lot over the decade I had been with the
    company.
        One of the things I talked about with them was that I
    wanted a way to hold the company accountable. That some of the
    benefits that Starbucks offers are wonderful, but there is
    nothing preventing them from coming back tomorrow and taking
    those benefits away, so we had a lot of conversations about
    what a collective bargaining agreement could do for us in terms
    of insuring that the benefits that the company offered remains
    those benefits.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you very much. Mr. Pearce, in your
    testimony you mentioned the need to reform the NLRA in response
    to rulings by the NLRB and the Courts, which have thwarted
    congressional attempt behind the Act. Can you talk a little bit
    about that and describe potential legislative solutions to this
    issue?
        Mr. Pearce. I am sorry Congresswoman, the Court case that
    you are referencing?
        Ms. Manning. I do not have that in front of me but you did
    mention the need to reform the NLRA.
        Mr. Pearce. Oh, yes. Well, certainly the NLRA needs to be
    reformed in several different respects. Particularly, with
    respect to the coverage of immigrant workers. The Hoffman
    Plastics case where the Supreme Court denies immigrant
    workers--undocumented workers the ability to get damages as a
    result of unfair labor practices. Employers get off completely
    scot-free because of that.
        The NLRA needs to be amended for the purposes of providing
    sanctions for employers, even if these individuals are not able
    to gain their remedies the employer needs to have sanctions
    imposed on them because of the wrongdoings that they engaged
    in.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you, sir. Dr. Bronfenbrenner, in your
    testimony you evaluate trends in employers' anti-union
    campaigns going as far as back as 1999 and in July of this
    year, the NLRB announced that its field office staff is half of
    what it was in 2022. Given the changes you have identified in
    employer tactics in delays in bargaining in shifts and
    organizing strategies, what role do you think, if any, the
    underfunding of the NLRB has played in these trends?
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner. One thing I need to point out. Employer
    opposition begins well before the petition is filed. In my
    research, I found that--I did a review of unfair labor
    practices looking at the date they occurred. I did this in 2014
    for the NLRB timing changes and found that in 75 percent of
    serious unfair labor practices occurred--I mean I should say 75
    percent occurred well before the petition is filed and that
    employers are--when employers say they do not have a chance to
    speak they do.
        Delay has this effect of having repeated, continuous,
    cumulative effects on workers and when the NLRB is understaffed
    that means a longer time for workers to feel the pressure of
    employer opposition is begun and the impact in terms of fear
    and intimidation and coercion and the inability of the NLRB to
    investigate charges because they are understaffed. The impact
    is pervasive and continuous when the NLRB is understaffed,
    because the longer time goes on more likely there is to be
    turnover, more likely workers are to give up and feel the
    futility of organizing, and the more likely they are to be
    disciplined or discharged in retaliation for organizing.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you. My time has expired, and I yield
    back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin,
    Mr. Fitzgerald.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question for Mr.
    King. One of the things that I have been kind of confused by
    and I think I know there is alternative motives behind it and
    that is the mandatory meetings that employers are allowed by
    law to hold to have these open discussions with employees
    about--it could be anything from dress code to work hours to
    anything that they want to have, yet there seems to be this
    resistance sometimes from the union to not only in allowing
    those meetings to happen, but also to allow them to kind of
    play out. It is kind of a control piece that I think is part of
    the overall discussion and I was wondering if you could just
    discuss kind of the legal aspects of the employer requiring
    those mandatory meetings of its employees.
        Mr. King. Mr. Fitzgerald, first, Section 8(c) of the
    National Relations Act, the free speech provision, permits
    employers to have those types of meetings. Second, there is a
    prohibition well established or prohibitions of the National
    Relations Act that employers in these meetings cannot threaten,
    coerce, or make undue types of pressure on an employee
    regarding his or her views on unionization, so we already have
    those protections.
        What this is really all about is to cutoff free speech. Why
    is it so dangerous for a worker to hear both sides or many
    sides of the aspects of unionization? Unions do not want these
    kinds of conversations to occur because in some instances they
    can be very harmful to the union's campaign. They want the
    worker to hear only one side, and we have heard a lot about the
    Starbucks meetings. Well, apparently, they were not successful
    in certain locations. If they are that harmful, show us the
    proof. I do not think it is there.
        This is really a very active part of a campaign throughout
    the PRO Act and other ways in the executive agencies to
    ultimately cutoff free speech and communication. It is very
    dangerous.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Just to followup, and I do not want to
    single out Starbucks, but I know that we have the witness here
    today and I appreciate you being here.
        My other concern is that oftentimes it is assumed and it is
    integrated into the overall model that they are using that
    someone would start at the bottom and work their way up to be
    kind of in that management level and then to somehow stifle
    that individual by saying you can no longer have the same
    relationship you had with the workers that you are now
    supervising. It does not make much sense to me, but it seems
    that that is the case in many of these instances; is that
    correct?
        Mr. King. Well, it appears to be. It is really interesting,
    Mr. Fitzgerald. We have this attack permeating in small
    business right now. The franchisee, stores like Starbucks are
    all over the country, a lot of part-time workers, people that
    need additional income, it is a great part of our business
    model in this country.
        Now, is every Starbucks location, every small employer
    perfect? No. Are there mistakes being made? There may have
    been, but why are we going after this so successful business
    model in this country? When I visit Starbucks stores, as I said
    in my testimony at the outset, the employees are friendly,
    efficient. They do a great job. I love their oatmeal. We love
    their coffee. Why are we attacking such a successful business
    model in this country? If people want to unionize, they have a
    right to do so.
        I am not here to say anything bad about unions, per se, but
    let us give the worker the right and let us not publicly shame
    companies for being successful.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. It is part of this conversation that I
    find somewhat confusing, so thank you very much. I yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Castro. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Castro. If he is not
    available, Mr. Sempolinski from New York, is he with us today?
        Mr. Sempolinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you and welcome to the Committee.
        Mr. Sempolinski. Oh, thank you very much and thank yourself
    and the Ranking Member who was so gracious to me last night.
    Thank you. I want to also thank the witnesses for being here. I
    do not represent the city of Buffalo, but I do represent a good
    portion of western New York, so thank you for taking the time
    to come to Washington, DC.
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner is coming from the 23d District of New
    York. She is one of my constituents, at least as of almost 24
    hours, so thank you for taking part. I represent Cornell
    University, but my question is directed to Mr. King, who is
    also a Cornell Alum, is my understanding, so you are an
    honorary constituent, but I want to thank you also for coming
    today.
        My main concern when it comes to these issues is freedom of
    choice. I think it is important that people have a choice to
    join the labor union, but I think it is important to have a
    choice not to join a labor union, have a choice who represents
    them, make sure that is free from intimidating and
    manipulation.
        The experiences that I have had personally with it when I
    was a graduate student there was a movement to unionize that
    graduate department. I did not feel we needed a union. I was
    not on board with that. I thought we had a pretty good gig, and
    I could pick up the smallest dose you could have of
    intimidation [inaudible].
        Mrs. Foxx. Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could move Mr.
    Sempolinski and stop the clock since there is so much
    difficulty with his microphone.
        Chairman Scott. Alright, no problem. We will just extend
    his time, if necessary.
        Mr. Sempolinski. I thank the majority for letting me borrow
    a microphone.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Sempolinski. Alright, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Scott. That is fine. Hold the clock for a couple
    seconds so we can catch up and then proceed. The gentleman will
    proceed.
        Mr. Sempolinski. Alright. Well, I had the smallest dose of
    potential intimidation in the graduate students' side. These
    were not people I had to work with every day. You are in a very
    independent work environment where you are working on your own
    projects. I know I am the last Republican to speak on these
    issues and I think everything has been very well covered over
    this long afternoon for you all, but can you summarize for us
    why it is so important that people have a free, open, and clear
    choice. Why is choice so important when a worker is in a
    position where they are deciding to unionize or not unionize?
        Mr. King. First of all, congratulations for being sworn in
    last night and welcome to this great body.
        Mr. Sempolinski. Thank you.
        Mr. King. It is critical because your work life encompasses
    so much of everything that you are about. It has impact on your
    family, your economic well-being, and virtually everything you
    do often revolves around your workplace. Workers need to have
    the ability to listen to all sides of the issue of unionization
    and I am not here to condone rogue activity by any employer,
    certainly, not by any union.
        If an employee, a group of employees wishes to organize,
    they should have that opportunity, but the National Relations
    Board needs to stay exactly neutral, does not take a side,
    should not take a side at all, procedurally or otherwise, and
    that workers should be able to hear every aspect. They should
    be able to hear from their employer. They should have the
    ability to understand the consequences.
        If a union is voted in, as I have said previously today,
    that union for all intents and purposes practically will be
    there for the life of that company's existence at that
    particular location and that is a serious decision because
    there are many studies that have been made that 80 to 90
    percent of the workers in this country that are working under a
    union contract never had an opportunity, Congressman, to vote
    on whether that union should be there. They have never had a
    choice, and they will not have a choice. If you bring a union
    into a place of employment it has long-range consequences, not
    only on the current workers, but on the workforces to come in
    the future. It has consequences of potential strikes.
        We have been talking about a potential railway strike and
    how it could harm this country. It has consequences on your
    advancement. It has consequences on all kinds of aspects of
    your employee benefits, so it is a very serious decision, one
    that should be made under very controlled, neutral
    circumstances. The secret ballot vote has to be preserved.
        Mr. Sempolinski. Well, you anticipated my second question.
    Would you definitively say a secret ballot is better at
    preserving choice than either a card check system or an online
    system.
        Mr. King. I think in our democracy here in this country
    compared to the rest of world, the secret ballot approach to
    deciding representation, to deciding many important questions
    local, State, and Federal are best preserved by the secret
    ballot process. Why we are thinking of doing away with that is
    a very poor policy approach.
        Mr. Sempolinski. Thank you very much and I yield.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. Does the gentleman from Indiana
    seek recognition?
        Mr. Mrvan. Yes.
        Chairman Scott. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mrvan. I want to thank everyone for being here. Ms.
    Eisen, yesterday the New York Times reported that one of your
    fellow organizers, Jaz Brisack was pushed out of her job by
    Starbucks. Can you explain what happened and what tactics
    Starbucks is using?
        Ms. Eisen. Absolutely. Jaz was victim of a tactic that the
    company has been using all along, which is to purge either the
    unionized stores or stores who are planning to organize of the
    strongest union supporters. Jaz was integral in organizing the
    first Starbucks store in the U.S., a co-worker of mine, but she
    also stood for those workers and used her voice to let the
    company know that what they were doing was wrong and
    inappropriate.
        As we have seen, I mentioned in my spoken testimony,
    Starbucks has fired over 100 union leaders and supporters to
    date and Jaz was just another one in a long line of those. What
    we saw was a lot of promises leading up to that vote and one we
    actually did win. Then we started seeing the results of that
    which were increased discipline and firings and store closures.
        That is to say that just because you fight and win your
    vote does not all of a sudden mean that the company stops their
    retaliatory actions. In fact, at Elmwood we have actually seen
    more retaliation since winning our vote than we did leading up
    to that vote and the only thing that can protect us would be
    labor law reform and continuing to fund the NLRB so that the
    agency has the resources to investigate these allegations.
        Mr. Mrvan. I thank you very much and with that I yield
    back, Chairman.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady from California,
    Mrs. Steel.
        Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you Ranking
    Member Foxx. I have a question to Mr. King. As you mentioned,
    California's AB5 proved to be a disaster and is now riddled
    with exemptions, yet D.C. Democrats are trying their best to
    make this a national law. Following these policies is
    guaranteed to cause more harm to workers at the national level.
        Millions of Americans prefer the independent contractor
    model and want the flexibility it provides. Why are Democrats
    in California and D.C. pushing so hard for an ABC test? Why are
    they knowing the needs of those who want to be independent
    contractors?
        Mr. King. Well, first of all, as you correctly mentioned,
    the citizens in California had the intelligence and forethought
    to say no to this very radical proposal. It is interesting to
    me the Members of Congress from California still voted for the
    PRO Act. That is a contradiction in and of itself, but the
    specific answer to your question is if a worker is classified
    as an independent contractor the union, then cannot organize,
    cannot unionize that type of workforce and this is a push to
    make every worker an employee. I mean it is simple as that. It
    is really interesting to me how much attention and time the
    union movement is spending in this area when perhaps they ought
    to devote their resources and intention to the clearly agreed
    upon employee workforce in this country.
        As I said in my testimony, the amount of resources and the
    amount of activity that unions are spending for all of agreed
    upon employees is very minimal in this country. I do not
    understand it. I do not think it is a good use of their
    resources, but they can do as they wish. I agree with your
    question. The PRO Act would incorporate this very ill-advised
    approach.
        Mrs. Steel. Thank you. My next question is my constituents
    want transparency. In December, President Biden rescinded the
    rule that subjected the unions trust funds apprenticeship
    programs and other trusts to stricter transparency
    requirements. These funds come from employees' paycheck. Do you
    feel the unions should ensure they are fully transparent with
    the dues taken from wages earned by workers and have union
    funds been misused?
        Mr. King. Well, apprenticeship programs and training they
    are critical for economic development in this country and there
    should be total transparency. There ought to be safeguards
    where there is no improper pressure on people going to the
    apprentice programs to become union members. There should be
    verified and independent sources of training. Employers ought
    to have, in my opinion, a greater role in these apprentice
    programs and we will see what the Department of Labor does
    here. I know there is been a recent discussion about this and
    hopefully Secretary Walsh and his team will make sure that
    moneys are spent properly and that there is no undue pressure
    or influence, whether it be by construction unions or other
    outsiders to interfere with the apprentice program.
        Mrs. Steel. Mr. King, my last question is we are seeing the
    threat of work stoppage at West Coast ports and now within the
    freight rail industry. Even small work stoppage can add fuel to
    the unprecedented supply chain crisis. Congress could vote in
    coming days to keep rail workers on the job. How vital are West
    Coast ports have become to the ports be included in the same
    rules that railroad and airline employees were under because I
    introduced that bill and it never got out of the Transportation
    Committee and I am very much frustrated about that during this
    negotiation.
        Mr. King. Well, please keep those efforts up. The data that
    I have seen is that our West Coast ports are some of the least
    efficient in the world and it is very unfortunate because of
    the adverse impact then that those work rules have on the rest
    of the economy. The potential for a port strike and of course
    we are all concerned this week about the potential rail strike,
    our transportation system in this country is very fragile and
    strikes are not the solution. Inappropriate, unproductive work
    rules have to be changed for the good of the country, putting
    aside whether you are an employer or union. I am hopeful that
    the negotiations will put aside some of these unproductive work
    rules and permit more efficiency.
        Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. It is my understanding that
    there are no further members seeking recognition, if not, I
    recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of questions.
        First, let me make a couple of comments to respond to
    things said about the PRO Act and the fact that everyone would
    be expected to pay their fair share. All workers would be
    required to pay their fair share of the expenses in developing
    the fact that union members make 10 percent more than non-union
    members, they get better healthcare, they get better pensions,
    safer workplace. Those negotiations and hiring experts costs
    money and it is not unreasonable to ask those that will get the
    benefits and are entitled to the benefits as a matter of law
    pay at least their fair share and we are not talking about
    their fair share of the political activities or the annual
    holiday party or the summer cookout, but those benefits that
    are required by law to be negotiated on their behalf and they
    will get.
        Comments have been made, I think, on the independent
    contractor. Yes, there is more freedom in it, and you cannot
    organize unless you are an actual employee, but there are other
    things that independent contractors lose, like unemployment
    compensation if they lose their job through no fault of their
    own. Workers compensation--they do not get Workers Compensation
    if they are injured on the job, minimum wage, they do not get
    minimum wage or overtime. The civil rights protection, they do
    not get the assistance of the EEOC. There are a lot of things
    that happen when you are classified an independent contract.
        The joint employer, all that is asked there is that the
    person responsible for the violation, failure to pay overtime,
    violations of OSHA, the entity responsible for the violation be
    held accountable for the violation. I have seen bills where the
    definition of employer is so strict that you can prove that you
    were not paid your overtime, and you do not have an employer to
    collect from. It is unclear who the employer is. If you have
    got a temp agency and you are working somewhere and so the
    person who did the violation ought to be responsible.
        We have heard comments about the 200 unfair labor practice
    allegations sources against Starbucks. The fact is these are
    more than allegations. There have been findings by the Regional
    Director and the General Counsel that these are valid
    violations.
        Now, Mr. King is absolutely right. They have not been
    adjudicated. They have to go before an Administrative Law Judge
    for adjudication. They are subject to appeal, but they are more
    than just the labor unions making the allegations. These have
    been actual findings in these 200 cases.
        Let me ask Ms. Bronfenbrenner. We have heard that the small
    percentage of people in labor unions today is a result of them
    choosing not to join a union, is that the right conclusion to
    make?
        Ms. Bronfenbrenner. If you were to say that you were facing
    threats--that you were voluntarily choosing, then that is not a
    choice. Workers who try to organize today have to jump through
    repeated hoops of fire in order organize. They have to overcome
    the intimidation. They have to overcome fear of job loss,
    interrogation, surveillance, and so they are not organizing
    freely, and we know that when there is no employee opposition,
    as I found in 13 percent of the campaigns in my current sample,
    the win rate is about 86 percent.
        We know in the public sector where there is much less
    employer opposition win rates average above 85 percent, so when
    workers can choose without coercion, without threats, without
    intimidation then the numbers go way up. Unfortunately, we do
    not live in that climate because we have such weak and poorly
    enforced labor laws because there are no financial penalties
    for employees where there are high financial penalties for
    unions and where employers are literally able to get away with
    breaking the law on a daily basis.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. Mr. Pearce, your initial
    testimony was cutoff. Were there any points that you were not
    able to make?
        Mr. Pearce. What I did want to talk about is Amazon. When
    Bessemer was decided and it initially looked like the union
    lost two to one, and I was approached about the death knell of
    unions, I said, well, the difference in this situation and what
    you have described is that when you have a union that is able
    to go into the south in a right-to-work State before a company
    that has more money than God that can control traffic lights
    and mailboxes, it is not a death knell for the union. It is a
    shot across the bow, and you saw that that was the case because
    in Staten Island they won decisively and Bessemer the battle is
    still not over.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Pursuant to Committee practice, materials for submission of the
    hearing record must be submitted to the Committee Clerk within
    14 days following the last day of the hearing, which is the
    close of business September 28th, preferably in Microsoft Word
    format. Only a member of the Committee or invited witness may
    submit materials for inclusion in the hearing record and must
    address the subject matter of the hearing. Please submit
    materials to the Clerk electronically by email submission to
    edandlabor.hearings@mail.house.gov.
        Again, I want to thank our witnesses for their
    participation today. Members of the Committee may have
    additional questions and we ask the witnesses to respond to
    those questions in writing. The hearing record will be held
    open for 14 days in order to receive those responses.
        I remind colleagues that pursuant to Committee practice,
    witness questions for the hearing must be submitted to the
    majority Committee staff or Committee Clerk within 7 days.
    Questions submitted must address the subject matter of the
    hearing. I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for a
    closing statement.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I give my
    closing remarks, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    record the myth factsheet rebutting many of the statements made
    by Democrats today. I also ask to enter letters from the
    Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the National Association
    of Homebuilders, the National Restaurant Association, and the
    Independent Electrical Contractors raising serious concerns
    with the PRO Act and with recent actions and policies pursued
    by the NLRB and its General Counsel.
        I further ask to enter in the record a letter from
    Starbucks Corporation to the NLRB detailing alleged misconduct
    by NLRB employees and union representation elections. Finally,
    I ask to enter into the record several pleadings from Starbucks
    litigation with the NLRB.
        Chairman Scott. Is there any objection? Without objection,
    so ordered.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information of Dr. Foxx follows.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Foxx. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the witnesses for
    participating in today's hearing. Ensuring workers can make a
    free and informed decision about unionization should be a
    priority on both sides of the aisle, but my Democrat colleagues
    sole objective seems to be to force union representation on
    workers and increase union membership, even though, as we have
    heard today, the majority of workers have little interest in
    joining a union.
        Democrats and union activists claim there is a historic
    surge in union organizing, yet, private sector union membership
    is at an all-time low. Unions are quick to blame external
    factors for declining membership, but they need to look in the
    mirror. Most labor unions devote little resources on retaining
    and recruiting new members. Instead, big labor gives priority
    to funding left wing advocacy groups and lobbying Democrats to
    enact legislation that forces unions on unwilling workers.
        While they currently have an ally in the White House who's
    willing to mobilize all Federal agencies in his crusade to
    force as many workers into unions as possible that will not
    always be the case. Democrats should work with Republicans to
    promote pro-growth and pro-opportunity policies that work for a
    21st Century economy rather than the PRO Act, which is an
    assault on worker freedom and would devaState the economy.
        Again, I would like to thank our witnesses for taking time
    to join us today and I yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. I now recognize myself for the
    purpose of making my closing statement. I want to thank our
    witnesses for your time and testimony. Comments have been made
    about the pending rail strike. I just want to say that we all
    hope that the issues can be resolved before the deadline,
    especially, the paid sick leave issues. No one benefits with a
    strike, particularly, the workers involved themselves.
        Joining a union, as I indicated in my opening statement,
    should be a right not a fight. Unfortunately, despite record
    popularity and high-profile victories workers are facing
    unprecedented anti-union campaigns. As our witnesses made
    clear, decades of GOP and corporate attacks have rendered the
    National Labor Relations Act toothless, allowing unscrupulous
    employers to intimidate and retaliate against their workers
    virtually without recourse. In response, House Democrats and
    five House Republicans passed the Protecting the Right to
    Organize or the PRO Act, which would address weaknesses in the
    NLRA and strengthen workers' rights.
        Regrettably, the Senate has failed to act. While the House
    Labor Appropriations bill would increase the NLRB's
    appropriations by $45-million and ameliorate almost a decade of
    flat funding, it is imperative that Congress actually enact
    this increase. We are serious about giving workers the tools
    that they need to succeed in the modern economy. The Senate
    must pass the PRO Act and fully fund the NLRB to ensure that
    workers can collectively bargain for higher wages, better
    benefits, and safer workplaces.
        Before we end, I want to recognize two outgoing Committee
    members who have championed rights that we have discussed
    today, Congressman Levin of Michigan and Congressman Jones of
    New York worked hard to support working families throughout
    their time on this Committee where they both demonstrated
    principled leadership to strengthen the right to organize and
    pass the PRO Act.
        Congressman Levin provided valuable insight and amendments
    to strengthen the PRO Act, bringing attention to organizing
    campaigns across the country and introducing groundbreaking
    legislation to protect the integrity of union representation
    elections by allowing safe, electronic voting. He also brought
    his experience in job training to the Committee which was very
    valuable as we worked on many job training and bills and
    legislation.
        Just recently, Congressman Jones successfully offered an
    amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that seeks
    to crack down on contracting with those employers who engage in
    unfair labor practices in the last 3 years. I want to thank
    both Congressman Levin and Congressman Jones for their
    leadership on behalf of the American people. Is there any
    further business?
        Mrs. Foxx. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Scott. The gentlelady from North Carolina.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your indulgence, I
    would like to recognize the parting Republican members of the
    Committee since you have done so for the Democrat departing
    members.
        Chairman Scott. The gentlelady is recognized.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The departing members,
    Republican members of the Committee are Mr. Keller of
    Pennsylvania, the Ranking Member of the Workforce Protection
    Subcommittee who has done a fantastic job of bringing his
    experience, his experiences in the real world to this
    Committee. Mr. Cawthorn of North Carolina, my colleague, and
    Mr. Jacobs of New York. I thank all of them for their
    contributions to the Committee and they will be sorely missed.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. We want to congratulate all of
    our retiring members for their great work on the Committee and
    great contributions. Is there any further business to come
    before the Committee, if not, without objection, the Committee
    stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:03 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

        [Additional submissions from Ranking Member Foxx follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions from Rep. Norcross follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Responses to questions submitted for the record by Mr.
    Pearce follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             [all]