[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
[email protected].
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]