[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                     PROTECTING EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS:
                  ENSURING FAIR ELECTIONS AT THE NLRB

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

                                 HEARING

                               Before The

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, 
                       EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                                 OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________


              HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 23, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-9

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-478 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------         
        
        
                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

               VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman

JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania             Virginia,
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                  Ranking Member
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
JIM BANKS, Indiana                     Northern Mariana Islands
JAMES COMER, Kentucky                FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  MARK TAKANO, California
BOB GOOD, Virginia                   ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
LISA McCLAIN, Michigan               MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MARY MILLER, Illinois                DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MICHELLE STEEL, California           PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
RON ESTES, Kansas                    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              LUCY McBATH, Georgia
KEVIN KILEY, California              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
AARON BEAN, Florida                  ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri              HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York           JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana

                       Cyrus Artz, Staff Director
              Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                      BOB GOOD, Virginia, Chairman

JOE WILSON, South Carolina           MARK DeSAULNIER, California
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                  Ranking Member
RICK ALLEN, Georgia                  JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
JIM BANKS, Indiana                   DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
JAMES COMER, Kentucky                SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
MICHELLE STEEL, California           PRAMILA, JAYAPAL, Washington
AARON BEAN, Florida                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
                        
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on May 23, 2023.....................................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

    Good, Hon. Bob, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 
      Labor, and Pensions........................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    DeSaulnier Hon. Mark, Ranking Member, Health, Employment, 
      Labor, and Pensions........................................     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     6

                               WITNESSES

    Miscimarra, Philip, A., Partner, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, 
      Senior Fellow, The Wharton School, University of 
      Pennsylvania...............................................     8
        Prepared statement of....................................    10
    Solem, Aaron, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal 
      Defense Foundation, Inc....................................    34
        Prepared statement of....................................    36
    Thompson, Angela, General Counsel, Communications Workers of 
      America (CWA)..............................................    55
        Prepared statement of....................................    57
    Leedy, Cecil, Founder, LEW Electrical Services, LLC..........    66
        Prepared statement of....................................    68

                         ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

    Chairman Good:
        Letter dated May 23, 2023, from Associated Builders and 
          Contractors............................................   101

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Response to question submitted for the record by:
        Angela Thompson..........................................   104

 
                     PROTECTING EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS:
                  ENSURING FAIR ELECTIONS AT THE NLRB

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, May 23, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and 
                                          Pensions,
                  Committee on Education and the Workforce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m., 
2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Good (Chairman of 
the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Good, Walberg, Allen, Banks, 
Smucker, Bean, Burlison, Houchin, Foxx, DeSaulnier, Courtney, 
Norcross, Mrvan, McBath, Hayes, Omar, and Scott.
    Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Mindy Barry, 
Deputy Communications Director; Jackson Berryman, Speechwriter; 
Michael Davis, Legislative Assistant; Cate Dillon, Director of 
Operations; Isabel Foster, Press Assistant; Sheila Havenner, 
Director of Information Technology; Trey Kovacs, Professional 
Staff Member; Hannah Matesic, Director of Member Services and 
Coalitions; Audra McGeorge, Communications Director; Dhrtvan 
Sherman, Minority Staff Assistant; Kyle deCant, Minority Senior 
Labor Policy Counsel; Ilana Brunner, Minority General Counsel; 
Stephanie Lalle, Minority Communications Director; Kota 
Mizutani, Minority Deputy Communications Director; Veronique 
Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; Banyon Vassar, Minority 
Deputy Director of Information Technology.
    Chairman Good. The Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 
Labor, and Pensions will come to order. I note that a quorum is 
present. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to call a 
recess at any time. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear 
testimony on protections for employee's rights, by ensuring 
fair elections at the National Labor Relations Board.
    Good morning everyone, especially to our witnesses. Thank 
you for being here, and welcome to today's hearing. The 
National Labor Relations Board was created by Congress to serve 
as a fair and neutral arbiter in resolving labor disputes 
between employers and employees.
    Sadly, the Biden administration has twisted it into a 
partisan attack dog for big labor interests. It wasn't supposed 
to be like this. In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor 
Relations Act to protect against unfair labor practices that 
existed at that time, and to supervise fair union elections.
    It created the NLRB with a clear purpose in mind. First, to 
be strictly nonpartisan, consisting of three impartial 
government members. Second, to be a quasi-judicial body, 
meaning it would base its rulings on formal records and 
administrative proceedings, and case law. Third, and finally, 
to act as an independent Federal agency.
    This is not how President Biden's NLRB functions today. The 
Biden administration started its historical politization of the 
agency when it fired Trump-nominated and Senate-confirmed 
General Counsel Peter Robb. No General Counsel had ever been 
fired in the 70-year history in the position until Biden came 
along.
    Robb was replaced by the hyper-partisan Jennifer Abruzzo, 
whose nomination forced a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. 
This, for a position that in years past was filled by neutral 
government employees. Abruzzo's roots as a union lawyer are in 
direct contrast with the agency's tradition.
    As you would expect, Abruzzo has continued the politization 
and weaponization of the NLRB. In an April 2022 memorandum, 
Abruzzo urged the Board to overturn a longstanding precedent 
regarding employer free speech. The precedent upheld an 
employer's right to hold meetings and educate workers on 
unionization.
    Speech, which is protected by the First Amendment in the 
plain text of the law. She argued that employer education was 
actually ``licensed to coerce''. Typical of left-wing 
activists, the NLRB did not want to allow workers to hear 
multiple perspectives, and make their own informed decisions.
    Abruzzo also fired a brief challenging the secret ballot 
process. She argued that signed authorization cards would be 
sufficient to qualify a union as the exclusive employee 
representative without giving employees the opportunity to 
actually vote.
    Card check, as it is called, is not a substitute for the 
electoral process, and the history of authorization cards is 
ripe with abuse from union organizers. Although private union 
membership has fallen to the lowest level since 1983, Abruzzo 
and the NLRB habitually overState unionization movements to gen 
up mass interests from their complicit media allies.
    For example, this administration would have you believe 
that every Starbucks in America is unionized, when only 304 of 
over 9,000 stores currently are unionized, or about 3 percent. 
Not only have a limited number of Starbucks actually unionized 
Starbucks stores, but employees have already begun to 
reconsider their decision to join a union and filed the 
petitions to remove Workers United in several Starbucks stores.
    All told, this administration's actions flip on its head 
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declaration that, ``Employees 
pick the union. The union does not pick the employees.'' The 
NLRA guarantees people the right to organize, but it stops 
there. It does not coerce people into organizing.
    Fundamentally, the NLRB's mass union drive turns on the 
question of choice. Do employers have a choice in what they can 
say to their employees? Do employees have the option not to 
join a union? Americans want options. We want to choose our 
physicians, our schools, our employment relations, and polling 
suggests that an overwhelming majority of union households 
support having more freedom to join or not to join.
    67 percent support the choice to resolve questions 
concerning union representation by secret ballot elections. 
Small businesses have been hit hard for the last several years, 
thanks to the Biden's shutdown of the economy over the China 
virus, crippling small businesses across Virginia's 5th 
congressional District and the country.
    The last thing American businesses need right now is for 
unelected bureaucrats to further undermine their efforts to 
survive. We are here today to discuss several important pieces 
of legislation. My Small Business Before Bureaucrats Act 
supports small business owners over anti-choice NLRB 
bureaucrats.
    It does this by finally updating the jurisdictional limits 
that govern when the NLRB can intervene in a business's 
affairs. Another key reform is the Employee Rights Act, 
introduced by Representative Allen, which gives employees more 
control over their personal data, guarantees the right to vote 
by secret ballot, and empowers them to decide how they spend 
their hard-earned paycheck.
    I look forward to discussing my legislation, Representative 
Allen's legislation, and other policy solutions with our expert 
witnesses today. Hopefully, we can reach a consensus on 
reversing the NLRB's disastrous political turn, and on 
protecting Americans' right to earn a living as they see fit. 
With that, I yield to our distinguished Ranking Member.
    [The statement of Chairman Good follows:]

     Statement of Hon. Bob Good, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, 
                    Employment, Labor, and Pensions

    The National Labor Relations Board was created by Congress to serve 
as a fair and neutral arbiter in resolving labor disputes between 
employers and employees. Sadly, the Biden administration has twisted it 
into a partisan attack dog for Big Labor interests.
    It was not supposed to be like this. In 1935, Congress passed the 
National Labor Relations Act to protect against unfair labor practices 
that existed at the time and supervise fair union elections. It created 
the NLRB with a clear purpose in mind:
    First, to be strictly non-partisan, consisting of three impartial 
government members.
    Second, to be a quasi-judicial body, meaning it would base its 
rulings on formal records in administrative proceedings and case law.
    Third and finally, to act as an independent federal agency. 
However, this is not how the Biden NLRB functions today.The Biden 
administration started its historical politicization of the agency when 
it fired Trump-nominated and Senate-confirmed General Counsel Peter 
Robb. No General Counsel had ever been fired in the 70-year history of 
the position until Biden came along.
    Robb was then replaced by hyper-partisan Jennifer Abruzzo, whose 
nomination forced a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. This for a 
position that in years past was filled by neutral government employees. 
Abruzzo's roots as a union lawyer are in direct contrast to the 
agency's tradition. As you would expect, Abruzzo has continued the 
weaponization of the NLRB.
    In an April 2022 memorandum, Abruzzo urged the Board to overturn a 
long-standing precedent regarding employer free speech. The precedent 
upholds an employer's right to hold meetings and educate workers on 
unionization-speech which is protected by the First Amendment and the 
plain text of the law. She argued that employer education was actually 
``license to coerce.''
    Typical of left-wing activists, the NLRB did not want to allow 
workers to hear multiple perspectives and make their own informed 
decisions.
    Abruzzo also filed a brief challenging the secret-ballot process. 
She argued that signed authorization cards would be sufficient to 
qualify a union as the exclusive employee representative without giving 
employees the opportunity to actually vote. Card check is not a 
substitute for the electoral process, and the history of authorization 
cards is ripe with abuse from union organizers.
    Although private union membership has fallen to the lowest level 
since 1983, Abruzzo and the NLRB habitually overstate unionization 
movements to gin up mass interest with their complicit media allies. 
For example, this administration would have you believe every Starbucks 
in America is unionized when only 304 of over 9,000 stores currently 
are, or about 3 percent. Not only have a limited number of Starbucks 
stores unionized, but employees have already begun to reconsider their 
decision to join a union and filed petitions to remove Workers United 
in several Starbucks stores.
    All told, this administration's actions flip on its head the D.C. 
Circuit Court of Appeals' declaration that ``the employees pick the 
union; the union does not pick the employees.'' The NLRA guarantees 
people the right to organize, but it stops there. It doesn not coerce 
people into organizing.
    Fundamentally, the NLRB's mass union drive is centered on the 
question of choice. Do employers have a choice in what they can say to 
their employees? Do employees have the option not to join a union?
    Americans want options. We want to choose our physicians, our 
schools, and our employment relations. Polling suggests that an 
overwhelming majority of union households support having more freedom 
to join or not join. 67 percent support the choice to resolve questions 
concerning union representation by secret ballot election.
    Small businesses have been hit hard the last several years, thanks 
to the Biden shutdown of the economy over the China Virus, crippling 
small businesses across Virginia's 5th Congressional District and the 
country. The last thing Americanbusinesses need right now is for 
unelected bureaucrats to undermine their efforts to survive.
    We are here today to discuss several important pieces of 
legislation. My Small Businesses Before Bureaucrats Act supports small 
business owners over anti-choice NLRB bureaucrats. It does this by 
updating the jurisdictional limits that govern when the NLRB can 
intervene in a business' affairs. Another key reform is the Employee 
Rights Act, introduced by Rep. Allen, which gives employees more 
control over their personal data, guarantees their right to vote by 
secret ballot, and empowers them to decide how they spend their hard-
earned paychecks.
    I look forward to discussing my legislation, Rep. Allen's 
legislation, and other policy solutions with our expert witnesses 
today. Hopefully we can reach a consensus on reversing the NLRB's 
disastrous political turn and protecting Americans' right to earn a 
living as they see fit.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will begin on 
your ending. It is my hope that in spite of our differences we 
can reach some conclusions that will help American workers. I 
remain hopeful that we can have a bipartisan agreement that 
Congress support American workers. Nothing is more important.
    However, I worry sometimes that our differences will be 
used in hearings like this, as an opportunity to undermine 
American workers and labor unions, and strip workers of their 
voice in the workplace. As a former small business owner in the 
service industry, having owned and managed restaurants for over 
30 years, I know how important my workers were to my success.
    You are not successful in the restaurant business as an 
independent restaurant owner without good relations with your 
workforce. As a former union member, I know just how critical 
labor unions have been, and continue to be for workers and 
their families, and our economy. Not just for members of labor 
unions, but for workers who benefit from labor unions who are 
not a member.
    It was workers in the labor movement who built the middle 
class by giving employees a voice on the job. Some of our 
Nation's greatest advances for workers from the 40-hour work 
week to the minimum wage have been made possible by the 
American labor movement.
    Today unions continue to organize and bargain for better 
working conditions for both union and non-union working 
Americans. Research consistently shows that when workers can 
exercise their right to organize, they have access to livable 
wages, better benefits, and a safer workplace.
    Moreover, unions help fuel economics mobility for 
underserved workers by narrowing the racial wealth gap and 
gender wage gap, which are right now amongst the highest in our 
history in this country. The need for labor unions has come to 
focus particularly as workers seek to reject the unfair working 
conditions that were worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic.
    In fact, according to a Gallup poll last August, more than 
70 percent of Americans approve of unions, the highest approval 
rating since 1965. In 2021, unions won 76 percent of all 
representation elections, the highest number of victories in 
nearly two decades.
    Workers, whether they are in the union or not, continue to 
turn to unions to secure the working conditions they deserve. 
Even as we see major unionizing campaigns across the country, 
organizing workers continue to face a slew of unfair labor 
practices by employers who take advantage of a weakness in our 
Federal labor law.
    Now, let me comment that that is not all employers. As a 
former employer, I want the bars the Chairman has alluded to, 
to be fair, for good employers, as well as not, for employers 
who take advantage of the situation. Between 2016 and 2021 
alone, more than 80 percent of employers conducted antiunion 
campaigns during union elections, including firing, organizing, 
closing stores, and reducing pay.
    Under President Biden, the National Labor Relations Board 
has taken key steps to hold these bad employers accountable for 
violating workers' rights, by undoing the dangerous precedent 
set by the Board under the previous administration. For 
instance, the Board restored the longstanding process for 
determining whether a bargaining unit is appropriate, after the 
Trump administration made it easier for bad employers to 
gerrymander elections against the workers and unions. The NLRB 
has ensured that union elections can be conducted by mail-in 
ballot after the previous administration suspended more than 
100 elections during the pandemic, rather than allow the use of 
mail ballots during the pandemic.
    The NLRB General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, is undertaking 
a historic effort to restore labor law's promise of full 
freedom of association. This includes ending the union busting 
tactic of captive audience meetings where employers force 
workers to listen to anti-union propaganda, or else face 
discipline and termination.
    The responsibility of protecting workers' rights also falls 
on us, Congress. That is why we must pass the Protecting Rights 
to Organize Act, or the PRO Act, which would secure the most 
significant upgrade to U.S. labor laws in nearly 80 years, to 
help good employers and good employees, and to punish 
unscrupulous employers who take advantage of the weakness all 
too often in our system for the workforce.
    The PRO Act would finally set penalties for employers, bad 
employers, who violate workers' rights, require workers whose 
rights have been violated to temporarily be reinstated while 
their cases are pending, and ensure unions can collect fair 
share dues from all workers who are obligated to be 
represented.
    We must also continue working to address the severe 
underfunding that has left the NLRB without the resources it 
needs to respond to the surge in worker organizing.
    In closing, I want to remind my colleagues of one of my 
favorite Republican Presidents, and his quote, Dwight D. 
Eisenhower said in 1952, when our economy was booming, and more 
than 1 in 3 private sector workers were unionized, and the 
American GDP was at historic levels, and everyone, all 
Americans, benefited.
    President Eisenhower said, ``Only a fool would try to 
deprive working men and women of the right to join a union of 
their choice.'' What President Eisenhower understood then, and 
what we cannot forget now, is that labor unions are our most 
effective tool to ensure that all workers, union and non-union, 
have a voice in the workplace.
    Anyone who believes we can simply count on the good faith 
of every employer, particularly employers who are unscrupulous, 
to uphold their responsibility to workers is ignoring the 
reality that workers face every day and is ignoring American 
history. These workers are counting on us to guarantee their 
right to form a union and negotiate for better working 
conditions.
    Today, I hope we can together, in spite of our differences, 
work to help to deliver on that responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    [The statement of Ranking Member DeSaulnier follows:]

  Statement of Hon. Mark DeSaulnier, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
                Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will begin on your ending. It is my hope 
that, in spite of our differences, we can reach some conclusions that 
will help American workers.
    I remain hopeful that we can have a bipartisan agreement that 
Congress should support workers-nothing is more important. However, I 
worry, sometimes, that our differences will be used in hearings like 
this as an opportunity to undermine American workers and labor unions 
and strip workers of their voice in the workplace.
    As a former small business owner in the service industry, I have 
owned and managed restaurants for over 30 years--I know how important 
my workers were to my success. You are not successful in the restaurant 
business as an independent restaurant owner without good relations with 
your workforce.
    As a former union member, I know just how critical labor unions 
have been, and continue to be, for workers and their families and our 
economy--not just for members of labor unions, but for workers who 
benefit from labor unions who are not members.
    It was workers in the labor movement who built the middle class by 
giving employees a voice on the job. Some of our nation's greatest 
advances for workers--from the forty-hour work week to the minimum 
wage--have been made possible by the labor movement.
    Today, unions continue to organize and bargain for better working 
conditions for both union and non-union working Americans.
    Research consistently shows that, when workers can exercise their 
right to organize, they have access to livable wages, better benefits, 
and a safer workplace. Moreover, unions help fuel economic mobility for 
underserved workers by narrowing the racial wealth gap and gender wage 
gap, which are, right now--among the highest in the history of our 
country.
    The need for labor unions has come into focus, particularly as 
workers seek to reject the unfair working conditions that were worsened 
by the COVID-19 pandemic.
    In fact, according to a Gallup poll last August, more than 70 
percent of Americans approve of unions--the highest approval rating 
since 1965. In 2021, unions won 76 percent of all representation 
elections--the highest number of victories in nearly two decades.
    Workers, whether they are in a union or not, continue to turn to 
unions to secure the working conditions they deserve.
    Even as we see major unionizing campaigns across the country, 
organizing workers continue to face a slew of unfair labor practices by 
employers who take advantage of weaknesses in our federal labor law.
    Now, let me comment that that is not all employers. As a former 
employer, I want the bars--that the Chairman has alluded to--to be fair 
for good employers as well as not for employers who take advantage of 
the situation.
    Between 2016 and 2021, alone, more than 80 percent of employers 
conducted anti-union campaigns during union elections, including firing 
organizers, closing stores, and reducing pay.
    Under President Biden, the National Labor Relations Board has taken 
key steps to hold these bad employers accountable for violating 
workers' rights by undoing the dangerous precedents set by the Board 
under the previous administration.
    For instance, the Board restored the longstanding process for 
determining whether a bargaining unit is appropriate, after the Trump 
administration made it easier for employers to gerrymander elections 
against the workers in unions.
    The NLRB has ensured that union elections can be conducted by mail-
in ballot after the previous administration suspended more than 100 
elections during the pandemic rather than allow the use of mail ballots 
during the pandemic.
    NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo is undertaking a historic 
effort to restore labor law's promise of ``full freedom of 
association.'' This includes ending the union-busting tactic of captive 
audience meetings, where employers force workers to listen to anti-
union propaganda or else face discipline and termination.
    The responsibility of protecting workers' rights also falls on us--
Congress. That is why we must pass the Protecting the Right to Organize 
Act, or the PRO Act, which would secure the most significant upgrade to 
U.S. labor law in nearly 80 years-to help good employers and good 
employees and to punish unscrupulous employers who take advantage of 
the weakeness, all too often, in our system for the workforce.
    This PRO Act:
 Finally sets penalties for bad employers who violate workers' rights;
 Requires workers whose rights have been violated to be temporarily 
reinstated while their cases are pending; and,
 Ensures unions can collect ``fair share'' dues from all workers who 
are obligated to be represented.
    We must also continue working to address the severe underfunding 
that has left the NLRB without the resources it needs to respond to the 
surge in worker organizing.
    In closing, I want to remind my colleagues of what one of my 
favorite Republican presidents said in his quote, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 
said in 1952 when our economy was booming, and more than one in three 
private sector workers were unionized, and the American GDP was at 
historic levels, and everyone--all Americans--benefited. President 
Eisenhower said, ``Only a fool would try to deprive working men and 
women of the right to join the union of their choice.''
    What President Eisenhower understood then, and what we cannot 
forget now, is that labor unions are our most effective tool to ensure 
that all workers, union and non-union, have a voice in the workplace. 
Anyone who believes we can simply count on the good faith of every 
employer, particularly employers who are unscrupulous, to uphold their 
responsibility to workers is ignoring the reality that workers face 
every day and is ignoring our history.
    These workers are counting on us to guarantee their right to form a 
union and negotiate for better working conditions.
    Today, I hope we can come together, in spite of our differences, 
work to help deliver on that responsibility. I yield back.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Ranking Member DeSaulnier. I will 
now turn to--I am sorry. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c), all 
members who wish to insert written statements into the record 
may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk 
electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m., 14 days 
after the date of the hearing, which is June 6, 2023.
    Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 
14 days to allow such statements, and other extraneous material 
referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the official 
hearing record.
    Now we will turn to the introduction of our distinguished 
witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Philip Miscimarra, who is a 
partner at Morgan Lewis, and former Chairman of the NLRB under 
President Obama and President Trump.
    Our second witness is Mr. Aaron Solem, who is a Staff 
Attorney with the National Right to Work Defense Foundation. 
Our third witness is Ms. Angela Thompson, who is the General 
Counsel at the Communication Workers of America. Our fourth 
witness is Mr. Cecil Leedy, who is an electrician by trade, and 
a former small business owner from Tampa, Florida.
    He now serves on the Board of Directors of LEW Electrical 
Services. Again, thank you to all the witnesses for being here 
today. We look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to Committee 
rules, I would ask that each of you limit your oral 
presentation to a 5-minute summary of your written statement. I 
would like to also remind the witnesses to be aware of your 
responsibility to provide accurate information to this 
Subcommittee, and we will first recognize Mr. Philip 
Miscimarra, and if you may proceed.

 STATEMENT OF MR. PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, PARTNER, MORGAN LEWIS, 
                       BETHESDA, MARYLAND

    Mr. Miscimarra. Chairman Good, Ranking Member DeSaulnier 
and other members, it is an honor to be here. I am a partner at 
Morgan Lewis and Bockius and I previously served as Chairman 
and a Board member on the National Labor Relations Board. I am 
a fan of the NLRB.
    My career does not go all the way back to 1935 when 
Congress adopted the National Labor Relations Act, but I have 
spent 40 years making the Act my primary focus. I respect the 
NLRB Chairman, the other Board members, the General Counsel, 
and the Agency's talented career professionals.
    Everybody agrees the NLRB has four responsibilities. First, 
Congress created the NLRA and only Congress can change it. I 
stated in my confirmation hearing labor law policy originates 
with Congress, not with members of the NLRB.
    Second, the NLRB is constrained by the Constitution. Third, 
the NLRB must be neutral. Fourth, employee free choice is the 
bedrock underlining the NLRA. Vince Lombardi used to say 
winning is not everything, it is the only thing. In the NLRA 
Congress did make employee free choice everything.
    Unfortunately, several NLRB developments have been 
inconsistent with these responsibilities. One problem involves 
pending cases where the General Counsel argues employers 
inherently violate the law merely by discussing union issues at 
work. These cases violate the First Amendment, and they ignore 
a provision that Congress added in 1947, Section 8(c), which 
restored employer free speech rights that the NLRB previously 
tried to take away.
    A second problem is equally inexplicable. The NLRB is 
prosecuting cases that claim its unlawful for union 
representation to depend on an NLRB conducted election. 
Instead, the General Counsel argues every employer must 
immediately recognize a union that states it receives signed 
cards from a majority of employees.
    The only exception would be the rare case where an employer 
can prove that good faith reasons indicate the union does not 
have majority support. On this front 3 years ago, Congress 
adopted the USMCA government trade with Mexico, which requires 
employees in Mexico to be protected by ``a secret ballot 
vote'', whenever a union demands representation.
    This makes it unimaginable that the NLRB in this country is 
prosecuting claims premised on U.S. employees no longer having 
any secret ballot election protection, except in very rare 
cases. A third problem involves significant irregularities, 
ballots not being counted, and secret arrangements for union 
supporters to vote privately at NLRB offices, which were 
documented last August in a number of NLRB elections.
    Nobody knows how widespread these problems are, and some 
were only disclosed by an NLRB insider who invoked 
whistleblower protection. I will end with one final point. This 
Committee and others in Congress worked hard to produce the 
National Labor Relations Act.
    John F. Kennedy was a House member in 1947 on this 
Committee, who worked on the Taft-Hartley Amendments. He wrote 
his own supplemental minority report supporting the change, 
which became Section 8(c) Restoring Employer Free Speech Rights 
in the Workplace.
    By 1959 he was Senator Kennedy, he chaired the Conference 
Committee that approves the Landrum-Griffin Act amendments, and 
he emphasized the importance of the NLRB secret ballot 
elections, including election campaigns where ``both parties 
can present their viewpoints.''
    These statements were made by one of the country's most 
passionate labor advocates, and he became President of the 
United States. It is hard to believe the NLRB now applying the 
same law claims NLRB secret ballot elections should not even 
occur, except in rare cases, and employer discussions about 
unions are inherently unlawful.
    My friends and former colleagues at the NLRB have important 
work to do. Congress makes the rules, and everyone, including 
the NLRB needs to follow them. Thank you, and I welcome any 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Miscimarra follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Miscimarra. Now we recognize 
Mr. Aaron Solem for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF MR. AARON SOLEM, STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIONAL RIGHT TO 
      WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA

    Mr. Solem. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
you today. I have been practicing labor and Constitutional law 
for over a decade on behalf of the individual employees at the 
National Right for Legal Defense Foundation. Since its 
inception in 1968 the Foundation provides free legal aid to 
employees, who wish to exercise their rights to refrain from 
joining or assisting labor organizations, and to freely choose 
whether or not to be represented by such organizations.
    Now the principal purpose of the National Labor Relations 
Act is to protect employee free choice. The Act gives employees 
an equal right to choose to join a union, and to refrain from 
joining a union. Former Chairman Miscimarra did an excellent 
job in his oral testimony and his written testimony describing 
the Joy Silk regime, that the General Counsel is attempting to 
bring back.
    I want to address what happens during a card check drive, 
and how hard it is for employees to get a secret ballot 
election to certify a union. In a card check, an employee can 
be cornered by a unionizer at work or home. It can be one 
organizer, but sometimes it is more, two or three. They present 
a card to the employee asking them to authorize the union to 
become the monopoly representative.
    There are many documented cases where employees are 
threatened, pressured, harassed, and tricked into signing 
cards. The union organizer may cajole the employee by telling 
them that the card is just for more information, or just for an 
election. The organizer can tell them that a majority of 
employees have already signed and that the other employees will 
know if they do not sign.
    Worse, organizers have made threats of violence to 
employees who may not wish to sign. This is a coercive conduct 
that would not occur when someone is looking over a secret 
ballot at a NLRB conducted election. For example, the following 
activity is not allowed in Board conducted secret ballot 
elections.
    Prolonged conversations with prospective voters in the 
polling area by union or employer representatives. 
Electioneering among employees waiting in line to vote, speech 
making by a union or employer to mass groups within 24 hours of 
the election. A union or employer keeping a list of employees 
who have voted as they enter the polling place other than the 
official eligibility list, and a union or employer handling 
ballots.
    Similar conduct occurs by union organizers at every single 
card check campaign, a place where the union confronts an 
employee with the option to sign an authorization card is the 
functional equivalent of the ballot box of the polling place. 
When an employee signs or refuses to sign an authorization 
card, he or she is not likely to be alone. This decision is 
made in the presence of, like I said, one or more union 
organizations.
    This will also likely occur after--it could occur after a 
union mass meeting. In either event, the employee's decision is 
not secret as in a board-conducted election, because the union 
knows who signed and who did not. Now the General Counsel is 
working hand in hand with the Board to ensure that it is easy 
to get a union in through card check, but hard to get the union 
out.
    After a union is recognized, if employees want to exercise 
their right to a secret ballot, they are barred by the Board's 
proposed rule, which brings back in full force the voluntary 
recognition bar. This means that an employee cannot file a 
decertification election for 6 months and up to 1 year after 
voluntary recognition.
    Similarly, if the union and employer sign a contract, the 
contract bar will bar decertification election for up to 3 
years. After a card check and a mandatory recognition under the 
Joy Silk regime, there may be a bar for employees seeking 
election for up to 4 years.
    Similarly, the Board is bringing back the repudiated and 
heavily criticized blocking charge policy. Under the blocking 
charge policy, a union can block an election simply by filing 
an unproven, meritless charge to halt an election. The prior 
Board, under the leadership of Chairman Ring, modified the 
blocking charge policy to remove its worst excesses, and ensure 
that most decertification elections proceed to a prompt vote.
    The blocking charge reforms have been a success. Most of 
the employees I represent can now file and promptly receive 
timely decertification elections. The reforms have not been 
perfect, but bringing back the blocking charge policy will be a 
massive loss for employee free choice, the principal purpose of 
the Act.
    In closing, card checks, mandatory recognitions, election 
bars, and blocks undermine an employee's right to refrain from 
unionization. This Committee should take action to ensure every 
employee receives a secret ballot, and unions can no longer 
unilaterally halt the certification elections from occurring. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Solem follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Solem. Now we will recognize 
Ms. Angela Thompson for your testimony.

      STATEMENT OF MS. ANGELA THOMPSON, GENERAL COUNSEL, 
      COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Ms. Thompson. Good morning, Chairman Good, Ranking Member 
DeSaulnier, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify. My name is Angela Thompson, and I am a 
General Counsel for the Communications Workers of America.
    Before I became a labor lawyer, before I was CWA's lawyer, 
I was a proud member of the CWA as a customer sales and service 
representative for Bell Atlantic in a call center in New 
Jersey. I used the educational benefits under our union 
contract to get a master's degree, which set me on the path to 
my current career. Even before that, I was a little black girl 
living in poverty in rural Illinois, moving between housing 
projects and trailer parks.
    I doubt I would be here today with you were it not for 
stability and opportunity provided by my mom thankfully getting 
a good union job. I am concerned by the misguided idea that 
somehow the Board's efforts to fulfill its statutory mission to 
engage workers to organize in a fair and efficient way are 
invalid or wrong.
    To the contrary, we should make the process of forming a 
union easier, not harder. I want to highlight some specific 
actions that the Board is taking to ensure that employer 
interference and bureaucratic red tape do not stand in the way 
of workers' decision to organize.
    Since the Act was passed, workers have always been able to 
obtain union recognition based on a showing of majority support 
within their workplace, and not exclusively through a Board 
election.
    The Board and its General Counsel are currently working to 
make it easier to designate a union representative, if that is 
what a majority of workers want. Attacks on voluntary 
recognition are also an attack on the ability of responsible 
employers to run their businesses as they see fit.
    For example, Microsoft remained neutral and allowed workers 
to make their own decision about whether or not to join the 
union when videogame workers at its ZeniMax Studios announced 
that they were organizing. The company swiftly recognized 
ZeniMax Workers United CWA after a neutral third party 
confirmed that the majority of workers favored joining the 
union.
    There are many reasons why a company might choose to 
voluntarily recognize a union. The idea that the Board would 
establish policies designed to deter employers like Microsoft 
from remaining neutral, is not only an intrusive way of 
micromanaging how companies run their businesses, but is also 
contrary to the commands of the Act.
    Also, the Board is reassessing the legality of coercive 
mandatory captive audience meetings that employers force 
employees to attend in order to disseminate aggressive 
antiunion propaganda. Decisively prohibiting this type of 
coercion would go a long way in restoring worker freedom in 
representation elections.
    There is an implicit right protected by the Act to refrain 
from receiving information supporting, or opposing, the 
decision to engage in collective bargaining. I agree that it is 
inherently coercive and unlawful for employers to force workers 
to attend antiunion meetings and to discipline them for failing 
to do so.
    One issue preventing the Board from conducting free and 
fair elections is a lack of funding. Although the recent 
increase in funding will allow the Board to continue its 
critical operations, and prevent furloughs, the Board remains 
understaffed after almost a decade of flat funding.
    The lack of timely decisions by an understaffed Board can 
have a chilling effect on organizing efforts. I am alarmed by 
the 22 percent cut to nondefense discretionary spending in the 
Default on America Act. A funding cut for the Board of that 
magnitude would wipe out last year's increase twice over and 
prevent the Board from timely fulfilling its statutory duties.
    The biggest problem standing in the way of free and fair 
representation elections is employer interference with worker 
decisions. Employers are charged with violating the law in 
nearly 42 percent of all union organizing campaigns, which 
makes free and fair elections impossible.
    For example, Apple illegally fired five workers who 
supported a union organizing drive in Kansas City. This came 
after Apple interrogated workers regarding their support for 
the union, promised improved working conditions if they 
declined to support the union, and threatened workers with 
worsened workplace conditions if they continued to organize.
    Despite the intent of the Act, in most organizing drives, 
workers face extreme intimidation from employers and hired 
antiunion consultants. As such, the most important thing that 
Congress can do to ensure free and fair representation 
elections is to act to prevent employer intimidation by passing 
the Protecting the Right to Organize Act.
    The PRO Act comprehensively restores the Act to fulfill its 
purpose of protecting the rights of the workers to combat power 
imbalances by engaging in collective bargaining.
    In closing, I urge the Subcommittee to support the Board's 
ongoing efforts to fulfill its statutory mission as mandated by 
Congress, and to provide the Board with the resources and tools 
needed to better ensure that the rights of all workers to 
decide whether or not to organize free from employer 
intimidation are protected.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 
I look forward to any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Thompson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Ms. Thompson. Now we will 
recognize our final witness, who has actually been a small 
business owner. Mr. Leedy, you may begin.

     STATEMENT OF MR. CECIL LEEDY, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, LEW 
              ELECTRICAL SERVICES, TAMPA, FLORIDA

    Mr. Leedy. Thank you, Chairman Good, Ranking Member 
DeSaulnier, and members of the Subcommittee. It is my privilege 
to testify here today on the hearing of Protected Employee 
Rights and Ensuring Fair Elections in the NLRB.
    My name is Cecil Leedy, and I am the Founder of LEW 
Electrical Services, a small contractor in Tampa, Florida. I am 
here today on behalf of Independent Electrical Contractors, as 
the 2023 National President, and my local chapter Florida West 
Coast, based in Clearwater.
    The Independent Electrical Contractors is an association of 
52 chapters with almost 4,000 members, and we are training 
16,000 apprentices this year. My grandfather, and my father, 
were both electricians in the coal mines of Pennsylvania. My 
father relocated to Florida, and ultimately started an 
electrical contracting company.
    After graduating from college on a Saturday, I started work 
on Monday morning. Last year, on January 22, my three children 
bought me out, and I now work for them. IEC is deeply concerned 
about the efforts of the NLRB to impose policies that would 
restrict the ability of the merit shop electrical contractors, 
like mine, from being able to have open conversations with 
their team about prospects of joining a union or voting to be 
represented by one.
    Communications with employees is critical in any business, 
especially a small merit shop electrical contractor. Merit shop 
contracting firms have daily conversations with their employees 
about safety, customer service, best practices, and how to 
improve the operation, and mine is no exception.
    Sometimes included in these conversations, we will discuss 
issues as they relate to the merit shop philosophy when 
compared to the union model. We take time to explain to our 
employees that the team, merit shop, and what it means to their 
careers within the company and the industry.
    We talk about the opportunities that merit shop contractors 
offer their team to progress in their careers based on the 
quality of their work and the potential to quickly advance in 
the industry as it aligns with their career aspirations.
    Whether that means taking on additional responsibility to 
mentor or oversee apprentices or advance into the position of 
foreman, estimator, project manager, they have the ability to 
progress in their careers as they desire.
    Unfortunately, the NLRB is seeking to pursue policies that 
would limit the ability of merit shop contractors to maintain 
this level of open communication as protected by the First 
Amendment of the Constitution, seeking to limit the ability of 
merit shop contractors to provide their perspective, and their 
side of the story to their workforce flies in the fact of 
common sense.
    When confronted with the question of what it means to be an 
electrician within a union, or a merit shop setting, employees 
should naturally have access to the pros and cons of each in 
order to assess what is best for them. IEC takes issue with the 
notion that businesses should somehow not be permitted to 
engage in this conversation with those that they employ.
    IEC also has concerns about the NLRB seeking to implement 
policies leading to the elimination of the secret ballot. For 
union elections, we adamantly believe in the freedom of our 
electricians to decide for themselves which career path is best 
for them.
    However, should employees want to consider union 
representation, we believe they have the right to decide this 
within the confines of the secret ballot process free from 
coercion, intimidation, as secret ballot is the hallmark of our 
democracy through which important decisions are made without 
undue influence by others.
    The same should be the case for the workers choosing 
between union representation and the merit shop. We hope the 
NLRB abandons its efforts to both limit employer speech and 
eliminate the secret ballot for union elections. Thank you, and 
I look forward to taking any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Leedy follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Good. Thank you so much Mr. Leedy for your 
testimony. Under Committee Rule 9, we will now question 
witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I will wait to ask my 
questions at the end, and therefore we will recognize 
Congressman Walberg from the great State of Michigan for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From the great State 
of Michigan, and sadly, former right to work State. I thank the 
witnesses, each of you, for being here today. The National 
Labor Relations Act, and subsequent amendments provide a level 
playing field between employers and union leaders.
    The National Labor Relations Board was created to maintain 
the balance Congress established in the law, protect worker 
free choice, and serve as an unbiased judge over labor 
disputes. Mr. Miscimarra, recently, and it is good to see you 
again.
    Mr. Miscimarra. Nice to see you again, Congressman.
    Mr. Walberg. Recently, the Board ruled against employers 
who have attempted to limit divisive political speech, and 
create a harmonious working environment through their uniform 
and book policies. How does weakening employer's ability to 
enforce neutral standards aimed at fostering harmonious 
workplace effect, harm employees who have no interest in 
engaging with political or social labor speech?
    Mr. Miscimarra. Well thanks for asking that question, 
Congressman Walberg, and I have strong feelings about this 
area, because the case that you have mentioned I participated 
in, the case when I served on the NLRB called William Beaumont 
Hospital. In that case, it was an acute care hospital. The 
actors in the hospital were in the labor delivery room, and 
there was a full-term healthy baby that was delivered, and then 
unexpectedly died.
    It turned out the investigation in that case revealed that 
the baby's death resulted from the failure of employees to 
cooperate with one another, and to provide assistance when 
requested. Even in that context, my counterparts on the Board 
concluded that the hospital's code of conduct, which stated 
that physicians and employees had to foster harmonious 
interactions and relationships.
    That is the quote that you used. That was found to violate 
Federal law, even in the context of acute care hospital with a 
baby whose tragic death resulted from the failure of employees 
to cooperate with one another.
    I think this is an area where at least under current law, 
in a case called Boeing, in which I participated in, when the 
Board is dealing with facially neutral work rules or employment 
policies, or employee handbook provisions, the NLRB under a 
Boing standard considers two things.
    One is the possibility that a particular rule might impede 
or obstruct protected conduct under the National Labor 
Relations Act, and that is very important to consider. But the 
second thing that the Board would consider under the Boeing 
standard is the rational and reasonable legitimate 
justification associated with a particular rule.
    The Board has currently invited supplemental briefing and 
public briefing on the possibility of changing the Boeing 
standard, and possibly going back to the same type of standard 
that resulted in the invalidation of the hospital's code of 
conduct that I described.
    I think that would be a mistake, and this is a very 
important area.
    Mr. Walberg. Yes. I appreciate that. Let me ask you, in 
looking at recent memoranda, and NLRB's agenda items, it is 
clear that General Counsel Abruzzo is disregarding the plain 
text of the NLRA and Supreme Court precedent in order to tilt 
the scales in favor of unions and undermine employee free 
choice and employer rights.
    Can you discuss the kinds of reforms, briefly as possible, 
this Committee should consider to ensure the NLRB respects the 
laws Congress has enacted, and restore balance to NLRB?
    Mr. Miscimarra. Well, I think, Congressman Walberg, and I 
will make this short, it's very important. There are a range of 
cases where Board members and the General Counsel may disagree, 
but we are talking about with respect to the current Board and 
the two issues that I mentioned in particular, restrictions on 
employer speech, and also the Board's actions in other areas to 
really be very aggressive in ways that are directly contrary to 
either statutory language, or what Congress has done.
    I think it does a disservice, particularly because of the 
time associated with litigating those issues. There are some 
options that are available to Congress. There is the Employee 
Access to Justice Act, or EAJA, that for small employers--the 
small businesses can provide a remedy if the government's 
position is not substantially justified. I think that would 
make some sense for Congress to explore.
    The other thing is the courts are now, I think, going to 
get into the Act, and there are two recent Supreme Court cases, 
one of which suggests parties, when they are dealing with 
constitutional issues before an agency, do not have to wait for 
the agency proceedings to be completed before they can get 
relief in Federal District Court, but I think it is an issue 
that requires attention, both by Congress, as well as the 
courts.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you. My time has expired and so I yield 
back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Congressman Walberg. We will now 
recognize Congressman Courtney from Connecticut for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Courtney. Great, thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to the witnesses for being here today. Mr. Good in his opening 
remarks, cited some polling on unions. I would like to add to 
that discussion by just pointing out that really the longest 
standing poll measurement of unions in our country is the 
Gallup poll, which starting in 1937, tracked approval of labor 
unions.
    The most recent Gallup poll recorded an almost record 
number of 71 percent approval rating by the American people. 
When Mr. Miscimarra was working at the NLRB, that was at 48 
percent, so in my opinion, I cite that just because that shows 
that Gallup is not, sort of putting its finger on the scale, 
but clearly, we are at a moment right now where for probably a 
lot of reasons we could discuss and debate, the American people 
now recognize that actually unions are important.
    I personally believe it is because we are also living in a 
time of record income inequality. Every international 
measurement shows that we have the highest level of income 
inequality of any developed nation. The U.N. came out with a 
report that verified that recently.
    We are also seeing a shrinking middle class, which I think 
is a red flashing signal about the stability of a democracy, 
which I think a strong middle class is essential. Again, I have 
a question for Ms. Thompson, but before I get into that I 
wanted to just sort of followup on Mr. Miscimarra's comments 
regarding the Starbucks case, and just want to remind my 
colleagues, and State for the record that this was actually 
discussed in great depth in last Congress. We had a full 
committee hearing, and during that hearing the former NLRB 
Chairman, Mark Pearce, explicitly stated and reminded us that 
there is a pending Inspector General investigation that is 
still ongoing, which is a good thing.
    The IG's office is the gold standard, in terms of a 
neutral, independent evaluation, and the NLRB itself also has 
procedures for resolving election objections, many of which in 
those cases are also pending right now regarding the Starbucks 
organizing drives. If there is merit to these allegations, then 
the IG and the agency will inform us, and have the power to 
address them, but it is not our job to intervene in pending 
cases.
    Ms. Thompson, along some of the same lines, my colleagues 
on the Republican side have complained about the NLRB's use of 
mail ballots in the election process, expressing concerns that 
voter participation is lower than it is when an election occurs 
on an employer's premises.
    However, data from the NLRB reveals that participation in 
mail ballot elections actually has dramatically increased in 
the last 3 years. Mail ballots enable voters a safe, flexible 
way to vote outside the building of where their employer may 
have conducted an antiunion campaign, but we still have a 10-
year-old appropriations rider that prevents the Board from even 
considering the use of safe, electronic voting.
    How would lifting that rider protect workers' freedom of 
association?
    Ms. Thompson. Sure. Thank you for that question. Lifting 
the rider on electronic elections. Now that many workers are 
increasingly working remotely, providing an option to hold 
electronic elections would mean that elections could be held 
securely and efficiently. Ensuring that the elections can be 
held is especially important, giving the ongoing funding 
crisis, in an efficient manner, that continues to stand in the 
way of counting elections for the Board to protect worker's 
rights.
    We know that these elections can be done electronically in 
a way that is safe and secure, via electronic means, because we 
have got the example of the National Mediation Board, of 
successfully conducting union representation elections in that 
way for nearly two decades.
    Mr. Courtney. Well, thank you for that answer. You are 
absolutely right. The technology is there. This is not some 
impossible question of cybersecurity or anything, and again, 
agencies have already used that method in other places. Again, 
having an election which does not take place, you know, where 
you actually have a party that is contesting the election.
    That is like saying we should hold elections for Congress 
in Democratic party headquarters. I do not think my friends 
would really appreciate that, nor would we the other way. You 
should have neutral systems, so that people can again comply 
with the spirit and the letter of the National Labor Relations 
Act for free and fair elections, devoid of any pressure.
    Mr. Miscimarra, I just want to--as somebody who was 
actually at the Board, we are at a point right now where the 
NLRB's field offices are 50 percent lower in terms of staffing, 
than they were in 2002. We just gave a small boost to the 
budget. Do you support having more funds available to staff 
offices, you know, in complaints with past patterns?
    Mr. Miscimarra. Well, I am supportive of the NLRB 
personnel, and it is true that the Board's funding was flat. I 
think it was 274 million dollars for many, many years, and the 
Board did just get an increase. I think there is a balance 
between supporting the agency, and the agency does very, very 
important work, especially in the field offices, but I do not 
mean to discount what happens in Washington, DC.
    By the same token, the Board has made some choices in terms 
of policy issues that I think most people, or many people would 
regard as peripheral to the focus of the National Labor 
Relations Act that has ended up causing the Board to end up 
addressing a significant number of issues, and significant 
resources, both in the cases of----
    Mr. Courtney. Well, I do not think cutting staff is the way 
to deal with policy disputes.
    Mr. Miscimarra. I am not suggesting that.
    Mr. Courtney. I know my time has expired and I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you very much. Now we will recognize 
Mr. Allen from the great State of Georgia.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our 
witnesses for being here with us today to talk about this 
important issue. Mr. Miscimarra, every Member of Congress is 
elected by secret ballot. House Democrats elect their own 
caucus leadership by secret ballot, and Democrats held up the 
U.S. MCA trade deal to guarantee that workers in Mexico have 
the right to a secret ballot.
    Apparently Democrats do not think that is the right that 
should be afforded to American workers. The Democrat's PRO Act, 
and the NLRB General Counsel, are working to overturn the 
precedent that protects their worker's right to decide union 
representation by secret ballot vote.
    The union fails to get enough votes in an initial secret 
ballot election, the PRO Act will make it easier for unions to 
organize by disputing the election results, and claiming the 
employer wrongfully interfered. My bill, The Employee Rights 
Act, guarantees workers the right to vote on questions of union 
representation by secret ballot.
    Can you discuss why secret ballot elections are more 
reliable gauges of employee free choice when compared to card 
check organizing campaigns?
    Mr. Miscimarra. Well, I think that experience has shown 
that the secret ballot elections, and the secrecy associated 
with everybody's vote is really a cornerstone on the National 
Labor Relations Act, and we live in a democratic society. You 
do not have to take my opinion because the Supreme Court in two 
different cases, one that was decided in 1969, and one was 
decided in 1974, both concluded that secret ballot elections 
were the preferred method of evaluating employee sentiments 
regarding union representation. Conversely, the Supreme Court 
in both of those cases indicated that authorization cards or 
signed cards or petitions, are admittedly inferior to secret 
ballot elections.
    You mentioned the USMCA, and I mentioned that in my opening 
statement. I think that it is surprising to me that the agency 
that Congress has charged with conducting secret ballot 
elections would then move in a direction of making secret 
ballot elections occur only in a very small number of cases.
    Mr. Allen. All right. Well, thank you. Mr. Solem, in the 
117th Congress, then President AFL-CIO Richard Trumka, 
testified to this Committee that unions need employees' 
private, personal information so unions can confront them, ``At 
home or at the grocery store.''
    House Democrats PRO Act would require that unions were 
given this information, including home address, cell phone 
number, personal email address, and more. Do you think workers 
want to be confronted by union organizers at home, or in public 
at the grocery store?
    Mr. Solem. Thank you for the question, Congressman. My 
answer is no. I do not think employees want to be confronted at 
home or at the grocery store, especially the employees that I 
represent. They simply want to refrain from unionization. Now, 
it is important to note that this kind of information that is 
given out by the NLRB when it comes to cell phones, email 
addresses, there is no limitation on the use. It can be used by 
unions, third parties who are strangers to the workplace, for 
any reason.
    As we know, over the past few years there have been 
multiple examples of people's personal information being 
misused.
    Mr. Allen. Right.
    Mr. Solem. Placing this out there could increase that risk.
    Mr. Allen. Well, data privacy is an important subject in 
this country right now, and it is a bipartisan issue. Is it 
pro-worker to force them to be subject to this against their 
will, or would they value the ability to choose what 
information is shared with the union, which my bill The 
Employer Rights Act, allows?
    Mr. Solem. That would enhance employee free choice, 
allowing employees the opportunity to opt out. Obviously, the 
purpose of the National Labor Relations Act is employee free 
choice. Sharing your personal information with a union that you 
may not want harms it, so yes.
    Mr. Allen. As you know, my home State of Georgia is a right 
to work State. This seems to be very common-sense labor law to 
me, as it allows Georgians to provide for their families 
without being forced to pay union membership dues as a 
condition of their employment.
    The Democrat's PRO Act would supersede right to work laws 
in 27 states in order to force Americans into paying union 
dues. Unions often claim they need to be able to force workers 
to pay union dues, in exchange for their representation. Can 
you explain the flaws in this argument?
    Mr. Solem. The flaw in that argument is that it is not free 
rider, it is a forced rider problem. The employees that I 
represent are represented by unions that they do not want, and 
they have never asked for. Instead of being taken on a free 
ride, they are taken on a forced ride.
    Now, as we have discussed today earlier in our written 
testimony, if they want to get rid of the unions it is very 
hard because of the NLRB's various blocks and bars, most of 
which are a non-statutory.
    Mr. Allen. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Allen. We will now recognize 
the gentlemen from the State where my family is from, Mr. 
Norcross, from the great State of New Jersey.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. It is good to be here today, and 
to have a conversation about giving Americans the choice. I 
think it is remarkably important. I see our one area that we 
should be focusing on is understanding what the American worker 
and the employer want to do collectively.
    Cecil, as you would understand, as I went from steel tips 
to wing tips, I am an electrician by trade, who did the 4-year 
apprenticeship program. Understanding the construction 
industry, and what goes on, is something that is near and dear 
to me as I have worked in it for 47 years.
    The construction industry, in its very nature, is 
different. We get sent to a job. You start from the ground up. 
You finish it, you move on. This is something that we have 
experienced through the history of the United States. Jobs are 
very specific for one single project. In 2020, the last 
administration, the Trump administration issued a rulemaking it 
more difficult to ensure that there is that stable bargaining 
group, that the people that are working on that construction 
job are being part of one group.
    When there are attempts to decertify, and they happen, that 
literally changes the way that the rules are being laid out and 
tilts the playing field. The Biden administration proposed to 
rescind that rule. Ms. Thompson, let me ask you, the NLRB rule 
that is being proposed here, why is that different in the 
construction industry?
    Essentially what can happen is that each constructionsite 
gets blended together with nothing more than people from 
different areas coming together. Could you explain to us why 
that is important about leveling the playing field?
    Ms. Thompson. Sure, sure. As you said, construction is 
different from many other industries, in that jobs are specific 
to a single project, or often very short term. The legal 
framework is somewhat different. The 2020 rule made no sense, 
honestly, because it would allow for election petitions to be 
filed against the union as soon as agreement is reached.
    Given the short nature of construction work, this system 
could basically force unions into an unending cycle of 
decertification petitions, even if there is no genuine reason 
to believe that the union lacks majority support.
    Mr. Norcross. We talk about the blocking charge, and that 
is the basis for one of the other changes that the Trump 
administration made. What it essentially says if there is a 
vote coming up, and there is an unfair labor practice, what 
would happen previously is things would stop until that 
happened.
    What changed is they allowed the election to go on even 
with that unfair labor practice, and then we will settle it 
later. The whole idea is nothing different than if we have an 
election in the United States, we immediately say it was not 
fair, let us go back. That is what we did. Exactly my point.
    We do not turn around elections. There is another time. 
This blocking issue that is going on literally would throw a 
roadblock into the ability to have a fair election. Talk to us 
about where the real-world implication is at, because at the 
end of the day, if there is an unfair labor practice that 
occurs by the employer, and I understand it still has to be 
approved, but the damage is done, and an election takes place.
    You are making your decision based on unfair and untrue 
issues. Can you explain to us why that would affect the outcome 
of an election?
    Ms. Thompson. Sure. You know the Board's rulemaking would 
return just an additional rule as you are saying, which says 
that if an employer violates workers' rights during the 
decertification campaign, then the workers can file a charge, 
and pause the petition until the charge is resolved.
    There is a couple benefits to that. I mean one is just that 
it ensures a decertification petition will not go through under 
circumstances that are tainted by the employer's unfair labor 
practices.
    At a time when the workers and decision in the secret 
ballot election is influenced by unlawful conduct by their 
employer. Then also, it preserves the Board's resources as the 
Board could answer critical questions about how to proceed 
before putting lots of resources and hold an election. They can 
actually answer the allegations of the unfair labor practice 
charge before putting the election before the workers.
    Mr. Norcross. I see that my time is running out. This is a 
rule that has been in place since the century's beginning, and 
it was reversing it, so we just want to level the playing 
field, and Chairman I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Norcross. We will now 
recognize Congressman Smucker from the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 
holding this hearing today. It has been a great discussion. Mr. 
Leedy, like Mr. Norcross, I have a background in the 
construction industry as well. I owned a drywall metal framing 
interiors company for 25 years prior to serving first in the 
State Senate, and then here at Congress.
    As you, I think, alluded to, or mentioned, we had several 
hundred employees, and always believed that in order for the 
company to succeed--for everyone to succeed together, we needed 
to create--it needed to be a team. So very, very proud of all 
of our team members, of the opportunity that we were able to 
provide, providing family sustaining jobs.
    Then, as you had mentioned, the opportunity to grow with 
the company as the company grew, created a lot of new 
opportunities for individuals whether it be foremen, project 
managers, estimators, and whatever it may be. It is one of the, 
I think, benefits of merit shop construction, which we had, and 
in fact it is one of the reasons why I like ESOPs so well.
    I think it is an opportunity to create that team where 
everyone benefits together when the company provides services 
that people want, and when the company does well together. I 
have, you know, I was a member of Associated Builders and 
Contractors, participated in their apprenticeship plans, 
actually saw your associations apprenticeship sites as well, 
and the great work that is being done there.
    We also--I am a member of the Ways and Means Committee. We 
have been looking at the labor force participation rate in the 
country, which has not yet quite come back to where it was pre-
pandemic. We need to do a better job of connecting people with 
the jobs that are out there, which is why I think construction 
provides so many great opportunities.
    I went through a number of union organizing campaigns 
myself in our company, and I saw a lot of bad behavior by union 
members. We had vandalism on our sites, we had a lot of 
coercion and threats and so on. Then I have also seen some 
really good union business managers who were there to just 
simply offer another choice for employees.
    I know most companies are great. Understand that 
relationship with their team members is really important, and 
then there could be bad company owners as well. When I first 
went to the State Senate, I fought unions a lot in my life as a 
construction company owner, and then went to the State Senate 
and worked with union representatives there on a bill that I 
thought was beneficial.
    It could be good and bad on either side. I think the most 
important concept is that employees should have a choice and 
should be able to get the information that they need to make 
those choices. I think--is it Mr. Solem?
    Mr. Solem. Solem.
    Mr. Smucker. Solem. I am sorry. Mr. Solem, you talked about 
the secret ballot elections. I think it is a fundamental 
principle in a democracy, and I think it is so important. Why 
is it that we would move to a system that moves away from that 
when employers are making, or employees are making a very 
important decision about what they want their workforce to look 
like? Why are we seeing a trend to--you mentioned a card 
election, why would that be?
    Mr. Solem. Thank you for your question. I mean just to 
speak about the importance of the secret ballot first. You 
know, the secret ballot protects privacy. It ensures that no 
one knows how you voted. It protects against intimidation. 
Finally, it is final.
    During a card check campaign someone could be solicited 
time, and time, and time again, until they finally give in, and 
they say oh, I will just sign the card. A secret ballot 
election puts it at the end. The reason you are seeing a turn 
away from the secret ballot, and toward something like 
mandatory recognition is that unions are afraid of elections, 
just like they are afraid of elections into certification 
elections, just like they want to bring back the blocking 
charge policy, just like they want to have recognition bars.
    The purpose of the Act is employee free choice, and all of 
these things undermine it.
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you, and I am already out of time. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Smucker. Now we will 
recognize Mr. Mrvan from Indiana for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to use a 
couple minutes and talk about the success of the Bluebird 
Corporation in Georgia, and their ability to unionize. Why that 
is important, or needs to be said, is because of the 
investments that were made through the administration in the 
last Congress in the Infrastructure Bill, in the Chips and 
Science Act, and also in the Inflation Reduction Act.
    There were incentives to that corporation, to that company 
that makes electric buses, that receives funding. They just 
recently voted 697 to about 435 to unionize, to make sure those 
members in a free election were able to decide to have better 
pay, to have mental health care and to have pensions.
    There are success stories of investments that we have made 
here in Congress. Through the administration, the State of 
Georgia will absolutely have spending over 51 million dollars 
in the transition of diesel busses to electric vehicles, and 
that will be over 1,300 people who work there, a better way of 
life, and which one of the reasons why I am here.
    To the United Steelworkers, and that organization, I want 
to say that collaborative effort is something that will better 
those people's lives. Mr. Solem, I have a quick question. You 
had talked about access to members' information when it comes 
to cell phones or at the grocery stores.
    Walk me through the right of an employer to be able to hire 
either a law firm, or an antiunion consultant, to work within a 
workspace. What rights do they have? What rights do the 
employees have if they do not want to have that confrontation?
    Mr. Solem. Congressman, I do not represent employers. I 
represent individual employees who simply exercise their rights 
under the Act. I think that question would probably be better 
given to a management attorney.
    Mr. Mrvan. With all your experience in 10 years, have you 
ever seen or heard of employers hiring a management consultant, 
that they did not want to have a union?
    Mr. Solem. Well obviously, that happens.
    Mr. Mrvan. Then the answer is yes.
    Mr. Solem. I cannot talk to you about what rights employers 
have because I do not represent employers.
    Mr. Mrvan. Right.
    Mr. Solem. The employees that I represent often want to 
hear both sides of an election. They want to hear from their 
employer. In fact----
    Mr. Mrvan. Those management consultants can speak to 
employees at the workplace?
    Mr. Solem. Yes.
    Mr. Mrvan. Do they have access to their information?
    Mr. Solem. I have no clue about that. I mean you can assume 
so.
    Mr. Mrvan. We can assume so.
    Mr. Solem. I do not know what individual----
    Mr. Mrvan. In a fair election, the employers, and also 
these management consultants who are there to make sure there 
is not a union, have access to people's addresses, to people's 
cell phone numbers, but what you are saying is unions should 
not have that because it is a right of privacy?
    Mr. Solem. Well, the union is a third party who does not 
represent anyone, yes, in elections.
    Mr. Mrvan. Are the consultants.
    Mr. Solem. The consultants are, as far as I understand, 
agents of the employer, so it is different. Your employer 
already has the access.
    Mr. Mrvan. An agent would be a third party.
    Mr. Solem. Right.
    Mr. Mrvan. They are not an employee, or management of that 
place, so it is a third party who has access to that same 
information. My only point is that in order to have a fair 
election we have to look at the other side, and so we 
constantly want to make sure that we have a fair and balanced 
election.
    My next question would be, the House Democrats introduced 
the PRO Act earlier this year in an effort to provide 
comprehensive labor law reform. Based on what you have seen in 
your career defending the right to organize, which provisions 
in the bill strike you as the most urgently needed?
    Ms. Thompson. Sure. Thank you for that. I just wanted to 
respond quickly to the previous colloquy and say that the union 
is the workers organizing themselves to represent themselves. 
To your point of the PRO Act, I think that there are a couple 
of things that, there is lots of good stuff in there, so 
everybody read it and vote for it. It is great stuff. There are 
a couple of things in particular that I think are really 
important.
    Employers do not face civil penalties for unfair labor 
practice violations, so it kind of makes the Act not as 
effective as it could or should be. Employers can violate the 
law with impunity, and in fact they do. I mentioned, as I 
mentioned in my testimony, the employers are charged with 
violating the law in nearly 40 percent of organizing campaigns.
    The punishment could be as low as posting a notice 
somewhere in the building, over the trash can in the break room 
to tell people, which I mentioned because it literally happened 
in a case I had where it was like, there was one copy by the 
trash can in the break room, after someone was terminated.
    The second thing I would say was banning mandatory captive 
audience meetings is crucial. The power imbalance of the boss 
lecturing and intimidating employees with anti-union 
propaganda, while employees can face discipline for leaving, 
makes elections inherently unfair if you are sort of captured 
by that kind of coercion and intimidation in the workplace.
    Mr. Mrvan. I thank you very much. With that I yield back, 
Chairman.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Mrvan. We will stay in the 
Hoosier State, and recognize Mr. Banks from Indiana.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2006, unions spent 
427 million dollars on political activities and lobbying. In 
2020, that number jumped to nearly 800 million dollars. Several 
million dollars that these unions have given away to groups 
like Planned Parenthood and the Center for American Progress. 
Ms. Thompson, why are labor unions funding pro-abortion groups 
like Planned Parenthood?
    Ms. Thompson. I am sorry. Would you repeat your question?
    Mr. Banks. Why do unions like yours donate money to Planned 
Parenthood, a pro-abortion group?
    Ms. Thompson. I mean, unions donate money based on, I mean, 
we are an organization of members. Right? Our members express a 
desire to fight for certain things. You know, they----
    Mr. Banks. What is the relationship between a labor union 
and supporting pro-abortion causes? I am just curious.
    Ms. Thompson. I mean our members receive services from 
Planned Parenthood. I mean, it is actually pretty simple. I 
mean we, you know, it is like our members are actual human 
beings.
    Mr. Banks. What about groups like the Center for American 
Progress, which is in support of gun control causes? What is 
the relationship between labor unions, giving millions of 
dollars to gun control causes?
    Ms. Thompson. What is the relationship between labor unions 
and gun control?
    Mr. Banks. Like, what is your interest as a labor union, in 
supporting gun control?
    Ms. Thompson. I mean, gun control laws affect our members. 
I mean, this is an issue that is going to affect our members. I 
mean, these are all societal issues that our members have to 
interact with on a daily basis.
    Mr. Banks. Do you believe--I am just curious. Do you 
believe most of your union members support gun control?
    Ms. Thompson. I have not talked to every union member. I 
know the members in my unions--I am sorry, excuse me. I know 
the members in my union.
    Mr. Banks. Your union gives money to--no, it is my time. 
Ma'am, it is my time. Your union gives millions of dollars. 
Yours and other unions give millions of dollars to causes that 
support gun control. Should I assume that that means that most 
of your members support gun control?
    Ms. Thompson. I would not assume anything. I would find 
out. I would dig around and find the facts. I ca not tell you. 
I do not have a piece of paper that tells me exactly how many 
members support gun control. It is an issue that comes up in 
our unions. It is something that affects our members, and so we 
try to fight for things that are going to make our members' 
lives better.
    Everyone, you know, part of union democracy is doing 
something that helps, you know, the majority of the members 
might want. When people are----
    Mr. Banks. It is really interesting. Your union, you are 
admitting that your union has a direct link to pro-abortion.
    Ms. Thompson. No.
    Mr. Banks. Gun control causes, that is what you just said.
    Ms. Thompson. No.
    Mr. Banks. You give--your union gives money to groups that 
support those causes.
    Ms. Thompson. No. You are saying that we donated money to 
those things, and I am saying that, without being able to 
actually call our Secretary Treasurer's Office and verify that, 
perhaps that is true. I actually do not know whether what you 
are saying is true or not, to be perfectly honest. I would not 
say that we support those organizations.
    Mr. Banks. Well, it was interesting you defended it. I 
mean, I think I mean that is obvious. Mr. Solem, I mean what is 
the relationship between labor unions, political giving, to 
causes like Planned Parenthood and gun control causes? I mean 
why would a labor union funnel money to causes like that?
    Mr. Solem. Labor unions are political organizations that 
have become more political over time. In fact, I would say that 
that is what you were speaking about, why lots of rank-and-file 
members are alienated from their unions because the national 
group does not represent what are their individual views.
    The employees I talk to often want to get rid of unions in 
part because they find them divisive in the workplace, but also 
too political.
    Mr. Banks. I mean stunningly your colleague to your left 
just defended these left wing causes and talked about their 
funneling. I mean, admitting that labor unions funnel money to 
these causes because they are left wing political causes.
    Ms. Thompson. When you asked me questions, I answered them.
    Mr. Banks. I mean my dad is a lifelong member of a union. 
He does not support gun control or abortion, and he votes as a 
pro-life voter, and a voter who supports the Second Amendment. 
I think when he like, many other union members, be appalled to 
hear the answer of your colleague on the panel that defending 
these left-wing causes?
    Mr. Solem. I assume so. That is why, I cannot speak to you 
on dad's views, but lots of the employees that I represent want 
to decertify unions because they are far too political, and 
also, they want to exercise their right to work. They want to 
be able to work without contributing to an organization that is 
political.
    Mr. Banks. Are labor unions becoming more and more so a 
fundraising arm of the Democrat party?
    Mr. Solem. I do not know about that, but I do not know 
about more so, but over time unions have become very political. 
Unions give most of their money, when they contribute to 
politicians, to Democratic politicians. The individual 
employees I represent care about issues, they care about their 
ability to exercise their rights under the Act.
    Mr. Banks. Yes. It is very troubling. I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Banks, for your questions, 
and now we will recognize Ms. Hayes from Connecticut.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my 
questions, I just wanted to say for the record that use of 
terms like China virus that we heard in the opening are 
inaccurate and xenophobic. It leads to a rise in anti-Asian 
hate and has no place in this discussion.
    I thank the witnesses for being here today. Nationwide, 
petitions for union representation increased 63 percent between 
2021 and 2022. In Connecticut, the National Labor Relations 
Board reported a 44 percent increase in total cases over the 
same period.
    Between 21 and 22, the number of union members in 
Connecticut increased by 6 percent. However, non-union jobs 
increased faster, causing the percentage of workers belonging 
to a union to drop slightly from 14.6 percent to 14.2 percent. 
Since the beginning of the year, the NLRB has received 15 
charges of unfair labor practices in my district, a majority of 
which were filed in the food service and healthcare sectors.
    This has not deterred anyone from exploring unionization. 
Last week, the NLRB received two petitions for representation 
in the city of Danbury, one of the largest cities in my 
district. I have been in workplaces where I voted against 
unionizing, and I have been in workplaces where I voted in 
favor of unionizing. Every worker deserves the right to decide 
whether they want to unionize and collectively bargain.
    I will also say that unions are made up of people, and we 
would have meetings to lay out our legislative agendas and 
decide the issues that we wanted our union to support. Those 
are not decisions that are made at the top. Union members live 
and work in their communities, and they care about the things 
that affect them and their families.
    Unfortunately, the policies enacted by the previous 
administration have denied workers the opportunity to consider 
the potential benefits of unionizing fairly. The NLRB is 
currently engaging in rulemaking to overturn a Trump rule that 
effectively invited a decertification campaign whenever a union 
was recognized on the basis of majority support without an 
election.
    In 2019, the House adopted my amendment to the PRO Act, 
which would restore prior law and give a newly recognized union 
1 year to focus on bargaining, and proving itself to the 
workers without fending off an immediate anti-union campaign.
    Ms. Thompson, I know Mr. Norcross touched on this briefly, 
but one of the most damaging decisions by the Trump 
administration's NLRB was a final rule enacting unnecessary 
delays in the procedures between when the workers file a 
petition, and when the election happens. Can you explain why 
this is, and how anti-union campaigns use time and delay to 
their advantage?
    Ms. Thompson. Sure. Delay is always going to hurt the 
union. It is an opportunity for employers to be able to be able 
to run aggressive anti-union campaigns, including captive 
audience meetings, committing unfair labor practice charges, 
and other things, while the workers are trying to decide how 
they wanted to vote in an election.
    Unfortunately, anything that adds additional time also adds 
an additional opportunity for workers to be coerced and 
threatened at their workplace by the people who have the power 
to hire and fire them, about what they, you know, about the 
elections that they were trying to make a decision about.
    It is very difficult for workers to sort of maintain their 
solidarity under constant--when they are constantly embattled 
by anti-union propaganda, some of which is not true. Most of 
which is not true, by their employers.
    Mrs. Hayes. Can you explain a little bit more about how 
these captive audience meetings, and the requirement for 
employees to attend goes beyond free speech, and in fact can 
discourage unionization?
    Ms. Thompson. Sure. A captive audience meeting where you 
are being told by the person that hires and fires you, you have 
to show up to this meeting, and you have to whenever they 
decide, or how often they decide to have them, and listen to 
anti-union propaganda.
    I mean, it is not very difficult to understand how 
difficult it would be to have to be subjected to that on a 
daily basis, but it is also you are being told by people, often 
higher up, people you may have never seen before. People you 
did not realize would come to your little shop, your little 
store, and come talk to you.
    The first time they do that it is explained to you that 
exercising your rights, your federally protected rights under 
the National Labor Relations Act is something that you should 
not be doing because you do not actually need--you should not 
do that, and these folks who are responsible for your 
employment are also trying to explain to you how you should not 
exercise your Federal statutory rights. It could be very scary 
for people.
    Mrs. Hayes. I am sorry. My time has expired. I just want to 
remind everyone in this room that the unions are made up of 
employees. I apologize for going over. I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Representative Hayes. Now we will 
recognize Representative Houchin also from Indiana.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 
witnesses for your testimony today. I appreciate your time. A 
couple of things I would like to note before I get to my 
questions. I was a State employee in Indiana. Every election 
cycle without fail the Public Employees Union would send out 
their voting recommendations for candidates on the ballot.
    Without fail, 100 percent of the candidates promoted by the 
union were Democrats. Most, if not all, of which held views 
substantially different than my own. At the beginning of my 
tenure, I was required to pay unions dues, which went directly 
to support the election of candidates I opposed.
    Thankfully, our Governor, Mitch Daniels, abolished public 
sector unions, and Indiana has been better for it. As you may 
know, Indiana also adopted right to work legislation in 2012, 
making us the 23d State in the country to do so. We have seen a 
nearly 15 percent increase in manufacturing employment, 
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    Meanwhile, during the same timeframe, non-right to work 
states raised their manufacturing employment by a mere half a 
percent. Seeing these numbers is encouraging, as I consider 
workforce policy, and how we can protect employees from forced 
unionization.
    However, I have met with several business leaders concerned 
that the NLRB is abusing the unionization process we have. I 
have got a question for Mr. Miscimarra. NLRB General Counsel 
Abruzzo is essentially seeking to eliminate employee voting in 
NLRB union representation elections.
    The Supreme Court has twice rejected mandatory union 
recognition based on authorization cards as the primary way to 
resolve questions concerning representation. Can you discuss 
why the Supreme Court has consistently rejected the imposition 
of mandatory union recognition based on union authorization 
cards?
    Mr. Miscimarra. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 
Either the Supreme Court's answer to that question is that the 
most important feature of the National Labor Relations Act is 
employee free choice, and with the emphasis on the word free.
    The Supreme Court, in both of the cases that address this 
issue, found that secret ballot elections are the preferred 
method of ascertaining employee sentiments about unions, and 
that authorization cards were admittedly inferior. That has 
been borne out in lots and lots of courts of appeals decisions 
as well.
    The experience of the NLRB in general, has been very good 
conducting secret ballot elections. Congress gave the NLRB two 
things to do, one of which is to conduct secret ballot 
elections, which are superior to authorization cards, and for 
that reason both the courts and I think, common sense, suggests 
that the appropriate way to address labor policy here is to 
have secret ballot elections whenever possible.
    Mrs. Houchin. Thank you. Just continuing on that point. For 
nearly 90 years, the primary manner of exercising employee 
rights has been under the NLRA, has been the opportunity to 
vote in secret ballot elections to determine whether employees 
have union representation. General Counsel Abruzzo is seeking 
to deny employees this right, despite Federal courts and the 
NLRB itself, long preferring the use of secret ballot elections 
to determine whether a majority of employees could support 
union representation.
    My next question is for Mr. Leedy. The NLRB General Counsel 
wants to silence employers, and ensure workers only hear the 
union perspective during an organizing campaign. As a small 
business owner for more than 30 years, can you explain how 
important it was for you to have direct communication with your 
employees?
    Mr. Leedy. Excuse me. Thank you for the question. I felt 
left out. We are a service company, so communication is 
critical with our employees. Being a service company on the 
industrial level, I need that person to answer that phone at 
two o'clock in the morning and take that service call.
    Communication is critical. We have spoken to our team about 
the benefits of the merit shop, and I have nothing against 
unions. Like I said, my father and grandfather were members of 
the union, and the unions certainly have a place, but you know, 
it is certainly not for everyone.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you. I think employee choice is clearly 
an issue the Department is not willing to adequately protect, 
so I am certainly grateful we are here considering these issues 
today. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Ms. Houchin. Now we will 
recognize Representative Omar from Minnesota.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you. Ms. Thompson, my Republican colleagues 
are claiming that the General Counsel's efforts to render 
captive audience meetings unlawful is somehow undermining 
employers' free speech rights. Frankly, their claim just does 
not add up.
    Let us talk about these captive audience meetings in more 
detail, and get a sense of just whose rights are being 
violated. Last Congress, Michelle Eisen, a Starbucks worker, 
testified before this Committee, and talked about some of her 
experiences with these meetings. She detailed employees being 
forced to attend meetings in hotel conference rooms, far from 
their place of employment, meetings many of these workers have 
to find and pay for transportation for said meetings.
    She then described having to sit in these rooms with high-
ranking members of corporations as far up as the President of 
Starbucks North America, who they had only just met, where they 
talked for nearly an hour and told them that they should be 
ashamed for asking anything more from the company.
    Ms. Eisen described these meetings as one-sided, with only 
employers speaking. Despite the fact that some union organizers 
were Starbucks employees, were actually in the room, they were 
not given a chance to say their piece. Ms. Thompson, please 
tell us, what--does it sound like Ms. Eisen is describing?
    Does it sound like her rights were being violated? Or the 
free speech of the employers was violated?
    Ms. Thompson. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the 
question. Yes. I mean the right to speak is different than the 
right to coerce and threaten, so I can speak about different 
things. I can express my opinion about unionization, and the 
Act. That is very different than coercing or threatening 
employees, making them feel like their jobs are at stake.
    Making them feel like if you do not show up to this meeting 
to receive this anti-union information that you are going to be 
disciplined, even though you have a statutory right not to 
receive it. You know, we have heard a lot about employees not 
wanting to engage in union activity. Maybe they do not want to 
engage in anti-union activity, which is also a right they have 
that is protected under the Act.
    Ms. Omar. As you understand it, the First Amendment, does 
it guarantee anyone the right to free speech, or does it 
guarantee an audience to that speech?
    Ms. Thompson. I am sorry. Can you repeat that for me?
    Ms. Omar. As you understand it, does the First Amendment 
guarantee a person the right to free speech, or does it 
guarantee them also to an audience?
    Ms. Thompson. Yes. I mean well that is the issue, right? 
You can speak, and then if people want to hear you, they will 
come. If the employer is basically telling workers you will 
come because I told you to come, and if you don't come, you are 
fired. That is a different thing altogether.
    Ms. Omar. Your testimony earlier today is powerful evidence 
of how the right to organize has helped your own family and 
families across this country. I can relate myself as a former 
union member, and as someone who has gone on strike. Many of my 
constituents can relate as well.
    I would like to share a story I heard recently about a 
union drive at a local REI. These Minnesotans share with our 
office that they deserve a say in how their workplace is run. 
They just wanted the opportunity to participate fully in their 
workplace and communities. They feel, and I agree, that all 
workers deserve the right to get a seat at the table, and 
collectively bargain.
    It is seemingly ignored by on the other side of the aisle, 
judging by what my Republican colleagues have said against the 
PRO Act, and in favor of bills to weaken the right to organize. 
Can you tell this Committee why the labor movement, and being 
in a union, has meant so much to you, and why it is resonating 
with so many millions of workers at this moment?
    Ms. Thompson. Right, right. I mean for me it was a 
difference between housing instability, being on the verge of 
being homeless at numerous times during my childhood, and not 
having that. It was the difference between being able to have a 
coat in the wintertime and shoes, or not being able to afford 
those things.
    It was a difference between my mom being able to buy eggs 
and milk or eggs or milk, and these things were really, really 
important, and transformative. I think the other interesting--
for my story, is that you know, my mother is a white woman, and 
when she had a job, they did not know about me. I show up. They 
fire her when they figure out that her daughter is black.
    She was out of work in a very small town for a very long 
time. The union difference was that the next job, when she got 
her union job, people might not have liked that, but they could 
not fire her for it. She was protected by her union contract, 
and her union family, and it made all the difference in the 
world, and it is part of why I am here today.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you for sharing that. It is a difference 
between being powerful and powerless. Right, so thank you, and 
I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Representative Omar, and now we 
will recognize Representative Burlison from Missouri.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for this 
hearing. I kind of, I just want to kind of get down to how did 
we get here where we have a situation in America where we have 
what I think is the rights of association being violated, the 
rights of freedom of speech being violated.
    Where you literally have situations where workers who are 
morally abhorrent to things like abortion, or let us say gun 
control rights, right? They are required to pay money just to 
have a job. Just to have a job. The America at the founding, 
people had freedom of assembly. How did we get to this point 
where we are allowing businesses, through the coercive force of 
government, to coerce people into joining an association that 
they philosophically disagree with?
    Mr. Solem, what is the history here, and I think it began 
with the Sherman anti-trust laws, right?
    Mr. Solem. I do not know if I can go back that far. 
Essentially Federal law, the National Labor Relations Act, 
Section 883.
    Mr. Burlison. The Wagner Act.
    Mr. Solem. The Wagner Act, right, allows an employer in a 
union to agree to a contract that would require the forced 
payment of dues and fees. Now as you said, this violates an 
employee's fundamental right to the right to work, the right to 
earn a living, because if they do not pay they can be fired as 
a condition of employment.
    Mr. Burlison. Right. The irony is that this place creates a 
lot of downstream problems, because originally the Sherman 
Anti-Trust Act said it was illegal for people to collude on 
pricing. They did that because they were trying to stop 
businesses from colluding on pricing, but the outcome was that 
unions were also colluding, and therefore illegal, therefore we 
passed the Wagner Act, right?
    The Wagner Act then creates further downstream problems 
because it said not only after the election occurs can you join 
a union, but you are required to. You have no right to be 
removed from that union. I am getting heads that are nodding in 
the back. The followup to that was the Taft-Hartley Act, which 
was the Act that said states could, you know, evoke a law that 
erases basically the course of part of it.
    The outcome is economic freedom for some states, and others 
not so much. My State of Missouri is a closed union, or forced 
union shop State. We are surrounded by right to work states, 
and you know what I hear every day? The sucking sound of jobs 
leaving the State of Missouri and going into states where 
workers have economic freedom.
    Why are those states growing, and states like Missouri are 
not growing as fast?
    Mr. Solem. Freedom is popular. Many businesses say that 
they will only start businesses, or bring jobs to right to work 
states, and right to work is a proven job creator. The latest 
data from the National Institute for Labor Relations shows that 
right to work states have double the job growth of forced 
unionism states.
    Even more important, I have been--the economic argument for 
right to work laws, I think what you touched on earlier is that 
it is a fundamental freedom, which is what the Supreme Court 
ruled in Janus for Public Sector Workers, is that no one could 
be forced as a matter of the First Amendment in the public 
sector to pay dues as a condition of employment.
    I worked in IT in the private sector. No one was union in 
IT that I can think of. You know what benefits employees more 
than anything is more job opportunities, more employers down 
the road. No, I did not have to like, look to some other 
organization or association to fight for me for my personal 
compensation, because the best thing that benefits an employee 
is competition.
    The sad part is that we chase it away when we enforce laws 
in our states on employers because if you are an employer, and 
you are looking to go to a State, why would you ever want to go 
to a forced union State and have to deal with not just the 
employees that you want to negotiate with and work with, but 
now you have got some third party that wants to step in and 
tell you how to run your business?
    Mr. Solem. Well, right to work laws do not get rid of 
unions, but they just make it optional for those individual 
employees. There is certainly right to work states where unions 
flourish, but you know, it is dependent upon individual choice 
for those employees.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Representative Burlison. Now we 
will go to Representative Scott from the wonderful great State 
of Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. I thank my colleague from Virginia. Ms. 
Thompson, we have heard a lot about fair share. Is it true that 
if a union is representing a bargaining unit, everybody from 
the bargaining unit benefits from higher pay, safer workplace, 
better benefits, equal pay for equal work, everybody gets the 
benefit of the union representation?
    Ms. Thompson. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. Under fair share, the expectation is that 
everyone benefiting would contribute to the cost of hiring 
experts to negotiate that higher pay, and maintaining a safe 
workplace, the cost of representation at a grievance. If you 
have, even an individual grievance, and they are going to if 
there is somebody on staff that can represent you, the 
individual or an individual basis, you get that benefit, if the 
union member would get it, and you are not a member, you are 
expected to pay your fair share of those costs. Is that right?
    Ms. Thompson. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. Now does a fair share require you to contribute 
to the annual holiday party, or summer cookout?
    Ms. Thompson. No. It does not.
    Mr. Scott. Does it require you to contribute to the voter 
registration drive, or political activities?
    Ms. Thompson. No.
    Mr. Scott. Does it require you to participate in the annual 
donation to the local food bank?
    Ms. Thompson. No.
    Mr. Scott. Just those responsibilities where you are 
getting a benefit?
    Ms. Thompson. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. If you do not have to pay those, and you get 
those without paying anything. That is where the idea of a free 
rider comes from.
    Ms. Thompson. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. Can you tell us some of the ways employers 
are using their standing at pre-election hearings to delay 
union elections?
    Ms. Thompson. Sure, sure I can talk about that. The Act, it 
is the Board's responsibility to determine after the employees 
have filed a petition for an election, whether the unit that 
they are petitioning for is an appropriate unit. What often 
will happen is that the employer will be seeking the 
appropriate unit from their perspective, not from the 
employee's perspective, which results in incredible amounts of 
delay, and litigation before the Board over who should be in or 
out of the bargaining unit.
    When the reality is that the workers are determining--
should be determining for themselves--whether or not they want 
to be represented by a union, and then what group of folks are 
interested in being represented, versus the employer having 
control of that, and interjecting themselves.
    Mr. Scott. Under that, what we call gerrymandering the 
unit, you can find places within the work site where you know 
there is no union support and add them to the bargaining unit. 
Is that right?
    Ms. Thompson. Correct. Correct.
    Mr. Scott. Affecting the outcome of the election.
    Ms. Thompson. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. Now what about unfair labor practices such as 
firing an employee for organizing a union? You mentioned some 
of the sanctions could be as low as, what is the maximum 
sanction for intentionally singling somebody out, and just 
firing them for organizing the union? What is the maximum 
penalty?
    Ms. Thompson. I mean typically the Board has had a make 
whole remedy, so you would receive back pay, and then an offer 
of reinstatement. There are certain other charges that might be 
included in that, attempting to look for work, expenses, and 
other expenses could be added to that that are the 
consequences, the direct and foreseeable harms from the 
termination.
    Mr. Scott. Well, when they get sent, when they get ordered 
back pay, when does that take place?
    Ms. Thompson I mean after the--I mean years later, after 
the litigation has reached its completion, and then the order 
has been enforced in a case of incompliance. Oftentimes, it is 
many, many years later.
    Mr. Scott. If the person went and found another job paying 
as much or even more than they were making, does that get 
deducted from the sanction?
    Ms. Thompson. Yes. I mean right. If they get another job. 
To be frank, I mean part of what the harm here is removing 
somebody who sensibly was a union supporter from the workplace. 
That is been done. Now they are gone, and they may not want to 
come back.
    Mr. Scott. Well, and there is no sanction because the 
sanction is back pay, and if they made as much as they were 
making, there is no back pay to make up?
    Ms. Thompson. Right. The sanction would be a posting saying 
we fired somebody, and we will not do it again.
    Mr. Scott. What message does that send everybody else?
    Ms. Thompson. That the employer can fire you with impunity. 
Even though the law protects you, the delay in receiving your 
remedy could be such that you are devastated by what happened.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. That is remedied in the PRO Act with 
a civil fine if they fire somebody for organizing. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Representative Scott. We are 
going to stay on this side and go to Representative McBath from 
Georgia for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Chairman Good, Ranking Member 
DeSaulnier, your staff, and to our witnesses for making today's 
hearing possible. I have read your testimoneys. The real way I 
really believe to empower American workers and ensure fair 
elections at the NLRB is not to villainize our unions. The way 
that union members are being talked about by my Republican 
colleagues could make someone watching at home forget that they 
are talking about our friends, and our neighbors.
    I would like to remind everyone that these are real people 
that we are, as Members of Congress, have sworn an oath to 
protect and to serve. They are the people who live in our 
neighborhoods, and you see these folks at the grocery store 
every week. You see them out and about in our communities.
    They keep the power on, and our trains moving, and they do 
not deserve to be unfairly painted in such a negative light. 
Thankfully, the American people strongly disagree with my 
Republican colleagues on this issue. At the same time when our 
current HELP Chair purposefully went on record to say that he 
does not support our unions when asked by a witness, a majority 
of Americans would say just the opposite if they were asked 
that same question.
    According to an annual Gallup poll last year, 71 percent of 
Americans actually approve of our labor unions. The highest 
percentage since Gallup began recording this measure in 1965. 
Another example of American support for unions is the massive 
case load increase at the NLRB for union representation 
petitions.
    There has been a 53 percent increase from Fiscal Year 2021 
to 2022 overall, and 108 percent increase just in my home State 
of Georgia. It is so important that we provide this agency with 
the funding that they need to handle this increase, and ensure 
that every American can appropriately exercise their rights in 
the workplace.
    The right to organize for better pay and working conditions 
is exactly that. It is a right. One guaranteed under Federal 
law, and we must do everything that we can to empower workers 
to make sure that these decisions that they are making for 
themselves, they are making them without a legal bias.
    Workers in states like mine with so-called right to work 
laws, they are proven to be paid less for the same work, and 
they have fewer benefits compared to states without these laws. 
It is clear that when unions are allowed to compete fairly, and 
workers are given the correct information about what organizing 
really means, they will make the choice that benefits them, and 
their families the most.
    Employees of the Bluebird Corporation in my home State of 
Georgia, recently voted 697 to 435 in favor of joining the 
United Steelworkers, a historic organizing victory in the 
south. As a major recipient of Federal funds, it is incredibly 
important that companies like this engage in good faith at the 
bargaining table for their employees.
    Ms. Thompson, now that the workers have been successful, 
they will begin the process of negotiating their very first 
contract. Can you describe the challenges of bargaining for 
initial contracts, and how the PRO Act would help these workers 
get the compensation and the benefits that they rightfully 
earned?
    Ms. Thompson. Sure. Thank you so much for that question. 
Yes. We often see situations where, you know, workers vote to 
form a union, and then the employers simply go through the 
motions when they are bargaining their first contract without 
truly seeking to reach an agreement, with the hopes that they 
will be able to decertify the union a year later through the 
frustrating the workers during that first year of contract 
negotiations.
    Workers have taken--they have gone through the organizing 
campaign. They have designated their collective bargaining 
representative, and then you know, a year later they are still 
working on the same terms and conditions that caused them to 
organize in the first place.
    Under the PRO Act, if an employer and the union have not 
reached an agreement within 90 days of bargaining, or mutually 
agreed upon longer period, then the parties proceed to 
mediation, and then to binding arbitration. It is a process 
with a demonstrated record of success in the collective 
bargaining context.
    That means that workers will have the chance to vote on a 
legitimate first contract in a timely manner after organizing 
the union.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you, and congratulations again to the 
workers in Fort Valley on their success, and I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Representative McBath, and now we 
will recognize Chairman Foxx from North Carolina.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our witnesses 
for being here. For this very important hearing. Mr. 
Miscimarra, we almost need to put you on the payroll because we 
bring you in so often, you are such a great witness. Thank you 
for being here.
    NLRB General Counsel Abruzzo claims that the National Labor 
Relations Act prohibits an employer from discussing labor 
unions with employees during paid working time. Is the General 
Counsel's position supported by law, or court precedent?
    Mr. Miscimarra. It is supported by neither in my opinion, 
Chairwoman Foxx. You know this is an area where No. 1, the 
Constitution is in play, and No. 2, Congress makes the rules. 
The NLRB has indicated in my opening statement, embraced 
exactly the view that is now being articulated by the General 
Counsel in a case that was decided in 1946.
    Congress, the very next year, added Section 8(c) to the 
Act, which specifically protects the expression of views, 
argument or opinion, in the workplace unless it contains 
coercive language, or an unlawful threat. That was the--what 
Congress did after the NLRB embraced this view.
    Not only did Congress add Section 8(c) to the Act, but the 
reason they added Section 8(c) to the Act, is that type of 
contend based restriction clearly is violative of the First 
Amendment, and the Supreme Court, in a number of cases, and 
many Courts of Appeals decisions have also held the same thing.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much. Let me ask you another 
question. The NLRB recently issued a decision in the Lion 
Elastomers case that protects union supporters who make 
racially or sexually offensive statements, or engage in 
offensive conduct at work. Even though the same conduct would 
result in discipline or discharge based on Federal and State 
equal employment laws.
    Is there anything in our Federal labor laws that indicates 
they are more important than Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 
and other laws that require employers to protect employees from 
offensive conduct at work?
    Mr. Miscimarra. Thanks for that question, Chairman Foxx. 
The law does not make the National Labor Relations Act more 
important than other Federal laws that deal with anti-
discrimination and anti-harassment. The Supreme Court in a case 
called Southern Steamship held that an agency like the NLRB has 
the responsibility of enforcing all Federal laws.
    The very recent decision that you just described, Lion 
Elastomers, really takes racially and sexually offensive 
conduct, and gives it special protection that is I think 
contrary to the Act, and also contrary to the responsibilities 
that the Board has to enforce all laws.
    Mrs. Foxx. One more question. It appears that NLRB is now 
protecting the right of union supporters to make racially and 
sexually offensive statements at work. While you have alluded 
to this, I would ask you if you want to say anything else, 
while the General Counsel contends employers have no right to 
discuss union issues at work, is this dissimilar treatment 
justified?
    Mr. Miscimarra. Well, I do not think that it is, and the 
one thing that you mentioned is whenever there is racially or 
sexually offensive language at work, that does not just--it is 
not just something that the employer wants to control. No. 1, 
the employer has an obligation to provide a harassment free and 
discrimination free workplace.
    That kind of workplace benefits all employees in the 
workplace, union members, non-union members, it does not 
matter. That is one of the reasons why this is such an 
important area because workplaces and norms at work have 
changed since the 1950's.
    I think the NLRB is really looking backward in this area, 
rather than forward.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Solem, recently employees at 
several Starbucks stores have filed petitions to remove Workers 
United. I understand the National Right To Work Legal Defense 
Foundation is providing free legal services to Starbucks 
employees in New York who filed a petition for a vote on 
removing Workers United as the employee representative.
    Why are these employees seeking to remove their union after 
just 1 year of representation?
    Mr. Solem. Thank you for that question, Chairwoman Foxx. 
Yes, I and a few of my colleagues represent Kevin Cesar, who is 
a petitioner at the Starbucks roastery in New York City, 
recently filed a petition. Now I want to add that his petition 
is actually supported by a majority of his employees.
    Under the General Counsel's Joy Silk theory, if it applied 
to decertification petitions, Starbucks should be required 
under the Act to withdraw recognition. If you apply her theory 
to decertification petitions. To answer your question as to why 
these employees want to get rid of--want to decertify the 
union, Mr. Cesar has stated he has found the union divisive in 
the workplace.
    He is found it too political, too interested in other 
issues, and also there has been statements that most of the 
employees who organized the union have left Starbucks. Now, 
there have been reports in recent days that Workers United was 
paying SALTS or paying people directly to work for Starbucks in 
order to organize. I do not know if that was the case there, 
but according to employee statements, most of the ring leaders 
at that store who organized the union have left.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, for going 
over, but Mr. Leedy please do not feel lonely. We are really 
grateful to have you here. I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Chairman Foxx, and now we 
recognize our Ranking Member from California, Mr. DeSaulnier.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the 
Chairwoman, a gold star for being on time. I hope you still 
have some of those. I really want to thank the Chairman, and 
all the members and the witnesses. I want to go back to I think 
we have got a consensus here, it is always interesting to get 
it.
    Maybe I am being too optimistic in the current 
circumstances. That this is a balance. We want American workers 
to be successful. We want American employers to be successful. 
Getting the balance right is really important. Our perspectives 
are different.
    Ms. Thompson, maybe just followup a little bit on the 
American Steel decision in gerrymandering, and not making it 
balanced. How do you feel like the NLRB got that right? Why is 
that a good, efficient decision to get this balance?
    Ms. Thompson. Right. Thank you for that question. American 
Steel Construction prevents gerrymandering by employers of 
bargaining units. It returns the focus of unit appropriateness, 
the analysis, to use Section 7 interests of the workers who 
petitioned to form the union.
    The prior rule focused on workers who were not part of the 
petition for a unit, so it was the interest of all of the 
workers outside of the petition for a unit who did not say they 
wanted to have the union, but now we have to consider each and 
every one of those folks, how they feel about the union that 
they have never spoken to.
    They may not even be anti; we have not gotten to them yet 
in this. I think it is really important to remember that 
workers who are not part of the petition for a unit, if they 
were overwhelming, you know, community of interest with the 
excluded workers, that is one thing.
    If it is just that the employer does not like the unit that 
is been petitioned for, oftentimes because it is a winnable 
unit, that that is not enough. That is not a basis for changing 
the Board's analysis on what is an appropriate unit.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Same sort of question, but on voluntary 
recognition. That seems to me to be logical in terms of 
efficiency, if there is a majority. Trump NLRB did not adhere 
to that. Any comments?
    Ms. Thompson. Yes. I mean I think voluntary recognition, I 
mean one thing that I think encouraging voluntary recognition 
does or accepting the fact that some employees want to do that, 
it is just the idea that we are supposed to be coming to an 
agreement. We are supposed to be having an agreement on the 
workers who have decided that they want to have a union.
    The employer sees that the workers have a majority and 
accepts the fact that that is what the workforce chooses to do, 
and it prevents a lot of frustration and consternation. With 
the Board's funding, you are also putting the Board in a 
position to have to process a lot of information that is really 
just meant to delay the process, and to draw it out so it can 
defeat the will of the workforce.
    It is just not necessary. It' is an unnecessary distraction 
when it should be time to move on to the task of bargaining, a 
fair collective bargaining agreement instead, you know, stuck 
in a morass of fighting it out when workers have already 
expressed their desire to form their union.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Captive audiences. I appreciate the 
reference to Jack Kennedy. I was not here when he was here, in 
spite of my age. The world was different then in a lot of ways. 
Certainly, we had a much more robust middle class. Our tax 
system was different.
    I appreciate that you are referencing Kennedy, and I am 
referencing, quoted Eisenhower, so there is something there. On 
captive audiences, and again, since you mentioned Apple, and 
being from the Bay area, and the struggles we are having right 
now with layoffs in the tech industry, a lot of dynamics there.
    There have been a lot of dynamics, having been involved in 
this, with trying to organize tech workers, and now the 
ramifications of that industry having a rise for a lot of 
reasons, having to lay people off. In that kind of 
circumstance, First Amendment rights, we want an honest, fair 
debate, but we want it to be honest and fair.
    Like I think this hearing is an example of that. We have 
differences. How do we make sure that there is a balance here? 
Why cannot Apple--and I am proud of Apple, as a Bay area 
resident, for a lot of what they have done, but they can have a 
discussion and not intimidate their employees. Is that not what 
we are trying to do?
    Ms. Thompson. Right. Right. Thank you. In Apple, they have 
something they call the daily download right, and different 
retailers call it different things, you know, excuse me. You 
know, it is the morning meeting, whatever you want to call it, 
and it is a required meeting at the start of the shift where 
management gives expectations for the day to their workers.
    There is a list of tasks that have to be completed, which 
ostensibly you can be, you know, terminated or disciplined 
whatever, if you are not meeting your goals, and so at the same 
time as you are giving instructions to people about what 
cashier, register they need to be in, and whether they need to 
clean the stock room.
    You are also then saying it is bad for you to form a union, 
and it is going to harm the company. You should vote no. You 
can imagine what that sounds like. No. 1, two and three were 
things I am required to do today, now No. 4, is that required 
too? It feels like it is.
    That is one of the problems with these captives is like, 
you know, trying to fold it into other requirements that folks 
are having during the day, and making it seem like it is just 
an expression of the opinion of the employer, but you are 
actually because of the power imbalance, it is really hard to 
see it other than coercion.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Ranking Member DeSaulnier. I have 
a question for all of our witnesses. I am going to ask you all 
to answer a couple of questions by a show of hands, make it 
easy. Mr. Leedy, then I am going to come to you with a couple 
of questions specific to your experience.
    How many of our witnesses would say that left to their own 
devices most employers would exploit or abuse their employees? 
Nobody would say that. Let the record show no one has said or 
raised their hand.
    How many of our witnesses would say that most employers do 
not have the best interests of their workers in mind? Let the 
record show that nobody is raising their hand to that effect. 
How many would say that most employers do not want happy, 
satisfied, loyal employees? Anybody?
    How many would say that the government, or by extension 
unions, must protect workers from their employers? Anybody 
would say that? Government or unions, actually need to protect 
workers from their employers? How many would say that employees 
are not equipped to competently choose for themselves whether 
or not to organize?
    Did anybody say that? Employees cannot make that decision 
for themselves? Let the record show none of our witnesses 
raised their hand in the affirmative that they believed any of 
those things. Now I am going to turn my questions, at least to 
start here, to Mr. Leedy. You are from the free State of 
Florida.
    Mr. Leedy. Yes, I am.
    Chairman Good. You have a merit shop as you called it. 
Could you please just tell us a little bit about how you 
treated your employees? I think you touched on this during your 
testimony. Your workplace culture to discourage or 
disincentivize or diminish the desire for your employees to 
unionize?
    Mr. Leedy. First of all, our employees are family. I think 
that is very important. As I said before, I need those people 
to answer the phone at two o'clock in the morning. Like any 
other company, and all the other electrical contractors in our 
association, we pay great wages with great benefits, including 
401's and vacations, holidays, and a lot of extra things, paid 
time off, and we customize.
    We are able to customize our deals with our team. For 
instance, I had a person named Ed, and he was an umpire in the 
Big Ten football, and so every Saturday he goes to Ann Arbor, 
or Columbus to referee a football game, and he needed Fridays 
off. I said hey, I will let you work four ten's, and he said 
no, four eights is good enough.
    You know, I get a pretty good check on the weekend. So, my 
point is we customize our agreements with our people, we have 
to keep them happy, or they are going to go somewhere else. It 
is as simple as that.
    Chairman Good. What was your--what has been your experience 
in terms of longevity, loyalty, your average employee, how long 
they stay with the company?
    Mr. Leedy. You know, I have got people way over 10 years. I 
have got several guys coming up upon 10 years, so yes. 
Maintaining your workforce is critically important, especially 
in today's market.
    Chairman Good. You might be familiar, I have got a bill, my 
Small Businesses Before Bureaucrats Act, which would update the 
jurisdictional limits of NLRB, increasing by tenfold the 
revenue threshold for which small businesses would have to 
suffer under the control of the NLRB, and would rescue about 
half of those businesses currently suffering under that 
control.
    Can you just speak to, based on your experience, any 
positive impact that you could see that less NLRB oversight 
would have on small businesses?
    Mr. Leedy. Well again, I do not know much about the NLRB. I 
will be honest. You know, I have heard stories. We have had 
issues with some of our members. One of our members came up 
here because the business agent came into his office to fill 
out an application, and he knew him, and he told him to get out 
and wow, that was a mistake.
    I do not know a lot about the NLRB.
    Chairman Good. Well, setting aside the NLRB, how about just 
Federal regulations generally. Federal Government says hey, we 
are here to help you.
    Mr. Leedy. No, you are not. No, you are not.
    Chairman Good. Could you speak about how more or less 
Federal regulation helps a business's ability to operate 
effectively and profitably?
    Mr. Leedy. I agree with President Reagan. I am here from 
the Federal Government, and I am here to help. Holy cow. All of 
these new measures and things that come at us continuously, it 
just causes excess over burden on time and money in every 
business. Every business.
    Chairman Good. Would you agree that the less the 
government, the Federal Government interferes or intrudes, or 
imposes themselves into your business, the more harm that it 
does, and the more difficult it is for you?
    Mr. Leedy. Absolutely. I am a free market guy.
    Chairman Good. Well, thank you for your testimony today, 
and thank you to all of our witnesses. With that, I am going to 
have a few closing remarks, but before I do that, I am going to 
refer back to the Ranking Member, invite him to share some 
closing remarks.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do 
appreciate this hearing. I appreciate the tone, the tenor, even 
though we have different perspectives, and we will argue those 
passionately. Since you quoted a Californian, as a Californian, 
and the Chairman is a Virginian, Ronald Reagan in your case, I 
will quote James Madison. Madison said if people were angels 
there would be no need for government.
    We would like everybody to play by the rules without us 
having to interject us, but Madison was right. Unfortunately, 
it is not about all employers, it is about employers who take 
advantage of it. Mr. Leedy, as somebody when I was in the 
legislature in California, we did an extensive look at the 
underground economy.
    People like yourself were the antidote to that. You took 
care of your employees, you took care of your customers, you 
are licensed. Unfortunately, there were people who are not like 
you where they were all nonunion contractors, went outside 
those boundaries.
    They were hurting those people who were opposed to 
Madison's admonition, the people who were the better angels of 
our nature, Lincoln, were adhering to what you alluded to. How 
do we bring that bar up is really the question. How do we make 
sure employers, good employers, who have good employee 
relations for the purposes of this Committee, make sure that 
they have that.
    You are competing. You could compete against people who do 
not have a license, do not pay taxes, and can take that 20 to 
30 percent advantage, and get the contracts that you will not 
be able to. In that context, hopefully we could have a 
constructive conversation given the governance of the Congress 
and the administration right now about how we protect workers.
    I heard a lot of conversation here from people from the 
left and the right about protecting American workers. I know we 
are in a quote meeting I guess, I think de Tocqueville said it 
well, that he said, ``the basic genius of America is the belief 
that you can expect extraordinary things from ordinary 
people.''
    I think we can all agree on that. If the ground rules are 
right. Sorry to go on, Mr. Chairman, but I think there is a 
real opportunity for us to protect workers. To value the union 
movement, and my view clearly would not, nonunion workers would 
not be protected now if what Galbraith talked about, 
countervailing institutions, and countervailing powers.
    This is what we are talking about is where is that balance 
between both, that creates an America that is great for 
everybody. That people really can do well, so Mr. Chairman, I 
want to end with that comment that as strongly as we have 
different perspectives, I think we have the same goal, which is 
empowering American workers.
    Chairman Good. I thank the Ranking Member, and again, I 
want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and for 
bearing with us through our line of questioning, and sharing 
from your experience and your expertise in this area. I would 
agree with the Ranking Member, to a greater extent if this was 
100 years ago, but now today I would suggest that unions have 
greatly, largely the most part outlived their usefulness to 
right the wrongs that existed, the injustices that existed in 
the early history of our country.
    We have so many laws in place now to protect workers, and 
of course we have just competitive practices, and best 
practices I should say, that just make the fact that unions 
have long outlived their usefulness in my opinion and my 
experience.
    I grew up in a lower income family, having to work all of 
my life going back to my pre-teen years. Eventually trying to 
work my way through college, thankfully successfully, with a 
partial athletic scholarship. Working to pay off my student 
loans, imagine that by the way.
    I worked for many small businesses along the way, little 
sole proprietorships, carpenters, landscapers, painters, those 
sorts of things, and then more established small businesses, 
including lumber yards, construction companies. I did not ever 
do a restaurant, Mr. DeSaulnier, and I am sure that your 
company culture was excellent, as Mr. Leedy's was.
    I got hired once to work at a restaurant, but I had a 
landscaping injury that on the day that I was supposed to 
report, because I was working that morning on my way to the 
restaurant, so I never did actually make it there. The highest 
paying job I ever had in my working years before finishing 
college, those summers, and those working my way through 
school, was a union job.
    It was at an auto factory down in the Hampton Roads area of 
Virginia, and Virginia Beach north of Chesapeake area. It was 
the highest paying job that I ever had, prior to graduating 
college until the plant closed. It was also the most 
dysfunctional workplace that I ever experienced, that union 
shop.
    Just because of the work ethic that I had as a young 
college kid, and what I brought to the workplace, they quickly 
put me in charge of several of the more permanent union 
employees, who I worked with. The division--there is a lot of 
problems that come from a union culture, a union situation.
    Division in the workplace, resentment in the workplace 
between employees and management, suspicion in the workplace. 
In other words, if the management and ownership does not have 
the best interest of employees. Just an unhealthy workplace is 
what I have experienced, and what I have learned from others 
who have worked in such situations.
    Reduced productivity. Reduced efficiency. Protection of 
poor workers, underperforming workers. I can remember my 
experience of being in that auto shop, many employees saying I 
get no more if I work harder, I work less, if I do more, if I 
do less. There is no incentive. Slow down college boy, it does 
not make any difference how hard you work, or how much you do, 
we are all going to get the same thing.
    We all take our breaks at the same time. We do not have to 
work any more or any less from an incentive standpoint. It 
stifles ambition, it stifles ascension through the ranks. In a 
healthy workplace, I am going to guess Mr. Leedy, this was your 
experience. That your employees want--they might want to be 
foremen. They might want to be shift supervisors. They might 
want to be superintendent.
    They looked at that positively, and they aspired to that, 
some of them, and then some did not. That is not what they--
they did not want the extra responsibility or time, or whatever 
was required of that. There was not a negative us against them 
mentality that once you got into management, you have crossed 
over.
    You have become the enemy. You have become the opposition 
that so often is the case. That is in a union shop. Unions 
increase costs unnecessarily on businesses. They reduce 
competitiveness. They certainly reduce American 
competitiveness, and too often, like my experience working for 
an auto factory, they result in the business closing, or at 
least diminished expansion incentive.
    The government, and specifically the NLRB should not be 
tipping the scales in favor of unions against employers. 
Ultimately, against employees, and customers for that matter. 
Against America, I would say, on the global stage. Democrats' 
union fetish is consistent with their obsession more broadly, 
with stripping independence from businesses, seizing more 
control from businesses, and frankly, eliminating choice for 
Americans, including in the workplace.
    Of course it could be, as the gentleman from Indiana talked 
about a few months ago, as well as the gentleman from Missouri. 
It could be because of the hundreds of millions of campaign 
dollars that flow into Democrat coffers from unions, or the 
millions that are contributed to left wing causes. Quite 
frankly, without the permission of those workers whose wages 
are confiscated to go toward unions dues, and they have no say 
how those dues are applied, or how those are utilized.
    That is why for my friends on the other side, their 
ultimate dream is the PRO Act. The PRO Act, thankfully, did not 
get through the last Congress. The PRO Act would give employers 
essentially two choices. Embrace a union, help the organization 
within your workplace, or just close your doors, which would be 
the only remaining protest, or form of resistance if that was 
to become law, the PRO Act.
    The true--we talked about polls this morning. Some of our 
members mentioned polls. The true poll, or the most accurate 
poll when it comes to unions in this country today, is only 10 
percent of American workers choose to work in a union shop. 
Only 6 percent of small business employees who were under the 
jurisdiction of the NLRB have actually voted to be represented 
by a union.
    Thankfully, those are at an all-time historic lows, that is 
why it is so important that we fight against the Biden 
administration's NLRB's crusading against employer, or excuse 
me, employee choice at the behest of big labor, that we resist 
the Biden administration's efforts to steadily chip away at 
longstanding workplace rights, that we protect workers' right 
to choose whether to join a union, and we ensure that employers 
retain the right to speak freely the truth about unions.
    Again, I thank all of our witnesses. I thank all of our 
members who participated today, and before closing without 
objection, I would like to enter for the record a letter of 
support from Associated Builders and Contractors.
    [The letter of Mr. Good follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Good. Again, thank our witnesses for the time they 
took to testify today before this subcommittee. Without 
objection, there being no further business, the Subcommittee 
stands adjourned.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Whereupon at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]