[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
______
SAFEGUARDING WORKERS' RIGHTS
AND LIBERTIES
=======================================================================
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, NOVEMBER 30, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-070 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
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 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 November 30, 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, Subcommittee on
Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
WITNESSES
Mix, Mark, President, National Right To Work Committee....... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Vargas, Brunilda, Assistant Defender, Defender Association of
Philadelphia............................................... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Calemine, Jody, Director, Labor and Employment Policy,
Century Foundation......................................... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Geary, Jeannette, Registered Nurse, Philadelphia............. 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina:
Article from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)... 11
Union security clause from a UAW contract................ 14
Letter dated October 16, 2023, from Associated Builders
and Contractors........................................ 90
Burlison, Hon. Eric, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri:
Union Security Agreements and Agency Fee Objections...... 67
SAFEGUARDING WORKERS' RIGHTS
AND LIBERTIES
----------
Thursday, November 30, 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 10:17 a.m.
2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Good (Chairman of
the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Good, Wilson, Walberg, Allen,
Banks, Bean, Burlison, Houchin, Foxx, DeSaulnier, Courtney,
Norcross, Wild, McBath, Hayes, and Scott.
Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Nick Barley,
Deputy Communications Director; Mindy Barry, General Counsel;
Jackson Berryman, Speechwriter; Michael Davis, Legislative
Assistant; Isabel Foster, Press Assistant; Daniel Fuenzalida,
Staff Assistant; Sheila Havenner, Director of Information
Technology; Paxton Henderson, Intern; Taylor Hittle,
Professional Staff Member; Alex Knorr, Legislative Assistant;
Trey Kovacs, Professional Staff Member; Andrew Kuzy, Press
Assistant; Marek Laco, Professional Staff Member; Georgie
Littlefair, Clerk; John Martin, Deputy Director of Workforce
Policy/Counsel; Hannah Matesic, Deputy Staff Director; Audra
McGeorge, Communications Director; Kevin O'Keefe, Professional
Staff Member; Mike Patterson, Oversight Investigative Counsel;
Rebecca Powell, Staff Assistant; Kelly Tyroler, Professional
Staff Member; Seth Waugh, Director of Workforce Policy; Maura
Williams, Director of Operations; Nekea Brown, Minority
Director of Operations; Ilana Brunner, Minority General
Counsel; Joan Hoyte, Minority NLRB Detailee; Stephanie Lalle,
Minority Communications Director; Raiyana Malone, Minority
Press Secretary; Kevin McDermott, Minority Director of Labor
Policy; Olivia McDonald, Minority Staff Assistant; Kota
Mizutani, Minority Deputy Communications Director; Veronique
Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; Jessica Schieder, Minority
Economic Policy Advisor; Dhrtvan Sherman, Minority Committee
Research Assistant; Banyon Vassar, Minority IT Administrator.
Chairman Good. The Subcommittee on Health, Employment,
Labor, and Pensions will come to order. I note that a quorum is
present and without objection, the Chair is authorized to call
a recess at any time. The right to work in this country, free
from coercion by the government, is a right enshrined in our
founding documents.
While State right to work legislation is a product of the
20th Century, its fundamental tenets of liberty, freedom, and
self-determination are timeless and enduring. Representative
Joe Wilson's National Right to Work Act embodies these core
American values. It is such that no man or woman should be
forced to finance a union as a term of his or her employment.
Unfortunately, however, in 24 states the law is actually
the opposite of this principle. Employees in these states have
two options--pay union dues or be fired. This threat is a
violation of the God given right for Americans to determine how
they spend their hard-earned paychecks.
The Heritage Foundation estimates that 94 percent of
workers did not vote for their inherited union representation,
meaning that only 6 percent of workers have consented to the
union that negotiates on behalf of 100 percent of their
coworkers. This means that new employee's interests are not
necessarily represented in negotiations, resulting in their
being denied fair representation in the future.
The 94 percent deserve a choice, and polls indicate that 75
percent of Americans agree that workers should be able to
decide whether to join or leave a labor union. This is not
surprising considering that right to work states have increased
manufacturing employment, productivity, and personal income. In
fact, during the 40-year period between 1978 and 2017,
employment in right to work states grew by 105 percent compared
to just 49 percent among non-right to work states.
Nevertheless, democrats in the Biden administration are
working hard to strip all workers of their right to choose. The
anti-choice democrat goal is to force everyone to join a union,
by upending independent contractors' livelihoods, overturning
NLRB election precedents, and passing the disastrous anti-right
to work PRO Act.
We hear complaints from the other side about the so-called
free rider problem that right to work laws permit non-dues
paying employees to benefit from collective bargaining
agreements, but this critique omits a key detail. No union is
compelled to cover every employee in the workplace.
The Supreme Court has affirmed and reaffirmed many times
the right of unions to negotiate members only contracts. The
truth and the catch is that unions enjoy monopolistic control
over the workplace. Members only unions would increase
competition, which is the enemy of unpopular unions.
Democrats often serve as the policy arm for big labor
activists while republicans are comfortable letting the free
market operate unencumbered by Washington bureaucrats. The
National Right to Work Act only repeals statutes; it does not
add one letter to Federal law. Let us give workers the right to
work and let us end compulsory union membership. Let us make
every State a right to work State and require unions to prove
their value to the people they claim to represent.
I look forward to the prepared testimony of our witnesses
today, and I yield to the Ranking Member for his opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Good follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
our witnesses for your testimoneys today. Thank you for being
with us. In the face of wealth inequality and global pandemic
that has pushed working families to the brink, workers are
increasingly turning to collective action to secure safer
workplaces, livable wages, and increased opportunities for
them, their families, and their communities.
The corresponding rise in unionization has meant higher pay
and better benefits for workers and their families. In the
first 9 months of 2023, unions secured an average 6.6 percent
first year raise for workers, the highest wage increase in
unions' contracts in over 30 years.
This year alone, almost 900,000--900,000 workers have won
immediate pay raises at 10 percent or more through their unions
and collective bargaining. One of the most recent union success
stories is the United Auto Workers ratification of contracts
covering 150,000 workers at Ford, General Motors, and
Stellantis.
These contracts included significant wage increases, the
right to strike over plant closures, and improved retirement
security. Union victories are not just limited to unionized
workplaces. They frequently result in wage increases in non-
union workplaces as well, so that employers can compete in the
job market.
For example, shortly after UAW announced its contract
agreements, Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota voluntarily announced
wage increases for non-unionized workers. Recognizing that
union victories benefit all workers, it is imperative to
capitalize on this momentum of worker empowerment and help our
economy continue to grow from the bottom up and the middle out
for everyone.
This Congress, Committee Democrats have consistently put
forth legislation that builds upon President Biden's pro-
worker, pro-union, pro-community agenda, including bills to
raise wages, improve worker's benefits, and create safer
workplaces for Americans.
Unfortunately, none of these bills have been considered by
the majority. Instead, Republicans are championing the National
Right to Work Act here today, which would make it harder for
workers to form unions, cut workers collective bargaining
power, and further the imbalance in favor of large corporations
and capital versus wages of day-to-day workers.
Historically, the so-called Right to Work movement was
borne in part out of southern segregationist efforts in the
1940's to stop labor unions from organizing Black workers and
fighting for racial inequality. Now corporations and special
interests back so-called right to work laws because they are
designed to weaken labor unions and worker's bargaining
strength in order to maximize profits, already at historic
inequality levels.
So-called right to work laws silence workers' voices,
driving their wages down, and suppressing their economic well-
being. As our witness today, the democratic witness today on
the panel, has written in his testimony, so-called right to
work laws are detrimental to workers and create a race to the
bottom, accounting for State level economic differences and
cost of living.
Workers in so-called right to work states earn 3 percent,
3.1 percent less, have 2.6 percent lower rates of employer-
sponsored health insurance, and nearly 5 percent lower rates of
receiving a pension than their free bargaining State
counterparts.
These restrictive anti-work laws have been found to raise
executive compensation and make workplaces more dangerous. So-
called right to work states have 50 percent more on-the-job
fatalities per 100,000 workers. Rather than promoting policies
that stifle workers, I would urge my colleagues to join
President Biden and congressional Democrats in support of the
bipartisan Protecting the Right to Organize, the PRO Act.
The PRO Act protects the fundamental right to join a union
by empowering workers to exercise their right to organize,
holding employers accountable for violating worker's rights,
and securing free, fair, and safe union elections. When workers
do better, businesses do better, and ultimately so does the
economy.
As I have mentioned many times in this Subcommittee and the
Full Committee, one of my favorite quotes from President
Eisenhower when this economy, the U.S. economy was growing at
its greatest rate for everyone during his administration when
we had the highest levels of union members in this country,
President Eisenhower said, ``Only a fool would try to stop an
American man or woman from trying to organize.''
With that, I will be happy to yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member DeSaulnier
follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Chairman Good. Thank you to the Ranking Member. 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 this hearing, which is December
14, 2023.
Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for
14 days, to allow such statements and other extraneous material
references during the hearing to be submitted for the official
hearing record.
I will now turn to the introduction of our distinguished
witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Mark Mix, who is the
President of the National Right to Work Committee, which is
located in Springfield, Virginia. He also serves as President
of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Our second witness is Ms. Brunilda Vargas, who is
testifying on her behalf. She is an Assistant Defender, with
the Defender Association of Philadelphia, which is located in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ms. Vargas joined the association
initially as a social worker in the juvenile department.
In 1996 Ms. Vargas became an Assistant Defender assigned to
the major trial division and has tried countless jury trials.
She is currently assigned to the mental health civil division.
Our third witness is Mr. Jody Calemine, who is the Director
of Labor and Employment Policy at the Century Foundation, which
is located in Washington, DC.
Our final witness is Ms. Jeanette Geary, thank you, who is
licensed as a registered nurse in Pennsylvania, but has retired
from the profession. She is located in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, and is testifying on her own behalf.
We thank all the witnesses for being here today and look
forward to your testimony. Pursuant to Committee rules, I would
ask that you each limit your oral presentation to a 5-minute
summary of your written statement, and I would like to remind
the witnesses to be aware of their responsibility to provide
accurate information to the Subcommittee. I will first
recognize Mr. Mix for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. MARK MIX, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK
COMMITTEE, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA
Mr. Mix. Thank you, Congressman. It is a privilege to be
with you today to talk about H.R. 1200. First of all, I want to
call out Congressman Joe Wilson for adhering to the Paper
Reduction Act by introducing a bill that is simply one page. As
Congressman Good said, this bill does not add a single word to
Federal law.
It simply repeals those provisions in the 1935 National
Labor Relations Act confirmed and upheld by the U.S. Supreme
Court in 1937, of the provisions that authorize compulsory
forced unionism. Nothing in this law, as President Eisenhower
would say, you would be a fool to get in the way of union
organizing. Nothing in this bill would damage or stop any union
organizing at all.
The fact of the matter is the right to work issue is a
battle between workers and union officials. There are no other
parties to this battle because union officials believe that if
workers are given the choice to decide whether or not to
financially support a labor union they might leave, and that is
the problem with the issue of forced unionism.
I want to bring to your attention--you mentioned the Ford
contract that just came up, but I want to talk with you about
the language on page 2 of that contract, which is the most
important element of the contract according to the United Auto
Workers. Here is what it says, ``Employees covered by this
agreement at this time become effective, and who are members of
the union at the time shall be required as a condition of a
continued--excuse me, a condition of continued employment, to
continue membership in the union for the duration of this
agreement.
Employees covered by this agreement who are not members of
the union at the time that this agreement becomes effective,
shall be required as a condition of continued employment to
become members of the union on or within 10 days of the
effectiveness date of this contract.''
As an individual employee reading that, and a union
official coming to you saying you have to pay union dues as a
condition of getting or keeping your job, you have to be a
member of the union, what would an ordinary person say about
that language? It basically wreaks of compulsion.
When we talk about the National Labor Relations Act,
Section 7 rights talk about the employees shall have the right
to self-organization to form, join, or assist labor relations,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activity for the
purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or
protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any
or all such activity.
If Congress were to put a period there, we would not be
having this discussion today because the compulsion would not
be there, and voluntary unions and the right to refrain would
be there. It went on to say except to the extent that the right
may have been affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment, is
authorized by Section 158 A-3 of this title.
That is where the compulsion comes from. That is what right
to work is all about. There is no block on union organizing,
that right is protected under Federal law, has been, will be
and should be. In fact, the NLRB puts out a 21 may nots by
employers as it relates to employers as to what they can or
cannot do when there is a union organization drive.
I would ask that this be included in the record if we can
do that, Congressman Good.
Chairman Good. Without objection.
[The information of Mr. Mix follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Mix. Yes, as well as the union security clause from the
UAW contract. I would like to have that in the record as well.
Chairman Good. Without objection.
[The information of Mr. Mix follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Mix. Here is a statement from the Bricklayers and
Allied Craftsmen Workers, about union security, which is the
clause that is the first clause negotiated in a contract. Here
is what it says, ``Union security is the primary objective of
most unions. It involves compulsory membership as a condition
of employment. This area of collective bargaining can be the
most controversial, yet necessary requirement to establish and
maintain stability within the union structure.
The objectives of this clause are to protect against worker
leaving--workers leaving, and rival unions raiding the union.''
That's the importance of union security. What our bill does is
simply go into the National Labor Relations Act and says the
bias in favor of compulsion in Federal law should be removed,
the bias should be in favor of voluntary unionism.
It does not do anything to stop the right to associate. It
does not do anything from stopping a worker from joining or
organizing a worker. It does not do anything from allowing a
worker to give their entire paycheck to a labor union if they
choose to do so, and Lord knows, based on the Ranking Member
statement they ought to be interested in joining a union, and
they should be because unions can maybe improve their life.
We should not be imposing forced unionism on anyone here,
and you will hear stories about folks that disagreed with what
the union did. We have lots of stories, the Legal Defense
Foundation we have represented literally tens of thousands of
employees who have objections, not to unions per se, but to
compulsory unionism.
The use of their money for ideological and other causes
they may disagree with. The idea of compulsion is wrong. It is
wrong anywhere. We as citizens of our government give you the
right to use force, the government. We give that in a limited
way, but we should not give it to any private organization, and
labor unions are private organizations.
If they are really good at what they do, according to the
Ranking Member, why would the workers not want to join them?
Why would they not do that voluntarily? Unions do not deserve
compulsion. They should operate just like any other private
organization. If they are interested in adherence to their
cause, then they should give up their compulsion and sell a
product that workers want. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mix follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Mix. I would like to
recognize Ms. Vargas for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. BRUNILDA VARGAS, ASSISTANT DEFENDER, DEFENDER
ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Ms. Vargas. Good morning. My name is Brunilda Vargas, and I
am an attorney at the Defender Association of Philadelphia. I
have been employed as an Assistant Defender for about 27 years.
Recently, the attorneys in my office voted to unionize and
become a newly created chapter of the United Autoworkers Union,
known as Local Chapter 5502.
Our employer in Local 5502 subsequently entered into a
collective bargaining agreement. Several of my colleagues and I
who were opposed to the unionization effort, emailed the local
chapter President Mary Hinen, regarding our concerns about
union membership and the payment of union dues.
I was surprised and disappointed with the lack of a direct
response to our concerns. In summary, her email stated that
paying union dues, via automatic deduction from our paycheck
was a condition of our employment. I informed Ms. Hinen that a
few other attorneys and I would be filing a Beck objection so
that we could refrain from joining the union and pay reduced
fees that exclude union political expenditures.
I followed the procedure outlined by the UAW International
to become an objector. I found that the international's Beck
procedure is not readily available and places the onus on the
individual. Despite having properly invoked my rights as a Beck
objector, Mary Hinen was not satisfied. Further emails we
received from her focused only on obtaining our signatures on
the dues deduction card.
These emails continued for several months. Local 5502 made
no effort to calculate or provide us with the amount of the
reduced Beck fee despite receiving the percentage from
international. Instead, we continued to receive emails that
went so far as to threaten our employment and threaten to seek
a claw back of our salary increase if we did not sign the card.
It was at this point that I contacted the National Right to
Work Foundation for legal assistance, addressing the union's
threats. I worked with one of their staff attorneys, Byron
Anders, who filed an unfair labor practice charge on my behalf
against the union with the NLRB.
I received a favorable finding from the NLRB, and the union
quickly settled the matter. One of the conditions of the
settlement was that the union send a notice to all of my
colleagues stating that it would no longer threaten employees
who did not want to authorize automatic dues deductions. It was
only after the NLRB finding that my colleagues and I received
notice of the calculation of the reduced Beck fee.
None of this would have happened if we had been given a
choice to refuse to pay any money at all, which is the
cornerstone of the National Rights to Work Act. The pressure
the union exerted on us regarding the loss of our employment
and salary decrease was abominable.
As public defenders, we are under pressure and stress
daily. The guidance, assistance, and encouragement that the
National Right to Work attorney, Byron Anders provided, was
invaluable in alleviating the concerns we had in dealing with
an area of law with which we are not familiar.
As attorneys, we do have a level of sophistication when it
comes to the law and legal processes, however I cannot imagine
a lay person having to face this type of pressure. I believe
that most people sign union memberships and authorization cards
because they believe they have no choice, and they are often
told that. If we had the protections offered by the National
Right to Work Act, we would not have had to endure the
harassment we faced.
I do not believe any employee should be compelled to pay
fees of any kind to a union. Unions argue that non-members may
benefit from being represented by a union, and therefore in
fairness should pay. However, the simple response to that
argument is the decision should be left up to the individual to
decide if she or he is benefited by the union.
If the individual decides they want the benefit of
representation by a union, then they can voluntarily pay. If
not, they should not have to pay. They should also be able to
choose to directly negotiate with their employer. This may
foster a higher level of productivity, and more responsiveness
on the part of the union.
Compulsory payment for compulsory representation between an
employer and an employee denies individual choice, and can
intrude in, and interfere with, and create strained
relationships between employer and employee. Compulsory
payments and turning management into a collection agency for
the union creates a closer relationship between the union
officials and management.
This relationship creates a conflict of interest between
the union and its membership and non-union members. The choice
of both joining and paying money to a union should belong to
the individual. It is for these reasons that I ask you to
support the National Right to Work Act, and I thank you for
your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vargus follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Chairman Good. Thank you, Ms. Vargas, and I would now like
to recognize Mr. Calemine for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. JODY CALEMINE, DIRECTOR OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT POLICY, CENTURY FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Calemine. Chairman Good, Ranking Member DeSaulnier,
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
testify. To point out the obvious, H.R. 1200 is an attack on
labor unions. It is designed to weaken them, and that is bad
for the country.
The minimum wage has not been raised since 2009. The United
States is the only country in the industrialized world that
does not have a paid family medical leave program. Student loan
debt continues to hamper young workers. Issues of concern to
millions of working people remain untackled by this Congress.
A growing number of working people have taken matters into
their own hands by organizing unions and collectively
bargaining. Here is what workers and their unions have
accomplished just this year. Auto workers and their unions won
pay raises of 25 percent, along with cost-of-living adjustments
for 150,000 workers at the Big Three.
They forced one of the companies to reopen a closed plant.
Healthcare workers and their unions at Kaiser Permanente went
on strike and won a 21 percent pay increase for 85,000 working
people. The Teamsters threatened to strike at UPS and won a
contract covering 340,000 workers. They won average pay raises
for part-time workers of 48 percent, an average top rate for
full-time employees of $49.00 per hour, and a guarantee that
the company will add 7,500 more jobs and fill 22,500 positions,
open positions.
Airline pilots pressed their case at bargaining tables. At
United, American, and Air Wisconsin, they won pay raises
ranging from 34 to 54 percent. Nurses, and their union at
Providence Portland Hospital went on strike and won pay raises
of between 17 and 27 percent, with the wage scale that tops out
at over $70.00 per hour.
They won more hours of paid leave. They won staffing
commitments. Striking Hollywood writers and their union won a
12.5 percent pay increase and a 76 percent increase in foreign
streaming residuals, and they won historic rules protecting
their jobs from artificial intelligence. Striking actors and
their union won a contract that increases wages twice in the
first year and a new compensation stream for actors and
streaming services.
They also won new rights on artificial intelligence. All
totaled, close to 900,000 Americans so far this year received
pay raises of over 10 percent directly thanks to collective
bargaining through their unions. That is not counting any of
the spillover effects. Each of these wins puts upward pressure
on millions of other Americans' wage rates.
After the UAW's win for example, non-union foreign car
makers like Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai with plants in right to
work states, raised their wages in response. None of those
raises would have happened without the UAW strike victory. None
of these victories would have happened without union resources.
Union contracts do not come for free.
When workers join together, form a union, and start their
campaign for a contract, their success depends upon their own
solidarity and the support they can gather around them. They
and their union need to hire staff. Staff reps to help conduct
bargaining, lawyers and researchers to support them by
reviewing language or costing out proposals.
There are logistical expenses like travel, lodging, and
meeting space. A union needs to hire people to handle
communications with members and the broader public. If you want
to build leverage, organizers are needed to help coordinate job
actions and public events, for which you also need to pay for
space, sound systems, signs, and so on.
If you strike, all of these staff and more will be needed
to support the strike, and you will need funds to support the
strikers and their families week in and week out. Winning the
contract is just the start. Then you need to enforce it. The
union must pay to train shop stewards on how to enforce the
contract, staff representatives and lawyers to assist with
grievances.
Take a grievance to arbitration, in which case the union
will need to pay its half of the arbitrators and court
reporters' fees. You end up needing administrative help, like
any organization does. The hearing today examines the bill,
H.R. 1200, that is intended to cut the union's resources to do
this work. It is already the law of the land that no one can be
compelled to join a union as a condition of employment, yet a
union is required under Federal law to represent everyone in
the bargaining unit, member and non-member alike.
A non-member gets the same raises and benefits that a
member gets. The same representation in a grievance proceeding
that a member gets. It is only fair that even if you do not
join the union, you at least pay your fair share of the cost of
winning and enforcing these contracts from which you benefit.
Under H.R. 1200, you would not have to pay your fair share.
You would not have to pay anything at all. You could just
receive these services for free and let your coworkers pay for
all the efforts that win you your pay raise, your healthcare,
your pension, your paid time off, your just cause employment,
and so on.
Right to work is not an actual right to work. It is a way
of depleting union resources in order to weaken unions, to make
it harder to win the kinds of life-changing victories we've
been seeing lately. While Congress itself is not acting to
raise wages, it should not now jump in the way of workers
joining together to raise their wages on their own.
Instead of trying to stop them, the Committee should try to
help them. Instead of H.R. 1200, I recommend that the Committee
pass the PRO Act to restore workers' rights to organize and
collectively bargain. After all, unions are the most effective
private sector solution for combatting poverty and income
inequality, ensuring access to healthcare and retirement
security, and all of the other things that make for a decent
job in this country.
Thank you, and I am happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calemine follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Calemine. I would now like to
recognize Ms. Geary for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. JEANNETTE GEARY, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Ms. Geary. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today in favor of the
National Right to Work Act. My name is Jeannette Geary. I am a
nurse by profession. I have spent my entire career in direct
patient care, always devoted to my patients.
Many years ago when I was working at the Kent Hospital in
Warwick, Rhode Island, there existed a nurses union called the
United Nurses and Allied Professionals, UNAP. I initially
supported that union. Events I witnessed quickly soured me on
the union.
First, at one of the union's wine and dine recruitment
events, a high union official stated that the union's goal was
to be able to walk into any healthcare institution in America,
find the administrators, and declare they were representing the
employees with no election.
This would remove the ability of every nurse to talk with
their managers and administrators regarding their own jobs.
Additionally, I witnessed that UNAP representatives and
officers were allowed to freely roam the hospital and push the
union's political and social agenda, which was not the nurse's
agenda. These union officials let opponents of the union know
that any grievances they filed would be ignored, and that
difficult work assignments would be given to those who oppose
the union.
As I evolved to become an opponent of this union, I was
only allowed a small corner in the hospital cafeteria during
non-cafeteria hours, and on my own time to give nurses another
point of view. I eventually learned of my rights under the
Supreme Court's Beck decision, but not from UNAP, which had no
incentive to tell employees what their true legal rights were.
When I finally became a non-member of UNAP and invoked my
Beck rights, the union refused to acknowledge me, belittled me,
and refused to provide any audited financial disclosure about
what it did with the compulsory dues it forcibly extracted from
my salary on pain of discharge.
Having nowhere to turn, I found the National Right to Work
Legal Defense Foundation, which agreed to represent me to
ensure my Beck rights were protected. Little did we know this
would end up being a 12-year legal battle that was litigated up
and down the National Labor Relations Board chain, and in two
separate United States Court of Appeals Circuits, just to
secure the proper dues reduction that I was owed in accordance
with Supreme Court precedent.
As my written testimony details, my litigation against this
union took over 12 years and two separate United States Court
of Appeals. After I resigned my membership and objected to pay
for the union's political and non-representational activities
under the Beck decision, the union refused to give us audited
financial disclosure of how it spent our dues, and in fact,
spent our forced dues money lobbying the Rhode Island and
Vermont legislatures.
With the foundation's representation, I initiated an unfair
labor practice charge against UNAP with the NLRB on November
23d, 2009. That began my 12-year odyssey to protect my rights.
My 12 years of litigation proves that the Beck objection system
is broken and does not protect employees' rights to refrain
from funding union politics, and union endorsed politicians.
Unions do not tell employees about their rights because
they have no incentive to do so, and regular employees like me
cannot afford to take on these legal battles by themselves.
Without lawyers, like the National Right to Work Legal
Foundation, we are left to fend for ourselves against unions
that have no regard for the law or Supreme Court precedent.
For all of these reasons, I wholeheartedly support the
National Right to Work Act, so that no employee will be forced
to pay his or her hard-earned money to a private and
unaccountable organization they do not support. This is
America, and membership in a union and payment of dues should
be strictly voluntary.
Employees can make their own decisions about whether they
are benefited or harmed by the union that has been installed in
their workplace. Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Geary follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Chairman Good. Thank you, Ms. Geary, and thank you again to
all of our witnesses for being here today and giving your time
to help us with this hearing. Under Committee Rule 9, we will
now question witnesses--I am sorry, witnesses members under the
5-minute rule. I will wait to ask my questions and therefore
recognize Mr. Wilson from South Carolina for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Chairman Robert Good, and
we appreciate all the witnesses being here today, and of course
we particularly appreciate Ms. Vargas and Ms. Geary for your
courage to promote freedom of choice, which is beneficial to
every worker across our country, and in particular I am very
familiar with that in my home State of South Carolina, and I
will let you know what the benefit of right to work is.
We still have one condo for everybody there at Hilton Head,
so please come on down. Indeed, I am grateful to sponsor the
Right to Work Act with 115 co-sponsors, and I want to give
credit to the Right to Work Committee that has been so
effective in its years of commitment on behalf of the American
worker.
This legislation is critical for creating jobs and ending
forced automatic unionization for the American people. Every
American and their employer has a right to negotiate the terms
of their employment and creating jobs, and the right to work
states it has been nearly doubled that of the forced
unionization. Unionism states in the last decade, and
manufacturing growth in particular, has been five times higher.
In South Carolina, I particularly appreciate it, and that
we have the manufacturing facilities where South Carolina now
produces more tires than any other State in the union, exports
more tires than any State in the union. I was present with
Governor Jim Edwards for the groundbreaking of Michelin in my
home community of Lexington, now that is the largest Michelin
manufacturing facility in the world.
Right down I-20 in the district I represent is Bridgestone,
Japanese, and then on the other side of I-20 is Continental of
Germany, and then you go up I-77 and it is JT of Continental,
excuse me--from Singapore.
Over and over again we see the benefit of right to work.
South Carolina is the leading exporter of cars, and so I was so
glad to see references to cars because I was there for the
groundbreaking with Governor Carol Campell for the BMW facility
in Spartanburg, South Carolina, and I know Chairman Good will
be shocked, but they were making fun of us that they were going
to have to change the name of Bavarian Motor Works to Bava
Motor Works.
Well, now that is the largest BMW manufacturing facility in
the world. I love as I travel, I was in Europe at a meeting
last week in Frankfurt, to see X-5's. I know where they are
made, in South Carolina. Additionally, we are just grateful to
have Volvo cars built in South Carolina, and Mercedes vans, and
so we are No. 1 in export, and just because of the right to
work law.
Then, I want to give credit to Governor Nikki Haley. There
was an effort by the unions to close the Boeing facility,
building 787 jetliners in South Carolina, but Governor Haley
was successful with Lindsey Graham, Tim Scott, our Attorney
General Allan Wilson, even a local Congress person, me. We were
able to keep Boeing alive.
There are 8,000 jobs, despite the fact of the efforts of
the NLRB to illegally stop it. Then I am also grateful for
every effort that has been made back at Boeing. Saudi Arabia
just agreed to purchase 39 billion dollars-worth of aircraft,
and so that means more jobs. With that, Mr. Mix, I want to
thank you for your success in what you do to advance the
essential protection for every American.
We have seen the expansive job growth in South Carolina as
I cited it has just been incredible, but we still have room to
grow. With that, also a majority of the states now have passed
right to work laws, and the workers have the freedom to choose
how to spend their hard-earned money, and hey, let us get to
it. The dues going to different political candidates. It has a
consequence.
Influence, which is all legitimate, but gosh, the influence
is extraordinary. Mr. Mix, what has been your experience of
companies wanting to relocate into right to work states?
Mr. Mix. Yes. Congressman Wilson, thank you for that
question, and congratulations on the growth of South Carolina.
Right to work is part of that equation for attracting new
manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing job growth from the last
decade from 2012 to 2022 was basically five times greater in
right to work states than non-right to work states.
Private sector job growth was nearly double that in right
to work states versus non-right to work states. Obviously, it
is not the panacea that determines everything, but those
policies, the types of policies that allow investment capital,
relocation, expansion, those things are important.
Right to work, we know is an important part of that. When
you talk to site selection experts, consultants that are
consulting with companies looking to expand or grow, they say
nearly 75 percent of all the companies will use the lack of a
right to work law as initial kickout as a decisionmaking for
locating, expanding and investing in capital in a particular
State.
We know it is important, and it is important because it
gives the employer the confidence they can deal with their
employees directly, and certainly from a union official
standpoint when you got to a State that the revenue stream is
not guaranteed, after you win a certification election, it
makes the decision about union organizing a little different.
They end up in California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, but they do not end up in South
Carolina, even though the ability for workers to organize in
right to work states is protected by Federal law. We all know
that. It is written in the law, and nothing stops workers in
South Carolina from organizing unions if they choose to do so.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Now we
will recognize Mr. Courtney from Connecticut.
Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
to the witnesses for being here today. Yesterday a poll was
released asking the American people whether they approve of
this Congress, and the poll came back with a whopping 14
percent approval and 69 percent disapproval.
In my opinion, there is a very good reason why the American
people are just completely turned off by what they see here in
Washington, DC, is because this is probably the least
productive Congress, in memory, in terms of just the output of
legislation.
To be more specific, we have enacted a whopping 22 bills
over the last 11 months in this Congress, 14 are House bills.
It is not because members are not trying to introduce bills or
to advance bills, there actually have been over 6,000 bills
that have been introduced. Rather than trying to sort of
identify measures that have bipartisan support, that actually
will help American workers.
For example, the Workplace Violence Prevention Act, to help
health care and social workers, which is a bipartisan bill that
we passed with almost 250 votes in the last Congress, despite
the fact that we are seeing frightening levels of workplace
violence for health care workers.
Just a couple weeks ago a home health aide in Willimantic,
Connecticut, in my district, was stabbed to death on a home
visit with a registered sex offender. Never should have
happened. We should have had OSHA standards that are well ready
to go in terms of trying to identify high-risk patients and not
send workers alone into situations like that.
That is exactly what this bill would provide for, but
rather than taking up meaningful legislation that has
bipartisan support, we are seeing here today a bill, which with
all due respect to the witnesses here advocating for it, has
absolutely zero chance of becoming law. We are really just
having really, a talk session, a kabuki play.
I would just say what is striking about the poll in
Congress that came out yesterday. It is 14 percent approval, 69
percent disapproval. If you look at Gallup Poll's annual
polling that they do on whether Americans approve of labor
unions, it is actually the reverse.
70 percent of Americans approve of labor unions, and again,
Gallop has been doing this since the 1930's, and again there
have been periods of time where that number has dipped to much
lower levels, below 50 percent. Today, because a lot of the
conditions which Jody, who used to work here on our Committee,
described is why again unions now are something that American
people support.
You described some of the great contracts that have been
signed just in the last year or so. In my district, in Eastern
Connecticut, the Metal Trades Council and Electric Boat
Shipyard just came to a deal that was passed 2 to 1 for a 5-
year contract that will result in a 21 percent increase overall
in terms of wages, boosting the retirement program, enhancing
the health benefits.
What was most interesting was, is that the biggest wage
increases are concentrated at the entry level workers, so you
know the notion that we heard here at the outset that somehow
unions really do not care or do not protect new employees, and
they are sort of, you know, left with the burden of paying for
dues that they never benefited from, that actually is the
opposite.
Again, the testimony regarding UPS that the part-time
employees are getting a 48 percent increase, who again, were
the most exploited at UPS, is a perfect example of where this
narrative that unions leave behind, you know, the newer
employees, is really just totally again with recent events
demonstrated to be false.
Mr. Calemine, I just want to ask about--I mean what we are
talking about here again is a bill that if you look at the
history of right to work, it really has aligned with a
reduction in union participation and unionized workforce, and
maybe you could just sort of talk about that at a time when 70
percent of the American people support unions, we are talking
about a bill today that is actually going to make it even
worse, in terms of trying to fix that total misalignment right
now, in terms of Federal law and workplace.
Mr. Calemine. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. Right
to work is designed to reduce the unionization rate in any
particular State. If you reduce unionization rate, you reduce
the union difference. People will not make as much money, they
will not have as much access to health care plans, to pensions,
and so forth, so it does reduce your chances of having a decent
life, a decent job.
It is not about workers, it is about business as we heard
from Congressman Wilson. I went to the State of South
Carolina's website in preparation for this hearing, found a
Department of Commerce website, a page attracting businesses by
saying in big letters, business friendly right to work State,
with no explanation because everybody knows it's a signal, we
are anti-union. You will not have to negotiate with workers in
this State.
You go to the South Carolina Department of Labor's website,
do a search for the phrase right to work, it is not there. It
means nothing to the workers. It means everything to business.
It means everything to business.
Chairman Good. Members will be reminded to pose their
questions in time for the witness to answer so we can stay
within our 5 minutes. Now I will recognize Mr. Walberg for 5
minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to change
the terminology a little bit. I think Mr. Mix will understand
it. Earlier this year the democrat-controlled legislature in
Michigan repealed Michigan's Employee Free Choice Act. Now the
unions do not want us to use that terminology. They cannot
unionize well if we give employees the right to choose. You
want to put the thumb on the scale, tell the big stories, and
yet employees are the ones who decide whether they want to be
unionized and represented by a union.
I was a union steel worker. I am not opposed to unions. We
want to have choices. Anyway, the democrat-controlled
legislature jumped in, ran through a law limiting the freedom
of choice for Michigan's workers. In addition, the legislature
also removed the financial penalty for using force,
intimidation, or threats to compel employees to join a union.
That is un-American. I think it is important to note that
Michigan became an employee free choice State in 2012. After
voters overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly rejected a referendum
that would have placed collective bargaining rights in the
State Constitution. Why there? Because they would not have a
choice after that.
However, the legislature sought to make the new law
referendum proof so that Michigan voters cannot have a say on
this issue in the future. That is un-American. This, despite
more recent polls, showing the Michigan voters opposed
repealing employee free choice in Michigan. It had to be done
heavy handed by a democrat State legislature, a small majority
that rammed it through. We will see if they pay in the next
election.
Mr. Mix, you have been involved in the right to work
movement for many years and have discussed the individuals with
individuals, and elected officials in numerous states,
including Michigan. Can you tell us where the American public
stands on the issue of right to work?
Mr. Mix. Yes, sure. I mean we have already heard references
through the Gallop poll about union favorability at 71 percent,
now down to about 68 percent in the latest poll. In that same
poll where Gallop said that 71 percent of Americans support the
idea of labor unions, the second question, or maybe not the
second question, but another question that we will ask non-
union members, are you interesting in joining a union.
58 percent of non-union members said they had no interest
in joining a labor union. The idea of unionization may be
favorable as far as the public opinion is concerned, but the
idea of workers wanting to join a union and looking to get in
is just not there, and Gallop shows that.
Gallop did a poll in 2014 asking a very simple question. Do
you believe that a worker should be forced to pay union dues or
fees in order to get or keep a job? 74 percent of the workers--
or the response in that poll said no. They supported unions.
The support for unionization was relatively high, above 50
percent in that same poll, but the idea of right to work was
very, very popular.
We conducted a poll in 2020 by Survey USA, 87 percent of
the people that were polled by that independent polling agency
said they oppose workers being forced to pay union dues as a
condition of getting or keeping a job. Unionism may be popular
but forced unionism is a real stinker from a public policy
standpoint.
Mr. Walberg. That is the key is it not?
Mr. Mix. Yes.
Mr. Walberg. If you want a union, vote for one, join one.
It is simple, but I have never heard any union negotiation
trying to run rough shot over workers themselves, anything said
about the customer. Have any of you heard? No. The customer is
last in line, and we will see that with the auto industry after
what the UAW did.
Mr. Mix, union bosses often deride right to work or
employee free choice laws saying that employees in free choice
states are paid less and have less opportunity than similar
employees in states that are not free choice states. Is this
accurate?
Mr. Mix. Not at all. It is a--when you look at cost of
living adjustments, and Representative Burlison will be
interested in this. The Missouri Economic Research Institute
Center Information Center does a cost-of-living study I think
every quarter. This is a government agency in Missouri, and
they put a cost-of-living index on what it costs to live in a
State.
When you apply cost of living to wages, we find that
workers in right to work states have up to $3,000.00 more to
spend in disposable income. When you just say that a plumber in
New York City who is making $95.00 an hour is unionized, and a
plumber in Provo, Utah is making $65.00 and not unionized,
somehow they turn that into a $30.00 union benefit.
Well, the fact of the matter is a $65.00 an hour plumber in
Utah is probably a whole lot better off than a $95.00 an hour
plumber in New York City.
Mr. Walberg. I hate moving out my workers to South
Carolina, no matter what I think of this guy. I yield back.
Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Walberg. I will now recognize
the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, for
holding this hearing. People will do the right thing. We hear
this all over today. Everybody loves America. If there was no
requirement that you had to pay taxes, I am sure everybody here
would just send money right into the government saying you are
doing the right thing.
We understand this. Let us cut through the BS. It is real
simple, the right to work, and we just heard a few moments ago
from Mr. Calemine, is that this is about businesses moving to
areas where they control the workers, they pay them less
benefits and less pay. It is clear this is why this is taking
place.
Now, I am actually shocked why they would want to do this
nationwide, because after hearing what is going on in South
Carolina, they have the monopoly. Come to us, why do you not
want to do it everywhere? We are getting those jobs. We know
why this is going on, so I wish everybody would stop BS'ing us
and just cut--it is about cutting the voice of working men and
women.
It is that clear. Your 12-year journey is just remarkable.
I am going to guess it did not come out of your pocket
completely. You had plenty of help. People came around, whether
it was the right to work or otherwise. That is why it is
incredibly important this system that we have set up in this
country that has been here for so many years, that we give
companies a tax break to hire union busting outfits.
Well gee, that does not seem right. I am a taxpayer. Why am
I encouraging companies to hire for tax break these anti-union
busting companies? Why do we do that? For the workers, and I am
an electrician by trade. When I first started out, when I went
out and bought my tools that I needed to do my job, they were
tax deductible.
I was a working schmuck making only a few bucks, so that
was a working man's tax break. They took it away from us. You
know what? I am really glad that there is somebody lobbying
Congress to bring back real workers' tax breaks. We give a
gazillion dollars away in tax incentives in this facility all
the time. To the little guy just trying to keep himself going,
they took that tax break away.
The mileage driving to work for construction workers. To my
friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, do we ever
talk about the customer? Absolutely. We understand. Workers,
the owners, the customers are in a relationship together and
when you improve that it is good for everyone. We absolutely
take into account not only the worker's well-being, but the
company and who we are working for.
That is fundamental. That is smart business. That is what
we do each and every day. It is also when you do not have a
union, safety rates on-the-job plummet. Injuries occur. Mr.
Calemine, as I ask you a question. Collective bargaining, one
major issue quite often is safety. Can you talk a little bit
about including not only issues of job site safety as
bargaining, but the different committees the unions might put
together, work with management to make it a safer location to
work?
Mr. Calemine. Thank you for the question. It is a very
common issue at the bargaining table and then a common
provision in collective bargaining agreements that you have a
health and safety committee, where workers are involved in
policing the workplace and making sure safety protocols are
being followed, that there are not hazards in the workplace,
and making sure the people who come to work get to go home at
the end of the day.
The important thing about having a union, and union
representative, or union representation is that a worker knows
somebody has got their back when they do complain about a
safety issue, when they do blow the whistle, that somebody is
going to help them blow that whistle. They are not going to get
retaliated against or fired for having done so because they
have just cause employment and union representation.
Generally speaking, union workplaces are safer than the
equivalent non-union workplaces. I do want to point out that
studies have been done just in relation to the question of
wages and so forth, right to work versus non-right to work
states. Studies have been done to control a variety of
variables, including cost of living, and the right to work
states have 3.1 percent lower wage rates than the free
bargaining states per those studies, with the most controlled
variables.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Mr. Allen
from Georgia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing. Again, I come from the business community.
My first job was with a union company, and I actually became
the Secretary Treasurer of the Augusta Contractors Association
and negotiated the agreements and that sort of thing.
Frankly, back then yes, we had people standing in line
trying to get a job. It was totally different. I mean you could
get as many workers, whatever you wanted. This modern workforce
is very different. It is very entrepreneurial. Companies--the
workforce is very competitive.
I mean you have got to go find the workers, and you have
got to compete. Georgia has been very good with that. We are
the best State to do business in 10 years in a row. We have got
a lot of union members who are moving to Georgia. Now, are they
moving to become workers? No. They are moving there to have
their own concrete businesses, to have their own sheetrock
businesses, to have their own painting companies, and they are
entrepreneurs. It is totally different.
We used to self-perform 60 percent of our work. Today we
self-perform maybe 5 percent of our work. Again, we are in an
entrepreneurial modern workforce. Mr. Mix, a majority of
states, including my home State of Georgia, have passed and
have long-standing right to work laws, meaning that--and that
the simple fact here is if you wanted to find that, what that
means is you do not have to--to hold a job you do not have to
pay union dues.
It is just that simple. That is freedom. These laws provide
workers with freedom to choose how to spend their hard-earned
paychecks. Many companies express interest in operating in
right to work states, so why--Mr. Mix, can you tell us why
these companies want to move to right to work states, and hire
great workers in our states and train them?
Mr. Mix. Well Congressman, Georgia, as you mentioned, has
been the top State for business for many years, I think a
decade going. According to CNBC and others, the folks that
manage that, it is because of your policies. One of those
policies is right to work. We know, as I mentioned earlier, the
idea of people looking to expand to invest, consider right to
work as a primary kickout if you do not have it in the State.
That is why we see manufacturing growth five times greater
than forced unionism states, and private sectors growth nearly
doubled.
Mr. Allen. Talk about safety! We have the lowest worker's
comp rate in the country. Okay.
Mr. Mix. I will take your word for it.
Mr. Allen. Yes. No. Really. Obviously, the Biden NLRB has
issued numerous decisions that undermine employee free choice
and strengthen the labor unions' ability to forced
representation on every worker.
Mr. Mix. Yes.
Mr. Allen. The big labor and union bosses will stop at
nothing to coerce American workers into unionization, and
obviously that is what this administration is trying to push.
In fact, the PRO Act would do away with right to work laws in
every State. In other words, you are going to equalize every
state's ability to compete for business.
What other labor reforms can Congress consider to promote
individual employees--of course, I introduced the Truth and
Employment Act.
Mr. Mix. Yes.
Mr. Allen. What other legislation can the Congress put
forward to since this Congress is not doing anything, what can
we do to help the worker?
Mr. Mix. Well, Congressman, certainly there are probably
plenty of things to do because it is the Federal Government
that imposes this regime of forced unionism on the states. If
we remember correctly, when they upheld the Wagner Act in 1937,
that imposed forced unionism on all the states across the
country.
It was not until 1947, when Congress came back in and said
you know we probably should do something about this. We gave
union officials dramatic powers over workers across the Nation
and imposed it on every State, so they allowed them to pass
right to work laws, and 27 states have done that.
Michigan has already been mentioned--will lose their right
to work law in February. The idea of going into the National
Labor Relations Act, if the Federal Government is going to
control private sector labor management relations, which they
do now, and the states used to be experiments in policy as it
related to employment and work policies.
I would think that the National Labor Relations Act in
general has to be looked at, and let the states compete for
workers and jobs and investment and cash by allowing them to
take different ideas about it, as opposed to having them pre-
empted by the Federal law that forces this compulsory regime
down on the states.
Mr. Allen. Yes. Exactly, and that is why I introduced the
Employee Rights Act, which includes a provision to ensure
employees political protection. I wanted to yield some time to
my friend, Mr. Wilson, but I am out of time and I yield back.
Chairman Good. I will recognize now Ms. Wild from
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.--my colleague across
the aisle, Mr. Allen just acknowledged that this Congress does
not seem to have gotten anything accomplished. I just want to
note for the record this is a GOP-controlled majority Congress
and I would agree with him, unfortunately.
Mr. Mix, I have some questions for you. This is--my preface
is for all of you. I represent Pennsylvania 7. It is a
community with one of the richest legacies of organized labor
anywhere in the country. It is home of Mack Trucks and
Bethlehem Steel, and in Pennsylvania 7 we know that strong
unions are the key to a strong economy where people can work
hard and get ahead, and can support their families.
Mr. Mix, you testified in favor of H.R. 1200, a law that if
implemented, would force every State in the Nation to adopt so-
called right to work laws. In your testimony, you claimed that
union negotiated contracts often work against the interests of
the employees. My question to you, and I have spent a lot of
time with unionized employees in my district, is it against the
interests of workers to have wages that are on average 11.2
percent higher than their non-union counterparts according to
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics?
Mr. Mix. No.
Ms. Wild. Is it against the interests of workers to have
better access to paid leave and pensions, two more benefits
that again unionized workplaces are much more likely to offer?
Mr. Mix. I would say no. I mean the idea of those benefits
being available, why would you not rely on voluntarism? Why do
you need compulsion? Why do union officials need compulsion in
law to force workers to associate with them and pay dues and
fees?
If they are doing this great work that you have all talked
about, then people would join them voluntarily.
Ms. Wild. Well, we will have to invite you when we have a
hearing on what management tactics take place to discourage
people from joining unions, but I reclaim my time. We know that
a 2021 report on the construction industry, one of the most
dangerous industries in the United States, found that
nationally unionized work sites are 19 percent less likely to
have a safety and health violation than their non-union
counterparts.
I am sure we can agree that that is in the interest of all
workers. Correct? Have a safe, healthier workplace?
Mr. Mix. Yes. You know, if you are doing those great
things, why would people not want to join voluntarily? Why do
you need compulsion?
Ms. Wild. Thank you. I am going to move on to Mr. Jody
Calemine and let me just say that based on data that I reviewed
from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average median
union worker is paid approximately 20 percent more than the
median non-union worker. In the private sector, union workers
are 26 percent more likely to be offered health insurance
through work, 12 percent more likely to have access to paid
sick leave, and 53 percent more likely to have to find benefit
pension plans than their non-union counterparts.
I could go on and on, but I do not ever have enough time
for that, but the data is crystal clear in my view. Workers are
better off when they have the right to organize. I am going to
ask you sir, based on your experience, can you expand on how
union contracts provide more freedom to workers? If you could
incorporate, excuse me, into your answer, is it fair to say
that right to work is a misleading term, and these laws
actually take away rights from workers to freely join a union.
Thank you.
Mr. Calemine. Yes. Thank you for the question. With respect
to the first question. When you have a union contract and you
have union representation, and you are living your life. A
union contract sets up a kind of rule of law of the shop, and
if the contract says you are entitled to a week's vacation, and
you need to use that vacation to go see your sick mother in
another State, you can be ensured that you will have time, you
will have that time, and you will not be retaliated against or
lose some sort of a benefit because you decided to partake in
that benefit.
It is all about having that support as you exercise, you
know, engage in you know, receiving benefits and so forth at
work, you are protected with your union contract. That provides
for a lot more freedom in a person's life. They can go about
their life with a lot more confidence on how things will turn
out more predictably.
You are not operating at the whim of a boss who can engage
in arbitrary actions. With respect to right to work itself, it
is--I lay out in my testimony, times running out, but I layout
in my testimony all the ways in which it is not about worker
liberty at all, it is more about giving the employer the
ability to control the workplace. Absolutely, it is better
termed right to work for less.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Chairman, I need to ask to correct the
record here. I did not say----
Chairman Good. You are recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Allen. I did not say that this was a do-nothing
Congress. I said it has been said that this is a do-nothing
Congress. It did not come from this side. You might want to
talk to the----
Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Now we will recognize
Mr. Bean from Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bean. Good morning, and thank you very much Mr.
Chairman, and to all and to all of our Committee members. Thank
you for being here. I was at a Walmart not too long ago. I
counted in the shampoo aisle 27 different versions of shampoo.
Americans want choice, yes, right. Americans want choice,
whether it is their shampoo, fast food, ice cream, or so many
things in life.
To me, having a right to work, and I am proud to be from
the free State of Florida is a choice that you can join a union
or not join a union. Am I missing something? Mr. Mix, am I
missing that? Is that what this all comes down to?
Mr. Mix. It really is that simple, Congressman, and thank
you for making it simple because the right to work laws in the
states that have them are that simple, literally, you have the
ability to choose whether or not to join or associate
financially with a labor union, that is it. It does not stop
anyone from joining, participating, paying the union if they
choose to do so.
Mr. Bean. If I want to, I could still in the free State of
Florida, or where other free states. I could join if I want to,
and just pay if I want to. Is that correct?
Mr. Mix. Yes. Indeed. There are several right to work
states that have higher union density than states that do not
have right to work laws. It is a fact.
Mr. Bean. Very good. Ms. Geary, I see you there. I have got
a question for you. You were a part of the union that made you
pay dues, but some of those dues went to political and lobbying
activities that you disagreed with, or at least challenged
them. You actually filed a lawsuit in your testimony, to say
this is not right. Tell us about that. What you were forced to
do.
Ms. Geary. Yes. Thank you very much. We had no idea. We
were innocent healthcare employees. Healthcare employees really
are not attorneys. We are really not cognizant of this type of
information. The union came in and wined and dined us. You have
to understand the nursing culture.
We work very hard. We work 12-hour shifts, often times back
and forth. We are denied vacations. Lots of times you do not
get breaks. When a union came in and had parties for us, and
served alcohol, which frankly I do not drink, but I did eat the
cookies, and desserts, and promised us the world, and then
passed out cards saying to sign these just to show interest,
which I later found out where not just about showing interest.
Nurses became interested in the union, as you can
understand.
Mr. Bean. Then they went on, and I hate to go to the end of
the story because the clock's up, it is ticking, but the end of
the story is you disagreed with what they were spending the
money on.
Ms. Geary. Oh, I definitely did.
Mr. Bean. You said--No, you filed suit. Where is this at--
is that suit? Did you win or lose? Is it still going on?
Ms. Geary. No. My case was won. My case was definitely won.
Mr. Bean. Fantastic. That is good news, so because also you
want choice, and you do not want to have your money go to
things you do not believe in, or whatnot, so.
Ms. Geary. Well, more fundamentally than that, my feeling
is that every citizen in the United States, according to the
Constitution, has choice and liberty. Unions that come into
healthcare institutions tell you, you no longer have choice or
liberty, none. It makes no sense to me.
If 90 percent of the nurses wanted the union, that is fine.
If 10 percent do not, why should they have to sign up.
Mr. Bean. There you go.
Ms. Geary. It makes absolutely no sense.
Mr. Bean. Nailed it right there, Ms. Geary. That is what
you did. You just nailed it: choice. Mr. Mix, I saw you shaking
your head when somebody on the other side said something about
the companies just want to bypass the rules and take advantage
of labor you shook your head. I was watching you. You shook
your head.
Please elaborate on why you shook your head.
Mr. Mix. Yes. Protecting the ability to organize a union is
written into Federal law. The NLRB enforces it. I pointed out
in my original testimony that 21 cannot do's by employers to
interfere with an individual employee's right to try and
organize a union. I mean the laws are very clear.
If an employer does that, there are unfair labor practice
charges, and now under this new regime at the NLRB, if you are
even accused of an unfair labor practice charge, you may be
looking at a bargaining order without any election by your
employees.
The Sem X decision back in August of this year basically
takes away the secret ballot election, it takes away the card
check election, and it says the union official walks into your
office and says I represent your employees, and now it is up to
the employer to prove that they do not by filing what is called
a majority election. If there is an unfair labor practice taint
if you will, we have a case right now where a regional director
sent it to the NLRB because they thought that the unfair labor
practice charge might need a bargaining order, without any
vote, or any show of support by workers. It is outrageous.
Mr. Bean. Ten-four, thank you all for being here today. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Mrs. McBath
from Georgia, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you Chairman Good, and I want to thank
Ranking Member DeSaulnier, who had to step out, and I want to
thank our staff today, and of course our witnesses for being
here. I too represent the right to work State of Georgia, and I
do honestly have to say that I think the biggest boost that we
saw in the confidence in our unions has come through recently
coming through COVID.
A record number of individuals, and definitely employees
have recognized that they needed the protections of the unions,
so I just wanted to be able to say that, but also this
misguided targeting of labor unions over the past few decades
continues to have a very detrimental impact on our workforce
system.
There is no reason why our employers and unions cannot work
together to create opportunities that work better for all of
our businesses and for the American workers. As I have stated
many times in this Committee, and other instances, the Federal
Government spends far less on workforce development today than
we did in 2001, and is one of the contributing factors to the
skill shortages that we continue to see all across the country.
Employers and unions have stepped up to fill in that gap,
and spend millions of dollars on skill development programs
like registered apprenticeships, which I highly believe in.
They spend money, millions of dollars every single year on
these kinds of skilled training opportunities, however they
cannot be expected to take on this monumental task alone by
themselves.
We are only making our workforce problems worse by
attacking and trying to weaken these organizations who have
filled in the gap continuously and taken it upon themselves to
train the workers that we need for our economy to continue to
thrive and grow.
A portion of union dues goes into a general training fund,
which is often used to help cover a large portion of those
expenses and those costs, the cost of running a joint union
employer apprenticeship program. As union membership has
unfortunately declined, so has the amount of resources that are
also available for general training funds, making it far more
difficult for programs like registered apprenticeships to equip
our workers with the skills that are country needs--needs them
to have.
Involving a union and a registered apprenticeship has
consistently shown significantly better program completion
rates, larger capacity to administer those programs and less
worker turnover.
My questions, I will start with Mr. Calemine. In your
testimony, you referenced a recent report that goes over the
benefits of allowing free collective bargaining as opposed to
the implementing policies that aren't as friendly to workers,
along with providing tangible benefits for employees and their
families, there were also some major benefits for businesses
and State workforce systems.
Workers are proven to be more productive, turnover
decreases, and employers have great access to the skilled labor
that they need for their various industries in states with a
strong union presence. The study also specifically mentions
that states with strong unions have 13--excuse me, 31 percent
more registered apprentices per 100,000 workers than states
without them.
Can you please talk to us today about why that is, and the
important role that unions play in equipping a modern workforce
with the necessary skills to thrive in today's economy?
Mr. Calemine. Thank you for the question. That is because
unions organize and bargain contracts that set up and utilize
apprenticeship programs. The unions help train a workforce, a
highly skilled workforce. It is sort of a method of development
rather than of a workforce and improving people's lives. It is
a little different from the notion of how right to work laws
have worked, which is more about runaway shops.
I think we have seen over the last couple decades that if
you live by a runaway shop, that is by chasing smokestacks,
trying to get a factory from a non-right to work State to move
to a right to work State, that runaway shop remains a runaway
shop. You live and perish by those things. They will move
elsewhere to China, to Mexico, and so forth.
With apprenticeship programs, unions are helping develop a
workforce, a highly skilled workforce in whatever industry they
are working in, and it is a vital benefit to the entire country
and the economy.
Mrs. McBath. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Ms. Houchin
from Indiana for 5 minutes.
Ms. Houchin. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I am going to blame Mr.
Bean for that. Thank you to the witnesses for testifying for us
today. Thank you to the Chairman for having a hearing. I am
really happy to be part of the Education Committee,
particularly with its emphasis on the workforce.
As you may know, since Indiana adopted its right to work
legislation in 2012, we were the 23d State in the country to
adopt that. Since that time 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.
Mr. Mix, a majority of states have passed right to work
laws. As you know, these laws provide workers with the freedom
to choose how to spend their hard-earned paychecks. Indiana's
increase in manufacturing employment after becoming a right to
work State proves companies are more interested in operating in
right to work states.
Why do companies so highly value states with right to work
laws?
Mr. Mix. Yes, Congressman, thank you for the question.
Indiana is kind of interesting because Michigan and Indiana are
the two states that passed right to work laws in 2012, led the
Nation for the next 2 years in manufacturing job growth, and it
has really benefited Indiana.
Really, there has been no question about the benefit to
Indiana. Union officials object to it obviously, because they
cannot compel people to pay dues or fees to get to keep their
jobs. As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, when you look at
site selection criteria and folks that are consulting on
issues, I think the Fantis Company, one of the largest site
selection relocation companies in the world said that 50
percent of all their clients say we are not going to go to a
right to work state--or a State that does not have a right to
work law.
The benefit from a manufacturing standpoint is demonstrable
at this point. I mean there is no question about that. For
whatever reason that they may go, based on the answer to the
last question, the right to work is part of that equation, and
that means that they can have this relationship with their
employees, talk to them directly, and most of the time if an
employer is not taking care of their employees guess what?
They will get a union. They will deserve a union. Employers
these days understand as Congressman Allen indicated, that
employers have to go find their workers now, and they have to
take good care of them, and they have to take care of wages and
benefits and be competitive.
You know, only 6 percent of the private sector workforce in
America today is unionized, and that is not because they do not
have the ability to unionize, it is because as Gallop said, 58
percent of non-union employees have no interest whatsoever in
joining a union and certainly the American people oppose force
and compulsion.
Ms. Houchin. Thank you. I remember during the debates on
right to work in Indiana there were shouts of the sky is
falling, it is going to be terrible. There were scare tactics
claiming the death of the unions were yet to come. The sky did
not fall in Indiana and unions still exist in Indiana, and
right to work states, and as you said, if it provided a good
benefit people would want to voluntarily join for their own
benefits.
I have heard opposing arguments saying that employees in
right to work states are paid less, receive fewer benefits than
employees in similar states that are not right to work, but I
have not seen that to be the case in my home State. Have you
found that to be accurate in other states?
Mr. Mix. Yes, we have. As I mentioned previously, when you
overlay a cost-of-living index on wages, you find out that
workers in right to work states have at least $3,000.00 more in
disposable income per capita in the states that allow for a
worker to choose whether or not to join or pay dues to a union.
Ms. Houchin. The Biden administration has issued numerous
decisions that undermine employee free choice and strengthen
labor union's ability to force representation on unwilling
workers. I just do not believe it should be compulsory. I am
not anti-union. I just do not think people should be forced to.
I was a State employee in Indiana before Mitch Daniels took
away the ability for public sector unions, and they often spent
my dues on political campaigns for ideologies that I disagreed
with. I do not think that folks should have to spend their
hard-earned money for compulsory dues, particularly when those
dues support political positions and parties and candidates
whose policies go against their own values.
The arguments made by some of our democrat colleagues
against right to work laws, in many cases, just are not true.
Despite Indiana being a right to work State we still have
unions. Wages are up. Jobs are up. It does not make unions go
away. It just simply provides employee choice.
I am a proud supporter and cosponsor of the National Right
to Work legislation in this Congress. I have seen firsthand the
positive effects of it in my own home State. I am happy to
support it. Thank you to Mr. Wilson for bringing it forward.
Thank you to the witnesses, I will give you the last word, Mr.
Mix.
Mr. Mix. Yes. If could, you know, and that is an important
fact you make. We believe that right to work laws hold union
officials accountable. When workers can vote with their
pocketbooks about whether or not they want to support a union
when they are out playing politics, or doing things that have
nothing to do with the shop floor, but everything to do with
what is happening in Indianapolis, or Washington, DC. or
Sacramento, or Jefferson City, or Tallahassee, or Columbia,
wherever they are.
It would focus them on the shop floor because that is where
they have to be accountable. Right to work laws allow workers
to hold union officials accountable in the workplace.
Ms. Houchin. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Mrs. Hayes
from Connecticut for 5 minutes.
Ms. Hayes. Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses for being
here today. Before I begin my questions there are just a few
things that I want to touch upon from some of the things that
have been said previously. Mrs. Geary, I want to tell you that
no one should be threatened, harassed, or tricked into joining
a union, and quite frankly those things are illegal, and not
representative of unions as a whole.
I am sorry if that was your experience, but you should have
won a lawsuit if that was the case because that is not what
unions do. To piggyback on what my colleague from New Jersey
said about who is looking out for the little guy. I am a
teacher by profession, and when the Trump tax cuts went into
place the $250.00 in tax benefits that teachers used to be able
to claim for out-of-pocket expenses was taken away.
I guess my question is who is looking out for the little
guy if big corporations are the focus of the Republican-
controlled Congress? Much of what we hear about right to work
states is about grievances against unions, so what happens when
the employees in those states have grievances against the
employer?
Who is looking out for them? Then just finally, about the
endorsements and spending money on political campaigns. I was a
member of many different unions, and there is always an
election, and unions respect the outcomes of elections when
they decide who to endorse, or who to contribute to. It is not
just a decision made in a vacuum where, I mean I am sure there
are people who do not vote for--who their candidate or their
person is not the one who wins, but there is an election.
The union has to respect the outcomes of the election. My
questions, we have seen mobilizations in labor, the labor
movement this year. Last year, a number of workers represented
by unions rose by 273,000. Over the past 6 months, nearly
700,000 workers have won pay increases because of collective
bargaining.
Across the country workers are seeing corporations enjoy
incredible profits while the workers are left behind with
stagnant wages. Thanks to persistent negotiations and several
notable strikes, organized labor and collective bargaining have
seen tremendous victories this year.
Last month, the United Auto Workers secured a 25 percent
wage gains from the Big Three automakers. In August, Teamsters
ratified a new contract with UPS to win higher wages and a
commitment to improve delivery trucks with something as basic
as air-conditioning.
In my State of Connecticut, we ranked ninth nationally for
workers represented by a union. In October, nurses in my
district secured a 3-year contract with numerous economic
victories, while statewide pushes to improve hospital staffing
have gained momentum. My question, Mr. Calemine, in your
testimony you referenced a 2023 Treasury report on the impact
unions have on non-union workers.
Can you explain how a national right to work law may hurt
workers who have chosen not to organize in their workplace?
Mr. Calamine. Yes. Thank you for the question. Essentially
it is designed to weaken unions, to reduce the unionization
rate. That is what a right to work law is designed to do. When
that happens workers at union facilities lose leverage and do
not get as high a raise in their contracts, or as good a
benefits as they might otherwise have over time if they were
able to exercise full bargaining strength.
That means that the non-union employers feel less pressure
to raise their wages to try and compete with the unionized
employers for workforce, or to try and fend off an organizing
drive, which I have heard here I wish we lived in a world that
was kind of described where people were free to join unions.
We do not live in that world. Workers have to run a
gauntlet of intimidation and fear tactics, and firings to try
and win unions every day in this country. It is amazing that
they are making the progress that they are making now. It shows
how fed up people are, but the labor law needs to be reformed
in a dramatic fashion to really protect workers and guarantee
their right to organize a union.
Mrs. Hayes. You have kind of answered my second question,
which was while unions are making huge gains for workers, it
remains critical that there is a level playing field and some
of those barriers are removed. Last year, we heard testimony
from Dr. Kate Bronfenbrenner who testified of the numerous
tactics that employees are faced with when trying to join a
union and prevented.
If we are truly having an honest conversation, and it is
about employees having the right to join a union if they
choose, then the barriers and the games that are played to
block them from doing that should not be a part of the
conversation. With that, I yield back.
Chairman Good. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Banks from
Indiana for 5 minutes.
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mix, recently it
seems like most unions are going woke. I do not know if you
would agree with that or not. Just the case in point, the SEIU
has been pushing for ``trans inclusive healthcare''. The
Teamsters have been encouraging their rank-and-file members to
share their pronouns, and earlier this year the AFL-CIO
declared it was time to ``organize and mobilize against attacks
on abortion.''
My dad, a lifelong member of a union, he worked hard all of
his life in a factory. I do not think he would support most of
those woke causes, nor do I believe most members of these
unions would support those causes. Why are these unions going
so woke?
Mr. Mix. Congressman, thanks. I think because they have the
power of compulsion and force. I mean, Congressman Norcross
talked about you know you can get out of your taxes, and you
shouldn't be forced to pay taxes if you disagree. Well, that is
government. These are private organizations, and they should
not have the power of force.
Because rank and file workers can't hold them accountable
in states where they are compelled to pay dues or fees to keep
their jobs, the union has the ability to talk about anything
they want frankly, because the money comes in monthly through a
dues deduction program, and is a condition of employment.
Mr. Banks. Why does the leadership of these unions thumb
their nose at their members? I mean that's the crazy part of
it. My dad would not support any of these causes. He is pro-
life, he is pro-family, he supports the Second Amendment, but
the leadership of these unions are so--have distanced
themselves so much from their rank-and-file membership.
I understand why they get away with it, but why do they do
it? Like what motivates them to go down that woke, left wing,
radical political path that does not represent the members of
their union?
Mr. Mix. Yes, you are absolutely right. The chasm between
union officials and rank and file workers is growing wider and
wider all the time because they can, and that is the point of
this bill by Congressman Wilson. Again, it does not take away--
it does not add a single word to Federal law.
It just simply says let us have voluntary unions, which
gives rank and file workers the ability to hold their union
officials accountable when it comes to these types of
positions.
Mr. Banks. Yes. I want to talk about Indiana. I know
Representative Houchin did as well. We passed--it has been a
decade now that we passed right to work in Indiana. Can you
talk about some of the benefits, how that has benefited
Indiana? Have we done any studies since then? I mean the data
seems to support the case that right to work worked for
Indiana.
Mr. Mix. Yes, indeed your colleague was talking about that
in her questions and comments about manufacturing job growth,
and employment job growth, and wage growth in the State of
Indiana. In fact, Congressman you know, given your experience
in Indiana, that Indiana led the Nation in new manufacturing
jobs shortly after passing the right to work law.
It was Mitch Daniels, your Governor, who opposed right to
work, who after a year of watching at work he said I may have
made a--underestimated the impact of right to work when it came
to job creation, new jobs, wage increases, and economic
benefits that Indiana still is recognizing today.
Mr. Banks. Can you compare that to Michigan? Michigan
quickly followed Indiana's lead, but then they because of
political pressure by democrats in the State they pulled it
back. What was the outcome for Michigan? Indiana seems to have
benefited from Michigan's misguided decision to hold back on
the right to work.
Mr. Mix. Well, Congressman the right to work law is still
in effect. It will be in effect until February because it
basically takes effect. The repeal takes effect 90 days after
the legislature signee dies--and they did, so come February
there will be workers in Michigan who heretofore have decided
not to pay union dues. They will get a dues deduction out of
their paycheck again as a condition of their employment.
Michigan again, it was Michigan and Indiana that passed
right to work laws in 2012. Indiana first, and Michigan trying
to copy you that led the Nation in manufacturing job growth for
the 2-years prior to the--or after the passage of the right to
work law. I suspect that things are already happening in
Michigan that will probably stymie economic development and
growth and investment in that State because of the repeal by
one vote in both chambers.
Mr. Banks. Can you point to data, or evidence that workers
in Michigan, or especially in Indiana have actually even union
workers, have even benefited from higher wages because of right
to work laws?
Mr. Mix. Yes. Absolutely. We talked a little bit about
that, but in fact in Indiana, Congressman, you may remember
this, but the year after right to work passed, union membership
actually increased in your State. Workers said you know what? I
want to commit to this, and union officials started going out
selling a product to the workers in Indiana, where their union
membership actually increased.
We know that when we compare costs of living, when we
actually adjust wages to the cost of living, that workers in
right to work states in Indiana are better off by about
$3,000.00 in per capital disposable income.
Mr. Banks. Yes. I just think it is crazy that the--not
anti-union, grew up in a union family, I think it is crazy
these union officials are so detached from their members that
they become arms and tools of the democrat party, rather than
representing the working class values of their membership, and
I think you have made a case for that as well as the rest of
you, so with that Mr. Chairman I yield back.
Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Banks. Now we will recognize
my friend from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mix, in
your testimony, did I understand that you believe there is a
bias in favor of compulsory unions in present law?
Mr. Mix. Absolutely.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Mr. Mix. Categorically.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Calemine, it is been pointed out
that you are a former member of the staff on this Committee,
welcome back.
Mr. Calemine. Thank you.
Mr. Scott. A lot of good work when you were here. A lot has
been said about the accountability of union leadership. How do
you hold a union--how do union members hold their leadership
accountable?
Mr. Calemine. Unions are democratic organizations, and so
members have a voice in that organization. They have freedom of
speech. They get to vote on who their officers are. They can
run for office. They get to vote on all kinds of things. In
fact, once you unionize a workplace, it is a gateway to
democracy.
You vote on your officers, your shop stewards, you vote on
whether or not you are going to ratify a contract. You vote on
who is going to be on the bargaining committee and what their
priorities should be. You have a whole lot of choices, and when
you do not have a union, you do not have any choice, you
basically live at the whims of the employer. The employer
decides unilaterally what the terms and conditions of
employment will be.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. In the Chair's opening remarks he
mentioned a members' only contract where you can have a
contract that would justify all the raises and whatnot--just
apply it to union members. Is that present law?
Mr. Calemine. Thank you. There is an argument that it can
be done. The problem with it is that there is no obligation on
an employer's part to bargain in good faith with members of
this notion of a member's only minority union that just
covering a small group of people. There is no obligation for
that employer to actually sit down and in good faith bargain
with such a group.
The good faith bargaining obligation only attaches when you
go to an NLRB election or go through voluntary recognition and
show majority support of the entire bargaining unit.
Mr. Scott. Which requires you to do--to represent all the
members of the bargaining unit equally. That means even to the
individual level if you provide a lawyer to someone with a
grievance who is a union member, you would have to provide the
same kind of lawyer to a non-member at union cost, paid for by
dues paying members.
Mr. Calemine. Correct.
Mr. Scott. Now if someone elects not to join the union and
pays the fair share, are they contributing to political
activities?
Mr. Calemine. No. If they are agency fee objector, then the
union every year is figuring out how much of its costs go to
things like politics, and how much goes to things germane to
collective bargaining, and providing a rebate, or reducing the
fee by that amount so that an agency fee objector is not paying
for political activities.
Mr. Scott. They are not paying for the holiday party?
Mr. Calemine. It depends on what the holiday party is. You
are talking about a union holiday party at the union
headquarters?
Mr. Scott. Yes. Or somewhere, it does not have anything to
do with the bargaining contract or anything.
Mr. Calemine. Things that are not germane to collective
bargaining are not--they will not pay for those as part of
those agency fees; correct.
Mr. Scott. Okay. The sanction for an unfair labor practice,
such as firing someone for supporting a union, what is the
present deterrent effect of the present sanctions? What does an
employer have to pay?
Mr. Calemine. After sometimes years of litigation to try
and win your job back, if you have been fired for trying to
organize a union, the employer is not fined in any way by
Federal law. All the employer has to do is provide back pay to
that employee, or that former employee, that fired employee,
minus any interim earnings they might have earned because they
had to go out and feed their family.
They might have gotten another job, so the employer
benefits from whatever wages that worker got in the meantime.
Mr. Scott. If they were working, if they were trying to
organize a non-union shop and got a union job somewhere, they
could have been paid more, so there would be what, no sanction?
Mr. Calamine. Right. They would not have lost any interim
earnings.
Mr. Scott. There is no sanction?
Mr. Calamine. Correct.
Mr. Scott. For firing someone, unfair labor practice. Now,
if you are the victim of an unfair labor practice, what
compensation do you get?
Mr. Calamine. You get a make whole remedy if you are the
victim, and you will, I guess it is just the reverse. You would
get like whatever you would have earned in the interim since
the reinstatement is ordered, whatever earnings you would have
lost if you had not been fired you would get that amount of
money.
Mr. Scott. Minus what you made on the side?
Mr. Calamine. Minus what you made on the side, correct.
Mr. Scott. Which means years later you might not get
anything?
Mr. Calamine. Correct.
Mr. Scott. For getting fired?
Mr. Calamine: Correct.
Mr. Scott. What kind of message does that send to all the
other people that are thinking about organizing a union?
Mr. Calamine. It says do not try this. That is the message
it sends. The other part of the remedy is that you get
reinstated. By the time you are reinstated years later, the
organizing drive--many of your coworkers may have already left.
The people that were trying to pull together and make a
difference, the workplace has changed.
Employers, anti-union employers exploit these weaknesses in
the labor law to bust union drives all the time and there are
countless victims out of there of it.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Good. Thank you. Now we will recognize Dr. Foxx,
or Mr. Burlison from Missouri for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Calamine, I want
to ask you--I am going to give you a quote, and I am going to
ask you if you agree with the statement. This is by President
John F. Kennedy in the 1962 Executive Order 10988. He said
employees, when he used to talk about employees, he said shall
have and shall be protected in the exercise of the right,
freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal to form, join
and assist an employee organization, or to refrain from such
activity. Do you agree with that? That quote?
Mr. Calamine. I agree with that. Yes.
Mr. Burlison. You do agree that there should not be any
kind of reprisal for someone who chooses not to join the labor
organization?
Mr. Calamine. Correct. Including firing.
Mr. Burlison. An employee who is saying I am not joining, I
am not paying dues, you are saying that that person should keep
their job. They should not be fired?
Mr. Calamine. There is a distinction in the law between
joining as a member and meeting your financial core obligations
as part of this workforce that is all receiving the benefits of
the contract and the benefits of the representation to pay your
fair share.
Mr. Burlison. There is no--yes, substantively there is no
difference. At the end of the day, what they are--like this is
a termination request letter. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
submit this to the Committee. This is a recommended letter, or
template on how to fire employees to the employer if the member
does not pay union dues.
Chairman Good. Without objection.
[The information of Mr. Burlison follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Burlison. Mr. Mix, I am from--I am really jealous of
the people that were, you know, sitting on either side of me--I
am from Missouri, a State that sadly forces everyone to pay
membership dues, or pay dues to a union whether they want to or
not. What we have experienced in Missouri is a giant sucking
sound of jobs migrating across the borders into nearly every
neighboring State that provides workers the choice of whether
or not they want to join a union.
What I found fascinating was when we actually looked at the
data in Missouri, is that it was not just that the entire State
was losing jobs, the border counties were losing jobs at an
even greater rate. Is that what's happening in other states?
Mr. Mix. Yes. Absolutely. When you do a study of like maybe
a 30-mile radius on the border of a State, right to work State
versus non-right to work State, you see that Oklahoma saw that
when they were investigating, and that was one of the main
reasons why Frank Keating decided they needed a right to work
law because of that drain.
Congressman if I can say, it was not for your lack of
trying, right? For sure.
Mr. Burlison. Right. Well, you know, it has been mentioned
the free rider issue to which I do not think--I think when it
comes to this country, I think that is a false issue in this
regard. There are countless associations that advocate for
individuals in any other form of labor, whether the Nurse
Aestheticist Association, the Physician Association, the AARP.
This country does not put in law a forced requirement that
every senior citizen in America has to pay the AARP to
reimburse them for their advocacy.
That is because this is America. We believe in the right of
association. I will say I have heard the free rider argument,
while I disagree with it. Let me--I think I may have a
solution. That would be this bill that I am going to be
dropping next week called the Worker's Choice Act to directly
address this issue, and what it does is it would allow workers
in a right to work State to opt out of the union and represent
themselves before their employers.
It would free unions from having to represent so they do
not--the union no longer has to represent that person. They do
not have to pay for the attorney. They do not have to do the
work for this person, as well it would give the worker the
option to be a union member and accept the working conditions
negotiated by the union, or leave the union membership behind,
negotiate for compensation, working conditions independently,
and provide for their own representation. Your thoughts on
that?
Mr. Mix. Yes. It sounds good to me. The idea of this so
called free rider argument, we call it a captive passenger
argument because Federal law gives union officials the ability
to compel that representation of workers that may disagree. In
that case, interestingly enough Mr. Congressman, comes from a
Supreme Court case in 1944 called excuse me, Louisville
Nashville Railroad v. Steel, where white union officials said
they did not want to represent black workers on the railroad.
The Supreme Court looked at their power that is derived
from 19, you know from the Wagner Act saying wait a minute, you
have power equal to a legislative body as it relates to the
power you have over the workers that are ``in your unit''. It
was racism by white union officials that it created its duty of
fair representation, which the union embraced and do not want
to give up because it gives them tremendous power over the
workplace.
That is what basically says yes, you have got to give the
same due diligence and fiduciary relationship to non-members as
you do members because it started out as racism because of this
power they had over all the workers in the union, even those
that did not vote for it, did not want for it, did not ask for
a unionization.
Chairman Good. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank you,
Mr. Burlison, and now we will recognize Dr. Foxx from North
Carolina for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
witnesses today for being here, and especially for all of the
history lessons that we are getting today. I think it is
wonderful that we can get a good perspective on what has
happened in the past, so I thank you.
Ms. Vargas, under Federal law every private sector employee
has a right to choose whether or not to authorize automatic
payroll deductions of union dues from their paycheck or become
a union member. In your current position as a public defender,
you are represented by the United Autoworkers. Could you
discuss whether UAW officials, who are supposed to represent
your best interests, respected your rights to make choices
about automatic dues deductions and union membership?
Ms. Vargas. I was ignored. When they--I just was ignored, I
was totally ignored by the officials of the UAW, and they did
not explain anything to me. It was my insistence, and having to
go after them, and constant emailing them was before I got a
response. Even then the onus is on the individual. They will
not help you. They did not help.
Mrs. Foxx. Okay. Thank you very much. Ms. Geary, according
to your written testimony when you worked as a nurse at Kent
Hospital in Rhode Island, the hospital was unionized by the
United Nurses and Allied Professionals. You did not vote for or
support the union, however under Federal law you are forced to
be represented and work under a collective bargaining agreement
negotiated by a union you did not support.
Can you discuss whether you think it is fair that you were
forced to associate with a union that you wanted nothing to do
with?
Ms. Geary. No. I do not think it is fair that I was forced
to participate and pay dues and fees in this union. As a matter
of fact, not only was I forced to do so, but because I was
outspoken as to my opinion regarding this union, I was
punished. I was punished on the job. I was punished personally.
I was followed home at night. I was threatened by union reps. I
was told my car would be keyed.
It was a nightmare for me. I hear a lot here about unions
and the wonderful things they do. I think a lot of this is a
facade. I represent the reality of what really happens to
people who want to exercise their First Amendment rights of
freedom of speech, and freedom of association, and that is how
I feel.
This is America. We should be allowed to choose, and if
unions are that good, they will sell themselves.
Mrs. Foxx. Yes. I think you are right. I agree with you
completely. Mr. Mix, right to work detractors say the law is
unfair to unions. They usually cite the ``free rider'' argument
that right to work laws allow workers to benefit from union
representation without paying for it, and again thank you for
the little history lesson that you just gave.
Can you respond to the free rider argument, and discuss why
unions jealously guard their monopoly status?
Mr. Mix. Yes. That is right. There is a couple of quotes
there that are pretty interesting. Bill Gould, who was the
general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board in the
Clinton administration said that workers, the law would allow
for member only bargaining, et cetera. Obviously, there are
issues that need to be settled.
I think the most relevant quote was from Robert Reisch, who
was the Secretary of Labor at the time. He said, ``Unions have
to have a way to strap their members to the mast,'' and boy if
that is what the Secretary of Labor says about how union
officials need to treat their members, they are worried about
workers defecting from the union.
The only way they can guarantee they do not is to force
them under these compulsory unionist regimes. It just does not
make any sense. If they really are doing great things as
Jeanette said, they will attract workers. I mean build it and
they will come.
We believe that, and I do not think there is anybody on the
panel from that side or this side that would block an
individual's right to join a union, associate with a union.
Again, give their entire paycheck to a union, but force and
compulsion have no place in this--whether it be in this law or
in State law.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much and I completely agree with
you. I yield back Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Good. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. We are almost done. We
will now recognize our Ranking Member, the distinguished
gentlemen from California, Mr. DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to Chair
Foxx, I love the history lessons. I can remember just as Ms.
Foxx was saying that, growing up in Lowell, Massachusetts as a
young person and listening to my grandparents' generation
talking about the first union movement in the textile mills in
Lowell.
The women's textile workers who organized, and then what
happened over the course of time is that as their wages came up
a lot of those mills moved to the south, so history does repeat
itself. What we are really trying to do here is find a balance
between the employer and the employee.
To the two witnesses, I am sorry what I have heard of your
personal experience. That was not my personal experience as a
member of the Teamsters and a member of the Hotel and
Restaurant Workers. Mr. Calamine, and I do want to welcome you
back to the Committee as Mr. Scott was saying that I was
thinking of my predecessor, Mr. Miller, who used to work for is
looking down on both of us and smiling.
Although knowing his personality as we do, we probably know
he would probably be a little bit--his Irish would be up on
some of the conversation. What we are trying to do is find a
balance here, Mr. Calamine. We have talked about the difference
between right to work and states like mine, California, the
fourth largest economy in the world.
It has very strong labor protection laws. Could you talk a
little bit about globally? A lot of what my perception in this
is to make these human institutions work as best they can,
which I think in goodwill we are all trying to do in the
balance, as a former employer whose made a lot of--paid a lot
of purveyors and workers overtime in non-union restaurants, in
a union area.
I am trying to get this balance right. Lincoln famously
said labor and capital have to be balanced. If capital ever
gets the advantage, you have lost democracy. There is balance
in here. In a world where a concentration of wealth is so
extreme, not unlike my grandparents' generation, the gilded
age, that led to the depression and two world wars, you have
got a lot of concentration of wealth and a lot of concentration
of corporate power publicly traded and private.
The union movement has seen a resurgence is--if any
indication of what we said. I attribute that to Americans
understanding they have to have a stronger voice in a world
that's different. We look at competing economies, the Germans,
they have a strong labor movement. It is part of their culture
of the craft system.
Could we compare a little bit about the world in terms of
being competitive? We know that like the Chinese right now we
have got a lot of comments about as our middle class grows
there is more demand for worker voice. Could you speak to that
a little bit in your research and your observations? Not just
the regional differences, but being globally competitive?
Mr. Calamine. Globally, I think, I grew up in West
Virginia, and it was a manufacturing area. A lot of factories
around the town where I grew up. Globally, I would start
nationally and then go globally. Globally, or nationally
rather, when those plants, most of them--I believe most of them
were unionized and at bargaining time I heard the refrain
growing up.
Unions need to be careful to not ask for too much because
they will just move to a right to work State they will move
south to a right to work State, to Mr. Wilson's State for
example. Those lower--that is these states where workers are
not negotiating their terms and conditions of employment with
their employer, they are just taking whatever the employer
gives them, undercut the standards in the State where I was
growing up.
Eventually, some of them would move south. Now what we have
is a global economy where there are countries that are also
undercutting even the right to work states. If these
factories--and that is why when we start with this notion like
let us look at manufacturing employment. Why? That is--those
are the jobs that are most easily moved around, and so yes,
right to work states pulled the manufacturing jobs away from
non-right to work states.
Now, places like China or Bangladesh when it comes to
textiles, with much lower standards of employment of--of rights
for workers, are--have been pulling those jobs away from--from
even those right to work states. It is a balance of like
finding the right way to ensure that Americans--because we want
Americans to grow up with, or Americans to have access to the
American dream, and an ability to sit down and negotiate as
equal partners as much as possible with capital to help build a
middle class.
It was thanks to unions that we grew that middle class
during the period before all the union busting really took off
since the 1970's or so.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. Perfect. I yield back.
Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. DeSaulnier. I now recognize
myself for 5 minutes. Ms. Geary, would you say that forced
union membership, forced union dues had a positive impact on
your or your coworker's relationship with your employer?
Ms. Geary. No. Not at all. That was one of the biggest
regrets in why 150 nurses signed by decertification petition,
and it is because we did not know that once a union came in we
would not have access to our managers and administrators in
order to manage our own jobs.
We are professionals, and all of a sudden, we were cutoff
from the decisionmaking process of caring for our patients.
Chairman Good. Did you have an opportunity to work in a
right to work State also?
Ms. Geary. I was in North Carolina for a decade. Things
there were very, very different. I moved there after I lived in
Rhode Island as a matter of fact, and I made frankly, I made
about double the pay. I felt more supported.
Chairman Good. You made about double the pay in North
Carolina?
Ms. Geary. In North Carolina, yes sir.
Chairman Good. Without the help of a union.
Ms. Geary. Pardon?
Chairman Good. Without the help of a union, you made more
pay? Interesting--to make sure that was true.
Ms. Geary. Correct. I was making around 25 something in
Rhode Island. In North Carolina I was making 50 to 60 dollars
an hour. With an open-door policy that I could talk to
administration or management at any time. Now we all had
frustrations, of course.
Chairman Good. I am sorry. I have to interrupt a second.
You mean your employer paid you double without a union forcing
that to happen?
Ms. Geary. In North Carolina? Right. I was offered a job
with double the pay that I was receiving in Rhode Island with a
union in place. That is correct.
Chairman Good. Very good. Ms. Vargas, if I may, UAW
officials threatened to claw back a salary increase that you
received, and threatened your employment when you did not sign
the card to allow the automatic dues deduction from your
paycheck. How do you think if a national right to work had been
in place how that might have been different for you?
Ms. Vargas. I am sorry. I would not had to have dealt with
it at all. I would not have had to even file with the NLRB. I
could have negotiated for myself and probably I believe I would
have gotten a better salary increase if I negotiated for
myself. I would have had to endure what we faced, being
threatened to lose our jobs after almost 30 years working
there.
Defending, and that became the other problem. They changed
the nature of my office where it became so focused on the
union, and not what we were really there for, which was to
provide defense for indigent clients.
Chairman Good. Thank you. Mr. Mix, wage negotiations,
managing a contract, addressing workers' safety, this is what
the average person might assume that a union is using their
money for. Things that theoretically improve the workers'
conditions, but sadly we know that billions of union dollars
are going to political causes, and lobbying activities.
The numbers we have are that 1.2 million went to Planned
Parenthood. 15.9 million to the Democratic Governors
Association. 1.6 billion, billion with a B for the 2022
election cycle going to democrats. Would you say that works
related to negotiate a new contract for individual workers or--
what are your thoughts on how those union dues are actually
used?
Mr. Mix. In part of our work at the Legal Defense
Foundation we argued a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1988 called
Beck vs. Communication Workers of America, where when the
special master was assigned to kind of discover some
information, found that the union was only spending 19 percent
of their entire revenue stream on collective bargaining
contract negotiating grievance arbitration.
The things that are supposedly fundamental. I mean just
looking through reports that the union filed with the FCC and
the DOL, you find them spending billions. I do not know,
billions does not mean much around here anymore frankly,
accounting errors and pocket change.
Chairman Good. We deal in the trillions now, yes.
We--you know if you use the decision in the Janice v.
AFSCME case in the Supreme Court in 2018 that freed all
government employees being--from being forced to pay union dues
or fees, and you used the mindset that articulates that the
First Amendment protection, and that everything that government
unions do is designed to redress government, which should be
protected speech--it is under the First Amendment thanks to the
Foundation's lawsuit that we won in 2018--the numbers grow
quickly to almost 12 billion dollars on political and lobbying
activities in a 2-year period.
Chairman Good. Individuals like Ms. Vargas and Ms. Geary
who have--have to pay those union dues though they may not
choose to, 80 percent of that is for political activities they
did not choose to spend their hard-earned dollars on. Well, my
time has expired, so I will end on time. I will now recognize
our Ranking Member for a closing statement.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to thank
you for having this hearing. Obviously, we respectfully and
passionately disagree. Right now, in the largest concentration
of wealth in the history of this country arguably, where
capital so dominates labor in the spirit of Lincoln and
Eisenhower, it is important that workers have a voice.
Is that voice perfect? No. You have elections. Lots of
people do not like when they lose elections. Some of them very
prominent nowadays, and even contest those elections, despite
all the evidence. That is the way the system works. Right now,
what I worry about is what Pickerdy has written about, so in
tedious detail that in capitalistic economics when you get this
imbalance, there is inevitably an implosion.
What are we going to do about it? What is Congress doing to
do about it? I think it is really important that labor has a
countervailing institution to capital. Lincoln was right. It is
not that capital is bad, but when it is so concentrated as
Lincoln said, capital is derived from labor. You have to have
people working first.
The institution that protects people in a large global
economy that we have available for us is labor. I have heard
colleagues who like me, were members of a labor union, and had
family members. They understand the value of labor. What we are
arguing about I hope here today, is trying to keep ordinary
workers having a voice.
I think that is the determination that brings a passion to
me to get that right. What I am concerned about, and Bob Reich
who is a friend, your quote is not unlike him, but it is in the
context of a very large approach where his argument of course
is you do not have a middle class if you do not have a consumer
class. It is the Henry Ford argument; I want my workers to be
able to buy my product.
That is what we are trying to get to. Unfortunately, it is
very much swayed. It is hard for people to organize. It has
been hard before, and it will be again. Non-union employer's
benefit from this. Ms. Geary, good that you made that extra
$25.00 an hour, as a non-union member.
Our argument is the unions helped you because absent that
historically there would not have been that competition and we
see it in the UAW argument where the non-union employers almost
immediately went to give the benefit. I would say, as a former
point of sale retailer in the restaurant business, the more
disposal income, there is more, cost of living is higher, but
also people have more discretionary income, so they go in, they
can invest, or they can go in and buy dinner or lunch at the
local restaurant.
Getting that balance is a challenge. Mr. Chairman, I wish
we could have--we disagree on many things, but I think we both
have mutual respect and a cordial relationship. These are the
kinds of conversations we can have passionately, but we have to
look at the outcomes.
I do not have any doubt that the outcome we have to have in
this country is a strong middle class where people have
disposable income, and I also have a very firm commitment that
and belief that if you look at history the ability for people
to organize, have an election as freely as possible, gives them
that voice that is equal to, or at least somewhat equaled to
capital.
When it comes to contributions, when you look at the record
just from American's prosperity, from the Koch industries
group, they are spending on independent expenditures dwarfs
labor and working people in the last 30 years. Dozens and
hundreds of times, probably, so arguing that there should be
more accountability. Okay, let us be fair. Let us be fair about
corporate interest and capital interest privately held in their
contributions and let us have transparency in that.
As much as I appreciate this conversation, I wish it would
be more constructive toward getting which--at least body
language-wise I am getting from you Mr. Mix. I would be happy
to have that conversation is how do we get more balance, what
Lincoln was talking about, which then creates this middle
class, which is the spirit of what President Eisenhower said
when he had the quote that I had, is getting that more
balanced.
I do not see this bill, with all due respect to my friend,
Mr. Wilson, as helping that. I will yield back with those
comments, and looking forward to a more fruitful, honest,
passionate discussion where we might actually agree on some of
these things.
Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. DeSaulnier. You know, it is
interesting as has been noted several times today, particularly
by Mr. Mix, that the vast majority of Americans do not work
under a union. 94 percent is the statistic that I have seen
that you have confirmed today, and that is perhaps why they do
have a favorable opinion of a union, but they still do not want
to be part of one.
If you do not work under one, you know, it is kind of like,
okay I like it for you, but I certainly do not want it for me,
certainly not from a forced standpoint. I especially also
appreciated the testimony of Ms. Vargas and Ms. Geary for
sharing how you personally suffered under forced, compulsive
union membership and union dues, and your willingness to help
others benefit from your experience today with your testimony.
The Ranking Member said hey, your experience did not match
his, but I suspect that is true because he did not resist
forced union membership or compulsory dues payments. His
experience may have been different if he had resisted as you
all did. Unions are predominantly in blue states, I will point
out, from which people are fleeing in record numbers, to free
right to work red states.
Why is that? Are the American people stupid? Do they not
know what is best for them? Why do they not want unions? Let us
let the marketplace dictate. Give freedom to employers, freedom
to businesses, freedom to job creators, and yes, freedom to
workers and employees.
Right to workforces competition. Right to workforces unions
to earn their support and demonstrate the majority consensus
for their existence, that is why you hear such resistance to
what we are talking about today from my friends on the other
side. If right to work was a bad thing, free red states would
be suffering and stagnating, while anti-choice blue states
would be growing and flourishing, but we all know the opposite
is true.
I worked for a union shop, a UAW shop in college in an auto
factory. Unions cultivate an unhealthy, us first mentality in
the workplace. This is not the same country it was 70 years
ago, in terms of protection of worker's rights when President
Eisenhower was proposing or promoting unions.
Unions give you the right to strike--yes, they do. They
give you the right to lose your job, and the right to have your
plant closed. That is what happened in the place that I used to
work by the way. A growing number of Americans have chosen
again not to join a union. Union's help create a disgruntled
employee atmosphere mentality.
The fact is unions again contribute tens of millions of
dollars to democrat campaigns, using the very dollars that are
withheld from un-consenting employees. The only ones who really
win with the union are union bosses and democrat politicians.
With the union membership at an all-time low, there is no
reason why we should today be forcing employees to give some of
their hard-earned paychecks to union bosses.
I also want to point out that something that was mentioned
in the opening statement from the Ranking Member, he said
earlier the right to work movement started to stop the
advancement of black workers who organize through unions. I
would point out that the black, excuse me, the Biden
administration is doubling down right now on a pro-union racist
law with a nefarious history, the Davis-Bacon Act is a
conglomeration of many Jim Crow era policies that were intended
to inflate the wages of government contractors and eliminate
competition for labor in favor of white union workers.
Under Davis-Bacon the Department of Labor substitutes its
own contrived, non-scientific calculations of prevailing wages
for actual market wages. The Department of Labor's calculation
uses inflated union wages to determine what workers should get
paid, and the Biden administration has unilaterally and
arbitrarily expanded the Davis-Bacon wage rules through
regulation, which is harmful to workers across the country.
I do have legislation to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act, which
would help remove these discriminatory laws from the books and
save taxpayer money. I openly State that I believe that unions
are harmful to the workplace, and I do not support them in any
fashion. While I do support, of course, the legal right of
workers to organize and choose for themselves.
There are lots of things that I do not support in this
country, that I believe should be legal, including the right to
organize and choose for yourself. I also support the
fundamental right for employers to resist unions. That is
important.
The administration today does not support that of course,
and that is why they want to pass the PRO Act. I will remind my
colleagues today that national right to work does not
technically threaten unions, it just ensures that everyday
Americans like Ms. Vargas and Ms. Geary do not have to be
threatened by a union anymore.
The truth is, and we know this to be the truth, passing the
right to work, national right to work, will practically result
in reduced union power, and hopefully union membership for
those and reduce union membership to those who actually choose
to join and fund a union, and that is a good thing in my
opinion and in my experience.
I hope we can move this legislation forward so that we can
continue to protect worker's rights and liberties and fight
against the Biden administration's big labor bias, which is
hurting the country and hurting workers all over the country.
With that, I would like to thank again our witnesses for
appearing today, taking the time to be with us and testify
before the Subcommittee. Without objection, there being no
further business, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon at 12:21 p.m., hearing was adjourned.]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT