[Senate Hearing 118-189]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                           S. Hrg. 118-189

                     DEFENDING THE RIGHT OF WORKERS
                  TO ORGANIZE UNIONS FREE FROM ILLEGAL
                        CORPORATE UNION-BUSTING

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

                                HEARING

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
                          LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                   ON

           EXAMINING DEFENDING THE RIGHT OF WORKERS TO ORGANIZE 
            UNIONS FREE FROM ILLEGAL CORPORATE UNION-BUSTING

                               __________

                             MARCH 8, 2023

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions
                                
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                                ________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
54-562 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------         
       
          COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                 BERNIE SANDERS (I), Vermont, Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania   BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana, 
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin                 Ranking Member
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut   RAND PAUL, Kentucky
TIM KAINE, Virginia                  SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TINA SMITH, Minnesota                MIKE BRAUN, Indiana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            ROGER MARSHALL, M.D., Kansas
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          MITT ROMNEY, Utah
ED MARKEY, Massachusetts             TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama
                                     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
                                     TED BUDD, North Carolina

                Warren Gunnels, Majority Staff Director
              Bill Dauster, Majority Deputy Staff Director
                Amanda Lincoln, Minority Staff Director
           Danielle Janowski, Minority Deputy Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                               STATEMENTS

                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           Committee Members

Sanders, Hon. Bernie, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, 
  Labor, and Pensions, Opening statement.........................     1

Cassidy, Hon. Bill, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from the State 
  of Louisiana, Opening statement................................     3

                               Witnesses

Shuler, Liz, President, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC..................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Summary statement............................................    11

Henry, Mary Kay, International President, Service Employees 
  International Union, Washington, DC............................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
    Summary statement............................................    16

O'Brien, Sean, General President, International Brotherhood of 
  Teamsters, Washington, DC......................................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    19

Ring, Hon. John F., Partner, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Former 
  Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC.    27
    Prepared statement...........................................    29
    Summary statement............................................    38

Mix, Mark, President of the National Right to Work Committee, 
  President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense 
  Foundation, Springfield, VA....................................    39
    Prepared statement...........................................    41
    Summary statement............................................    44

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.
Sanders, Hon. Bernie:
    National Education Association (NEA), Prepared statement.....    72
Cassidy, Hon. Bill:
    Letters from Stakeholders opposing the PRO Act............... 72-95
    Big Labor's Astroturfed Unionization of Starbucks, Reuters 
      article....................................................    96

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Response by Liz Shuler to questions of:
    Senator Casey................................................   100
    Senator Lujan................................................   101
    Senator Hickenlooper.........................................   103
    Senator Cassidy..............................................   105
    Senator Tuberville...........................................   106
Response by Mary Kay Henry to questions of:
    Senator Casey................................................   107
    Senator Lujan................................................   108
    Senator Hickenlooper.........................................   109
Response by Sean O'Brien to questions of:
    Senator Lujan................................................   110
    Senator Hickenlooper.........................................   111
    Senator Markey...............................................   112
    Senator Cassidy..............................................   112
Response by Hon. John F. Ring to questions of:
    Senator Hickenlooper.........................................   113
    Senator Tuberville...........................................   114
Response by Mark Mix to questions of:
    Senator Cassidy..............................................   115
    Senator Tuberville...........................................   117

 
                     DEFENDING THE RIGHT OF WORKERS
                  TO ORGANIZE UNIONS FREE FROM ILLEGAL
                        CORPORATE UNION-BUSTING

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, March 8, 2023

                                       U.S. Senate,
       Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
room 430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bernard Sanders, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

    Present: Senators Sanders [presiding], Murray, Casey, 
Baldwin, Murphy, Kaine, Hassan, Smith, Hickenlooper, Markey, 
Cassidy, Paul, Murkowski, Braun, Marshall, Mullin, and Budd.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SANDERS

    The Chair. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions will come to order. As I think my 
colleagues up here on the dais know that the original purpose 
of this hearing was twofold.

    The first part was to issue a subpoena to Howard Schultz, 
the CEO of Starbucks, to ask him why he thought his company 
could violate labor law, Federal labor law, with impunity. The 
NLRB has issued over 80 complaints against Starbucks, which the 
company has ignored. But I am happy to say that yesterday, the 
day before this vote, Mr. Schultz and Starbucks decided that he 
would appear and we will have a discussion with him on the 29th 
of March.

    But the other half of what this meeting was about is what 
we are going to have right now, and it is an enormously 
important meeting. I am very, very delighted that we have five 
wonderful witnesses, and I want to say a special thanks to Liz 
Shuler, the head of the AFL-CIO, and Mary Kay Henry, and Sean 
O'Brien of the Teamsters.

    These folks are not only here today, they have spent their 
lives fighting for working people, and we very much appreciate 
all that you have done to improve lives for millions of 
Americans. The issue that we are debating today deals with the 
reality that everybody in America understands that we are 
living in a very strange and unfair economy.

    On one hand, in the richest country in the history of the 
world, we have over 60 percent of our people living paycheck to 
paycheck. That means people who worry that if their car breaks 
down, if their kid gets sick, if their landlord raises their 
rent, they are suddenly going to find themselves in a real 
financial crisis.

    In America today, from coast to coast, we have people by 
the millions working for starvation wages. Right now, the 
Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Obviously, many states 
have gone beyond that. But despite that, you have got millions 
of people who are working for totally inadequate wages.

    This Committee, by the way, must do everything possible to 
raise the minimum wage to a living wage. In America today, we 
are seeing levels of income and wealth inequality that have 
never been seen in the history of the United States of America. 
Today, you got three people on top who own more wealth than the 
bottom half of American society.

    You have got the top 1 percent owning more wealth than the 
bottom 92 percent. You have almost all new income and wealth 
being created going to the people on top. You are looking at 
corporate profits in company after company at record breaking 
levels, guys making billions of dollars a year.

    CEO compensation right now, 400 times more than the average 
American worker. And the American people look around them, what 
do they see? They see the very rich becoming richer. And in 
many cases, they are falling further and further behind. They 
can't afford health care, can't afford childcare. Can't afford 
to take care of the parents.

    A lot of reasons for why that has happened, it is not the 
fault of the Republican Party, it is not the fault of the 
Democratic Party, it is a lot of factors that are out there. 
But today, and if this Committee is going to do its job, we are 
going to stand with working people and do everything that we 
can to create an economy that works for all of us and not just 
a few.

    Anyone who knows anything about history understands that 
one way, one important way that workers--and I come from a 
working class, proudly, a working-class family. One way that 
workers have been able to lift themselves up is by joining 
unions and engaging in collective bargaining for decent wages 
and decent benefits.

    That is one important way that workers have been able to 
uplift themselves. I want to congratulate our union leaders 
here today for helping millions of workers do just that. But 
what we are seeing right now at this moment in history is 
despite the fact that the billionaire class have never done 
better, corporate profits are soaring, we are seeing these very 
same corporations, and it is not just Starbucks, believe me, 
pour hundreds of millions of dollars in efforts to make it 
impossible for workers to exercise their Constitutional rights, 
Constitutional rights to form a union.

    You can be pro-union, you could be anti-union, but what we 
have got to establish today is that workers have the 
Constitutional right to form a union. And what we are seeing in 
company, after company, after company, people want to join 
unions being fired, we are seeing workers being taken into back 
rooms and being lectured about how terrible unions are. We are 
seeing people being intimidated.

    That is not what is supposed to be happening in America. 
So, the message for me at least that is going to go out today 
is that we are a nation of law, and that even if you are a 
multi-billion-dollar corporation with all kinds of consultants 
and accountants, you know what, you are going to obey the law.

    In this country, workers have the right to form unions, and 
we are going to do everything we can to make sure that they can 
exercise that Constitutional right. Senator Cassidy.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CASSIDY

    Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    [Technical problems]--obey the law. That is not an issue. 
And that is also table set. The Chair's opening statement spoke 
about how 60 million or 60 percent of the population is living 
paycheck to paycheck.

    Prior to this Administration and the Biden inflation that 
has gone up 14 percent since he took office, people had money 
in their checking account. People had money in their savings 
account. But with that Biden inflation, now people, and you can 
look at the statistics, the savings among the lower quintile 
have been depleted with this Biden inflation.

    Now, I think we need to table set if we are going to say, 
oh, my gosh, it is the fault of x, y, and z, I think we really 
need to know exactly where that fault lies. Now, let's talk 
about the issue of the day. There are 76,000 union workers in 
Louisiana.

    Being a right to work state means that these workers have 
the right and they choose to be in a union. I am supporting 
that choice. They choose. And in America, you have a choice. 
That is what being a right to work state is about.

    Now, the majority's title and the framing of today's 
hearing is that you are defending the right of workers to 
organize, leaves out the important other side of the coin. 
Defending the right of a worker also includes defending those 
who choose that it is not their best interest to join a union.

    They may decide that a union limits their work flexibility, 
eliminates their ability to be rewarded, or based upon--that 
their advancement is based upon individual talent and merit and 
not seniority.

    Maybe they just don't want a certain amount of their 
paycheck going to pay union leaders salaries, and maybe they 
don't want a certain amount to disproportionately go to 
political candidates for whom they do not vote. I am told that 
by people who choose not to be in unions.

    Now, let's not confuse being pro-union with being pro-
worker. Being pro-worker means supporting all workers and all 
workers' rights and their ability to choose for themselves what 
is their best path forward for them and for their family. We 
are seeing a concerning trend that attempts to erode workers' 
rights.

    It might be administrative action by rule, if you will, or 
it might be the introduction of the PRO Act. These efforts are 
not about supporting the rights of workers. Their intent is to 
force workers into unions that prop up and support big, 
politically connected unions.

    Yesterday, I sent a letter to the National Labor Relations 
Board concerning the weaponization of its enforcement power and 
the targeting of high-profile employers on behalf of these same 
well-connected unions.

    The purpose of the NLRB, by law, and this is about obeying 
the law, the purpose of the NLRB by law, is to provide an 
unbiased framework to review disputes between employees and 
employers, and that is not what we are seeing.

    Last week, a Michigan court denied an NLRB request for a 
nationwide cease and desist order in Kerwin v. Starbucks 
because NLRB did not have sufficient evidence supporting a 
claim against the employer.

    Let's repeat, NLRB claimed the company was employing a 
nationwide anti-union policy. And by the way, the title of this 
hearing presumes guilt. It echoes their claim, but their claim 
lacks sufficient evidence to justify the accusation. What is 
really concerning about the NLRB hearing is that a hearing 
officer recently substantiated voting irregularities at a 
Starbucks in Kansas that could potentially elevate the 
misconduct on the behalf of the NRLB employees.

    This includes NRLB providing duplicate ballots, supplying 
union organizers with confidential voter information, and 
providing voter accommodations to employees selected by the 
union without offering them to all employees. These actions are 
in direct violation of Federal law and NRLB written guidelines.

    By the way, I am not here to represent a particular 
company. No one is above our Nation's laws and that includes 
the NLRB. Today we will hear a lot about the PRO Act. To make 
one thing clear, PRO Act is not pro-worker, it is pro big 
union. It gets rid of the secret ballot elections for 
unionization, which is the gold standard to keep somebody from 
being put into a corner and intimidated until they vote the way 
that the intimidator wishes them to vote.

    It protects them from retaliation if it goes in a different 
way. The pro-worker--the PRO Act would make workers in my home 
State of Louisiana and 27 other states vulnerable to force 
unionization. If they want to unionize, I am for it. Let's do 
it. It is a Constitutional right and we should give it to them.

    But if they choose not to, they shouldn't be coerced, and 
they should not be coerced into having a portion of their 
paycheck taken to go to union activities of which they do not 
approve. By the workers--by the way, if workers don't have a 
choice of whether to join, then the union no longer has an 
obligation to respond to the views of those whom they 
represent.

    I do think this might be related to the disconnect between 
what we have seen between the political positions of union 
members and the political positions taken by their leadership. 
I ask my colleagues that we not conflate pro-union with pro-
worker.

    We must support all workers, those who want to be in a 
union and those who do not wish to be. I look forward to 
hearing from our witnesses.

    The Chair. Thank you very much, Senator Cassidy. Liz Shuler 
is the President of the AFL-CIO, which represents more than 12 
million members in 60 different unions.

    President Shuler is the daughter of a union lineman and got 
her start as an organizer at IBEW Local 125. And she is a 
strong fighter for workers' rights, and we are proud that she 
is with us today. Ms. Shuler.

  STATEMENT OF LIZ SHULER, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Shuler. Thank you so much, Chairman Sanders, Ranking 
Member Cassidy, and Members of the HELP Committee. Thank you 
for holding this hearing today and for inviting me to testify.

    As was said, I am the President of the AFL-CIO. We are an 
umbrella, a federation of 60 unions, 12.5 million working 
people all across this country, in every industry, in every 
state, from actors and athletes to bus drivers and 
electricians, to nurses, scientists, video game developers, and 
everything in between.

    I would like to say as a woman leader, we are the largest 
organization of working women in the country. Not a lot of 
people think of us that way. We want all working people in this 
country that want to, to be able to exercise their legal right 
to join or form a union. It is that simple, because we have 
seen throughout America's history unions get results.

    If you enjoy the weekend, anyone enjoy the weekend, you can 
thank the labor movement for the weekend. If you get overtime 
pay, unions got it done. Unions are the single most powerful 
tool we have to demand fair, just, and equitable treatment of 
workers.

    Yet at this moment, the very fight to form a union is under 
attack. It is under attack from corporations that made billions 
in record profits last year but refused to pay their employees 
enough to afford rent or groceries.

    It is under attack from CEOs who have yachts so big they 
need bridges in ports to be modified but balk at providing 
workers in their factories with bathroom breaks. These 
corporations and executives can buy many things. We cannot let 
them buy the basic rights of working people.

    Today, I am here to bring the voices of workers in this 
room, and many of whom are in the audience. In 2022, 
corporations like Starbucks, like Delta Airlines, Alphabet, and 
Apple posted some of their most profitable years in history. 
What do workers have to show for it? Well, while pay for 
corporate CEOs increased over 1,000 percent between 1978 and 
2019, worker pay rose 13.7 percent over that 40 plus year 
timeframe.

    It is no coincidence that labor standards have plummeted as 
the percentage of people in unions has declined in America. 
Workers face unpredictable schedules, understaffed and unsafe 
workplaces, and a lack of basic dignity on the job. Unions are 
the counterweight. We balance the scales.

    The data is overwhelming. Workplaces with unions provide 
more predictable schedules, safer workplaces, better benefits. 
In a recent study showed, if union density had not declined 
over the past few decades, the typical worker today would earn 
$3,250 more per year, okay.

    I just want to ask every working person watching this a 
simple question, what would your family do with an extra $3,250 
per year? You can imagine. A change is in the air. Workers are 
energized.

    They are forming unions in new industries, in places we 
never thought possible. They are connecting the dots. They are 
forming unions. And they are seeing that is how progress 
happens. The response of companies like Starbucks, the same 
ones that hide behind progressive values, call their workers 
partners, has been to turn around and throw a litany of dirty 
tactics at these employees.

    I have to say, I am so glad that Mr. Schultz has decided to 
present himself in front of this Committee. How many hundreds 
of thousands of baristas showed up every day for Starbucks in 
the middle of a pandemic? How many of those workers helped him 
make vast sums of money?

    It is the least he can do to show up here and talk about an 
issue that is so important to their lives. And across this 
country, employers spend $340 million per year on law firms and 
consultants to help them intimidate workers. They fire union 
activists. They hold mandatory anti-union meetings.

    Somehow the money that companies like Amazon spend on these 
consultants is not only legal, but it is a tax write off. It 
doesn't have to be this way. Some employers like Microsoft--I 
mean, everyone is familiar with Microsoft. They have said, you 
know what, if our workers want to join a union, we should let 
that happen.

    We shouldn't stand in the way. So, the company pledged 
neutrality with the Communications Workers of America. This is 
the path forward. Moving together, forward in partnership. 
Everyone wins. But this isn't the norm. We need a level playing 
field.

    We need to pass the Richard Trumka Protecting the Right to 
Organize Act as soon as possible to protect collective action, 
to remove the barriers to workers' voice, and hold employers 
accountable when they violate workers' rights.

    We need to provide the NLRB with the funding that it needs 
to enforce the law and protect workers and hold CEOs 
accountable for their actions so that every worker has the 
simple right to choose for themselves. Whether a union makes 
sense, as the Senator said, these are not radical ideas.

    These are simple steps to ensure fairness. And if we fix 
our broken system, I guarantee you working people will keep 
coming together in greater and greater numbers, and our 
movement will continue to grow and fight for the issues, issues 
that matter not only to union members, but millions of workers 
across this country. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Shuler follows:]

                    prepared statement of liz shuler
    Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy and Members of the HELP 
Committee, thank you for holding this hearing and inviting me to 
testify today.

    My name is Liz Shuler and I am the president of the AFL-CIO, a 
federation of 60 unions that represents 12.5 million working people 
across the country, in every industry, in every state, from actors and 
athletes to bus drivers and electricians to nurses, scientists and 
video game developers and every job in between.

    We want all working people in this country, who want to, to be able 
to exercise their legal right to join or form a union. Because we've 
seen throughout America's history: Unions get results. If you enjoy the 
weekend...unions made it happen. If you get overtime pay...unions got 
it done. Unions are the single most powerful tool we have to demand the 
fair, just and equitable treatment of workers.

    Right now, the labor movement's fight is more critical than ever. 
We are working across dozens of industries every day to ensure all 
workers receive not just a ``livable'' wage, but a wage we can thrive 
on--along with the better benefits, safer working conditions and fair 
treatment on the job that come with a collective bargaining agreement.

    Yet at this moment, the very right to organize is under attack. It 
is under attack from corporations that made billions in record profits 
last year...but refuse to pay their employees enough to afford rent or 
groceries. It is under attack from CEOs who have yachts so big they 
need bridges in ports to be modified...but balk at providing workers in 
their factories with bathroom breaks.

    These corporations and executives can buy many things. We cannot 
let them buy the basic rights of working people. Today I'm here to 
bring the voices of workers into the room. I meet and talk to workers 
all across this country who are in the middle of a fight to form a 
union--and I'm here to talk about why it's important to support our 
struggle to obtain a real voice on the job.

    I have spoken with workers across the country from all kinds of 
industries and backgrounds, with different experiences, skill sets and 
responsibilities. And there is one common theme throughout every 
conversation: ``Why am I doing more work for less pay...even as my 
company's profits skyrocket?''

    The numbers back them up. Delta Air Lines, for example, recently 
boasted an operating revenue of $13.4 billion and a double-digit 
operating margin (10.9 percent). This is 17 percent higher than 3 years 
ago (when revenue was $11.44 billion). \1\ In a statement to investors, 
the company says it expects revenue in 2023 to grow by another 15 
percent--20 percent. \2\ Alphabet, Google's parent company, just last 
year enjoyed the fastest revenue growth rate the company had seen in 15 
years. And Apple's margin has been steadily rising; the company closed 
2021 with its biggest quarter ever for sales, at nearly $124 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  cnbc.com/2023/01/13/delta-air-lines-dal-earnings-q4-2022.html
    \2\  prnewswire.com-news-releases-delta-air-lines-announces-
december-quarter-and-full-year--2022

    What do workers have to show for it? While pay for corporate CEOs 
has increased over 1,000 percent between 1978 and 2019, worker pay has 
risen only 13.7 percent. Since 1979, the wages of the top 1 percent 
grew nearly 160.3 percent, but the wages of the bottom 90 percent 
combined grew just 26.0 percent. \3\ That is over the past 44 years. 
Even as we emerge from a pandemic--one in which workers showed up at 
our own peril, day after day, to keep the country running--corporations 
continue to put profit over people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\  epi.org/blog/wages-for-the-top-1-skyrocketed-160-since-1979-
while-the-share-of-wages-for-the-bottom-90-shrunk-time-to-remake-wage-
pattern-with-economic-policies-that-generate-robust-wage-growth-for-
vast-majority

    Issues go beyond wages. It's no coincidence that labor standards 
have plummeted as union density has declined in America. Workers face 
unpredictable schedules, understaffed and unsafe workplaces, and a lack 
of basic dignity on the job. By seeking the lowest costs possible, 
corporations encourage contractors and subcontractors to cut corners, 
often at the expense of human life and human dignity. Recent violations 
show that companies like Hyundai and major meatpacking companies hire 
contractors in their supply chain who exploit child labor, often 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
placing migrant children in dangerous working conditions.

    Unions are the counterweight. Workplaces with unions provide more 
predictable schedules, safer workplaces and better benefits. \4\ Union 
members not only receive higher wages than workers without a union--but 
research shows that even nonunion workers benefit from the mere 
presence of unions in their community. Unions effectively set higher 
labor standards--including higher wages--that drive nonunion employers 
in the community to raise their standards, in order to hire and retain 
workers. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), had union 
density not declined over the past few decades, the typical worker 
today would earn $3,250 more per year. Let me ask every working person 
watching today a simple question: What would you do with an extra 
$3,250 per year?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\  epi.org/publication/unionization--2022

    The union difference is even higher for women and workers of color. 
Wages for women represented by a union are 4.7 percent higher than 
their nonunion counterparts. Black union members earn 13.1 percent more 
than nonunion workers, and Latino union members earn 18.8 percent more 
than their nonunion Latino peers. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\  Id.

    Contrast that to where we are right now. In 2021, nearly 48 million 
workers quit their jobs. We at the AFL-CIO talked to nearly 10,000 
people to understand this: What drove them to leave? The bottom line is 
that people are fed up, they're fired up and tired of bad jobs for 
worse pay. Our research found that nearly 50 percent of the workforce 
has negative feelings about work. And while many people quit their jobs 
over intuitive issues like pay, more respondents reported that poor 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
treatment at work led them to quit their jobs.

    We heard workers talk about unfair treatment, poor management and 
toxic work environments. It is not difficult to understand why these 
workers sought better jobs. And, importantly, we found that workers 
largely thought that collective action would improve their jobs.

    We now know that working people are not standing idle, waiting for 
employers to suddenly see the light and provide higher-quality jobs. 
Workers are excited. They're energized. They are organizing in new 
areas. They're ready to make change, and they're connecting the dots, 
they can do it through forming a union in their workplace. They know 
what we know: that unions improve outcomes for all workers, both union 
and nonunion, and their communities.

    And despite the false narratives pushed by corporations, these same 
people are realizing: Unions are not some third-party outsider that 
comes in, negotiates a contract and leaves. Workers are the union. 
Workers negotiate the terms. Unions are workers. Unions are about you 
having a say in your own future.

    That's why polling puts support for the labor movement at 71 
percent--even higher among younger workers and people of color. 
Petitions at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are up by 58 
percent. Workers are expressing their desire to form unions across the 
country and across various industries. Many of the early successes at 
Starbucks were in places not famous for labor activism. One of the 
first Apple stores to organize was in Oklahoma, a state with very few 
unions. This is a truly national revival of organizing that goes beyond 
the partisan divide that seems to dominate our society. We are also 
seeing activism in new industries from video game developers to solar 
installers. And it's not slowing down. The number of people searching 
``How to form a union'' went up 680 percent from July 2018 to April 
2022. Why is this the case? It's because workers, especially young 
workers, women and workers of color know that organizing a union is the 
only way to achieve fair treatment and some measure of equity.

    Employers are not responding to the uptick in union organizing by 
respecting their workers' right to organize. Instead, workers who 
choose to organize to improve their jobs face an endless barrage of 
anti-union tactics designed to intimidate and break their spirits. This 
union-busting playbook is not new, but employers--even those like 
Starbucks who boast progressive, worker-centered values--have grown 
increasingly brazen in the face of increased worker organizing.

    But it's not just Starbucks. We are seeing blatant union-busting 
across the Nation. When workers organize, employers turn to anti-union 
consultants to try to stomp out the campaign. According to EPI, 
employers spend $340 million per year on law firms and consultants to 
help them intimidate their workers. EPI also found that consultants can 
get paid $350 or more per hour, or more than $2,500 a day, for these 
tactics. Employers are charged with illegally coercing, threatening or 
retaliating against workers for supporting a union in nearly one-third 
(29.2 percent) of all elections. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\  epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer-opposition-to-union-
election-campaigns

    These tactics run the gamut: mandatory anti-union meetings while 
threatening to discipline or terminate workers who do not attend, 
firing union activists, threatening to close stores if workers organize 
(or actually closing them), refusing to bargain, and promising raises 
or new incentives for nonunion workers--this is union-busting 101. The 
goal is to scare workers into thinking a union is impossible, and 
losing your job or new benefits if you support the union is a very real 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
possibility.

    At charter schools in Ohio and Kansas, where teachers are 
organizing with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), classroom 
teachers are being pulled out of their classrooms to listen to anti-
union propaganda. At a casino in Nevada, an employer tried to punish 
workers who had voted to organize by giving fully paid health care to 
employees other than those who had voted to organize.

    Amazon, for example, spent nearly $4.3 million in 2021 on labor 
consulting firms to fight unionization efforts. \7\ FedEx spent 
$837,000 \8\ in union-busting costs between 2014 and 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\  marketplace.org/2022/04/12/companies-like-amazon-spend-
millions-on-anti-union-efforts-wheres-that-money-going
    \8\  Id.

    UPS paid union-busters over $2,000 per day. \9\ Quest Diagnostics 
spent $200,000 between 2015 and 2017. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\  prospect.org/labor/companies-required-to-report-their-union-
busting-many-dont
    \10\  marketplace.org/2022/04/12/companies-like-amazon-spend-
millions-on-anti-union-efforts-wheres-that-money-going

    Nearly 6,000 workers, mostly Black workers and women, in Bessemer, 
Alabama, fought hard to form a union at Amazon. These workers, 
organizing with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union-UFCW 
(RWDSU-UFCW), knew that they were in for a fight, but organized anyway. 
The lengths of Amazon's union-busting campaign, however, exceeded what 
many thought possible. The company engaged in a brutal and targeted 
campaign meant to separate workers. The company hired highly 
experienced union-busting consultants, paying them more than $3,000 per 
day, plus expenses \11\ more than Amazon warehouse workers earn in a 
month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\  documentcloud.org/documents/20476227-russ-brown-rwp-labor

    The company's campaign was so demeaning and invasive that it 
included posters placed in bathroom stalls, urging workers to vote 
against the union. Amazon required workers to sit through mandatory 
anti-union meetings and photographed the IDs of workers who were brazen 
enough to question the tactic. Amazon sent text messages every day with 
coercive messages to not abandon the team. The company went so far as 
to have the U.S. Postal Service install a specialized mailbox where 
workers knew cameras could see them, to give the impression that they 
were under Amazon's surveillance. Amazon even got the local authorities 
to change the timing of local traffic signals so organizers couldn't 
safely talk to workers as they were leaving the facility. This is just 
one example of what workers can expect when they simply ask for a seat 
at the table to bargain over their working conditions. As of this 
month, there are more than 150 open unfair labor practice cases 
involving Amazon. \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\  nlrb.gov/search/case/amazon--f[0]--case--type:C&s[0]--Open

    Adding insult to injury, corporations like Amazon are able to write 
off union-busting costs as a general business expense. Taxpayers, 
workers and the Federal Government are effectively subsidizing these 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dehumanizing and anti-worker corporate efforts.

    The laws meant to help employees know when union-busting 
consultants are targeting their workplace are woefully weak. Under 
current law, union-busting consultants are required to file mandatory 
reports with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) under the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). But DOL filings show 
that in 2021, over 82 percent of anti-union persuaders violated the law 
\13\ by failing to meet filing deadlines. These violations strip 
workers of the right to know, in a timely fashion, when employers are 
hiring anti-union consultants to influence their fight for a union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\  prospect.org/labor/companies-required-to-report-their-union-
busting-many-dont

    These union-busting tactics are rampant because corporations see no 
downside or negative consequence. Anti-union corporations know that the 
National Labor Relations Board is woefully underfunded, making labor 
law enforcement more difficult. They know employers face extremely 
limited penalties when the NLRB is able to investigate and find a 
violation. And when the NLRB requires an employer to post a notice in 
the break room, reinstate a worker or provide back pay, the expense for 
the violator is negligible. Many times, the corporation has already 
successfully busted the union. For them, a labor law violation is 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
simply the price of doing business.

    Every other workplace law--whether it is the Fair Labor Standards 
Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act or the Civil Rights Act--
includes much more robust penalty structures for employers who violate 
workers' rights. The National Labor Relations Act essentially stands 
alone in this regard. In fact, the fine for violating fishing laws in 
some states may be greater than the penalty for violating workers' 
federally protected right to organize, in many cases, because again, 
there are no fines for violating workers' rights.

    And for the workers who withstand these union-busting tactics and 
win their union? They must gear up for the next fight--the fight for a 
first contract. It takes more than 450 days for workers to get their 
first contract, and that delay time is getting longer. Employers refuse 
to bargain because they know there are no real consequences.

    This is why we need to pass the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the 
Right to Organize (PRO) Act as soon as possible--to protect collective 
action, remove the barriers to worker voice and hold employers 
accountable when they violate workers' rights.

    It is important to point out that it does not have to be this way. 
There are employers who recognize that worker voice through a union is 
an asset not a liability. Companies under the law today have the 
ability to voluntarily recognize a union. If workers come together and 
ask for recognition from the company, the company can voluntarily 
recognize them, but most companies don't.

    We have some examples of employers who have taken the high road. 
The University of Vermont Medical Center remained neutral when 2,000 
hospital staff organized just a few months ago. Similarly, the Rooted 
School, a charter school in New Orleans, decided to voluntarily 
recognize their employees' union after a majority requested 
representation. Now, they are building on that to engage in a 
collaborative bargaining process.

    There are employers like Microsoft that said: ``You know what? If 
our workers want to join a union, we should let that happen.'' So the 
company pledged neutrality with the Communications Workers of America 
(CWA). Microsoft recognized the trend of workers seeking to organize, 
and sought to work with the union because the company acknowledged the 
benefits of stable labor relations and collective bargaining.

    There are examples all over the country, where employers embrace, 
rather than evade, their employees' desire to bargain collectively to 
improve outcomes for all. Whether it's Google cafeteria workers with 
UNITE HERE, cooks and servers who are working as contractors at Compass 
Group and Guckenheimer, or Sodexo workers in Atlanta who presented 
their managers with a plan to organize, and the companies said, ``You 
know what? If workers win the election, we won't block it.''

    The fact is: all employers, including those who claim to ``respect 
workers' right to organize,'' should make it real. If a corporation is 
going to pride itself on corporate social responsibility in its mission 
statement or offer grand announcements on inclusivity, respect and a 
commitment to treating workers well, and if they're going to call their 
workers ``partners,'' then they have to act like it. And those 
businesses who rely on Federal funds--our taxpayer dollars--or contract 
with the government should be held to the highest standard when it 
comes to following the law and respecting worker voice.

    Corporations who truly appreciate their workers' contributions must 
support the drive that most humans have to be heard, respected and have 
dignity on the job. The simple act of hiring a marketing firm to put 
together messaging on respect without truly demonstrating that respect 
is inadequate. The employers who embrace worker voice have an open, 
transparent approach, and actually follow through on the commitments 
they make. They welcome the opportunity to sit across the table and 
bargain collectively with their workers. To listen and solve problems 
together. Because workers are the ones who know how to do our jobs the 
best and make the company more successful.

    Everyone wins when workers have a voice. The benefits of unions and 
collective bargaining extend far beyond the workplace. Communities do 
better when unions are present. Unions increase civic engagement, 
reduce racial resentment among white workers \14\ and increase 
legislative responsiveness toward the poor. \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\  scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/pfrymer/files/
ajps12537--rev.pdf
    \15\  cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/
abs/reducing-unequal-representation-the-impact-of-labor-unions-on-
legislative-responsiveness-in-the-us-congress

    The 17 U.S. states with the highest union densities: have state 
minimum wages that are on average 19 percent higher than the national 
average and 40 percent higher than those in low-union-density states; 
have median annual incomes that are $6,000 higher than the national 
average; have a higher share of those who are unemployed that actually 
receive unemployment insurance; have an uninsured (without health 
insurance) population 4.5 percentage points lower, on average, than 
that of low-union-density states; have all elected to expand Medicaid, 
protecting their residents from falling into the ``coverage gap''; have 
significantly fewer restrictive voting laws; are more likely to have 
passed paid sick leave laws and paid family and medical leave laws than 
states with lower union densities. \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\  epi.org/publication/unions-and-well-being

    The way I see it, we gather today with two potential paths forward. 
Unions and the labor movement stand ready and willing to work together 
with businesses all across this country: innovating together, becoming 
more skilled and efficient, and creating better outcomes for everyone. 
All we demand in exchange is for companies to respect the basic and 
legal right of workers to organize: for a living wage, for good health 
care, for safety in our workplaces and for dignity. That is our 
preferred path--one we know that can power America's economy into a new 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
era.

    But make no mistake: We are more than prepared for the other path. 
The path that is more prevalent today, where some of the country's 
largest and most profitable corporations fight workers' will and are 
intent on pushing us down. One in which workers are antagonized, 
dehumanized and pushed to the breaking point every single day. Let me 
be clear: Working people are fed up. We are organizing, striking and 
walking out to protect our rights everywhere, from Buffalo to Bessemer. 
We are coming together in incredible numbers at the grassroots level. 
And we are prepared to fight for as long as it takes.

    What will help immensely is a Congress that levels the playing 
field: One that provides the NLRB with the funding it desperately needs 
to enforce the law and protect workers, ends corporate tax breaks for 
union-busting, holds CEOs accountable for their actions, and passes the 
PRO Act, so that every worker has the simple right to choose for 
themselves whether a union makes sense. These are not radical ideas. 
They are simple steps to ensure fairness for everyone. If we fix our 
broken system, I guarantee you: Working people will keep coming 
together in greater and greater numbers. Our movement will continue to 
grow and fight for the issues that matter to millions of working people 
across this country, and we will deliver.

    Thank you.
                                 ______
                                 
                   [summary statement of liz shuler]
    Right now, the labor movement's fight is more critical than ever. 
We are working across dozens of industries every day to ensure all 
workers receive not just a ``livable'' wage, but a wage we can thrive 
on--along with the better benefits, safer working conditions and fair 
treatment on the job that come with a collective bargaining agreement.

    Yet at this moment, the very right to organize is under attack. It 
is under attack from corporations that made billions in record profits 
last year but refuse to pay their employees enough to afford rent or 
groceries. It is under attack from CEOs who have yachts so big they 
need bridges in ports to be modified--but balk at providing workers in 
their factories with bathroom breaks.

    While pay for corporate CEOs has increased over 1,000 percent 
between 1978 and 2019, worker pay has risen only 13.7 percent. Since 
1979, the wages of the top 1 percent grew nearly 160.3 percent, but the 
wages of the bottom 90 percent combined grew just 26.0 percent.

    Working people are not standing idle, waiting for employers to 
suddenly see the light and provide higher-quality jobs. They are 
organizing in new areas. They're ready to make change, and they're 
connecting the dots: they can do it through forming a union in their 
workplace.

    Employers are engaging in an endless barrage of anti-union tactics 
designed to intimidate and break organizing drives. This union-busting 
playbook is not new, but employers have grown increasingly brazen in 
the face of increased worker organizing.

    These union-busting tactics are rampant because corporations see no 
downside or negative consequence. Anti-union corporations know that the 
National Labor Relations Board is woefully underfunded, making labor 
law enforcement more difficult. They know employers face extremely 
limited penalties when the NLRB is able to investigate and find a 
violation.

    Congress must level the playing field by: funding the NLRB, ending 
corporate tax breaks for union-busting, holding CEOs accountable for 
their actions, and passing the PRO Act, so that every worker has the 
right to join a union.
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chair. President Shuler, thanks very much. Mary Kay 
Henry is the International President of the 2-million-member 
Service Employees International Union.

    SEIU President Henry has been a champion for fast food 
service and health care workers for decades, most notably 
leading the fight for a $15 an hour minimum wage. President 
Henry, thanks for being with us.

 STATEMENT OF MARY KAY HENRY, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, SERVICE 
         EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Henry. Thank you, Chairman Sanders. And thank you, 
Ranking Member Cassidy, and Members of this Committee for 
holding this hearing. I am honored to be here today as the 
International President of the Service Employees International 
Union, representing the 2 million members who work across the 
service and care sectors.

    This hearing is both urgent and timely because the deck is 
stacked against working families all across this Nation. Take 
the example of Crystal Orozco, a California fast food worker 
who has been in the industry for 15 years.

    When Crystal demanded COVID safety protections for herself 
and her coworkers, her managers threatened to cut her hours. 
When Crystal and her coworkers began organizing together in a 
union, they faced intimidation and opposition from their 
employer.

    When Crystal and her coworkers won a historic seat at a 
table for a half a million fast food workers in California, 
fast food corporations pooled their resources to put a landmark 
state labor law on hold and potentially overturn it.

    Crystal's experience is all too common for workers in every 
part of our economy across industries work by SEIU members, 
Workers in the Fight for 15 and a Union, and partners with 
Starbucks Workers United.

    That is why working people are demanding a voice on the job 
through their unions, and they are calling on each and every 
one of you to reimagine an economy that works for all of us, 
not just for billionaires and corporations.

    Workers are coming up with new and creative, bold ways to 
organize together across industries, sectors, and geographies 
because they know the only way to counter corporate control is 
through collective worker power.

    It is not just one or two industries. It is spreading like 
wildfire. It is spreading to Starbucks partners at over 300 
stores, gig workers across the rideshare sector, and service 
and care workers in the South.

    Airport service workers from coast to coast championed by 
Senator Markey with the Good Jobs for Good Airports Act. 
Homecare providers championed by Senator Casey with a Better 
Care for Better Jobs Act. Childcare workers championed by 
Senator Murray with the Child Care for Working Families Act.

    With the support of the Protecting the Right to Organize 
Act championed by Senator Sanders, all of these workers and 
their champions in this room have put forth bold proposals that 
together lift up millions of working people. But even with this 
support for workers and their unions at an all-time high, 
workers are hitting a wall built by the wealthy and the 
powerful.

    Corporations have rigged the rules of our economy against 
working people to maximize their own profits. They are pulling 
out all the stops against the very workers that power their 
profits. They are exploiting workers, union busting, and 
retaliating against union organizing. They are bullying 
workers, plain and simple.

    Often it is illegal. Union busting is a big business. 
McDonald's, Amazon, American Airlines, HCA Healthcare, and 
Starbucks are willing to spend hundreds of millions to keep 
union busting booming. Just look at Howard Schultz, who until 
yesterday, under the threat of a subpoena vote, refused to 
testify before this Committee.

    Under Schultz's leadership, Starbucks continues to 
repeatedly and shamelessly stand in the way of partners who are 
demanding a voice in their workplace and a strong contract to 
build a better future. It is ridiculous that the future of tens 
of thousands of Starbucks workers is up to the whims of just 
one person, Howard Schultz, who continues to oversee a company 
that breaks the law without sufficient consequence.

    It is not just Starbucks. Workers are routinely met with 
vicious union busting campaigns. Corporations break the law or 
strategically refuse to reach a first contract without facing 
any penalties. Federal labor law still contains racist and 
sexist exclusions rooted in Jim Crow. We need to write new 
rules that protect all workers black, brown, and white to 
ensure that we can all thrive.

    It is time for elected officials to heed workers' demands. 
That starts with a Federal minimum wage of at least $15, 
investment in good union care jobs, the Protecting the Right to 
Organize Act, the Good Jobs for Good Airports Act, the Better 
Care Better Jobs Act, and the Child Care for Working Families 
Act, and measures that can make it easier for working people to 
join together in unions.

    Workers' demands are big and bold, and they are necessary 
to rebalance the scales of our economy. History shows that 
sometimes the only way to rewrite the rules is through great 
disruption, militancy, and strikes.

    Nothing is off the table because our future, the future of 
America's working families is at stake. We will not stop 
fighting until we win. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Henry follows:]

                  prepared statement of mary kay henry
    Good morning and thank you to Members of the Committee. I'm honored 
to be here today as the International President of the Service 
Employees International Union, representing more than two million 
workers across the service and care sectors.

    Thank you, Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Cassidy, for holding 
this hearing today.

    It's an urgent and timely topic because, to be frank, the deck is 
stacked against working families across the Nation.
 Working People are United--Standing Up in Historic Numbers, Striking 
                      and Organizing Their Unions.

    They're demanding that elected leaders--including Members of this 
Committee--take action to build an economy that works for all of us, 
not just billionaires and corporate executives.

    I'll give you some examples today of just how rigged the rules are 
for people working across every sector of our economy:

    Crystal Orozco, a California fast-food worker who has been in the 
industry for 15 years, is one of the first people who comes to mind 
when I think of how the COVID-19 pandemic unearthed many of the 
problems in our system.

    When Crystal demanded COVID safety protections for herself and her 
co-workers, her managers threatened to cut her hours. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  Vanmel Inc. d/b/a Jack in the Box, Case 20-CA-284557.

    When Crystal and her co-workers began to organize their workplace, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
they faced intimidation and opposition from their employer.

    When Crystal and her co-workers won a historic seat at the table 
for half a million California workers, fast-food corporations pooled 
their resources to put a landmark state labor law \2\ on hold and 
potentially overturn it. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\  See Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act, 2022 
Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 246 (A.B. 257) (WEST).
    \3\  See, e.g., Suhauna Hussein, `I feel duped': Inside the fast-
food industry's push to dismantle a new California labor law, L.A. 
Times, Feb. 2, 2023 available at https://www.latimes.com/business/
story/2023--02/inside-fast-foods-push-against-california-ab--257-
higher-minimum-wages.

    Sadly, this is just one of many examples of what we mean when we 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
say the system is rigged against workers.

    Because Crystal's experience is all too common among SEIU members, 
leaders in the Fight for $15 and a Union, partners with Starbucks 
Workers United, and all across the economy.

    That's why working people like Francis Hall of Crosby, MN are 
demanding a voice on the job through unions, and why they're calling on 
all of you on this Committee to reimagine an economy that works for all 
of us--not just billionaires and corporate executives.

    Francis, a homecare worker and union leader with SEIU Healthcare 
Minnesota, is another example of how working people aren't taking no 
for an answer. When she's not providing critical care to her clients, 
Francis has been actively talking to other homecare workers about the 
importance of organizing. She says, ``I'm fortunate to be part of a 
union and want all workers, including all homecare workers, to be able 
to join a union as well.''

    They're coming up with new, creative, bold ways to organize 
together across industries, sectors and geographies because they know 
the only way to counter corporate control is through collective worker 
power.

    And it's not just one or two industries in which workers are 
pushing the envelope and coming up with solutions to build power 
together--it's spreading like wildfire:

          Fast-food workers in California fought and won the 
        FAST Recovery Act \4\ to give more than 500,000 workers a seat 
        at the table to improve their wages and working conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\  Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act, 2022 Cal. 
Legis. Serv. Ch. 246 (A.B. 257) (WEST).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Baristas at over 300 Starbucks stores, including 
        Kathryn Howard of Salt Lake City, Utah came together to win 
        their unions and are demanding Starbucks meet them at a 
        national table.

          Airport service workers, like Morgani Brown of 
        Charlotte, NC, are demanding that every job within our publicly 
        funded airport system is a good one that supports families as 
        airlines rake in record profits from consumers and take 
        billions of our tax dollars. \5\ They have a champion in 
        Senator Markey leading on the Good Jobs for Good Airports Act. 
        \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\  U.S. Department of the Treasury: Airline and National Security 
Relief Programs. Accessed March 3, 2023. https://home.treasury.gov/
policy--issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-american-industry/airline-
and-national-security--relief-programs. See also Patrick Burns, Halil 
Toros, and Daniel Flaming, ``Flying Right: Giving U.S. Airport Workers 
a Lift'' (Los Angeles: Economic Roundtable, 2017), available at https:/
/economicrt.org/wp--content/uploads/2017/06/Flying--Right--2017.pdf.
    \6\  Good Jobs for Good Airports Act, S. 4419, 117th Cong. (2d 
Sess. 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Service and care workers in the South started the 
        Union of Southern Service Workers to organize across industries 
        around common problems they face, rejecting a legacy of 
        systemic racism.

          Home care providers in California are done with a 
        piecemeal approach, they're calling for statewide bargaining 
        for half-a-million care workers. Home care workers across the 
        country have a champion in Senator Casey with the Better Care 
        Better Jobs Act. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\  Better Care Better Jobs Act, S. 100, 118th Cong. (1st Sess. 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          It's spreading to child care workers across the 
        country, who have a champion in Senator Murray with the Child 
        Care for Working Families Act. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\  Child Care for Working Families Act, S. 1360, 117th Cong. (1st 
Sess. 2021).

    Working people are driving forward solutions that support workers 
and their families across entire industries and across wide 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
geographies.

    This is happening as public support for workers and their unions is 
at a 57-year high. \9\ NLRB data show union filings were up more than 
50 percent in 2022, \10\ and last year saw historic levels of strikes 
and worker-driven action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\  Megan Brenan, Approval of Labor Unions at Highest Point Since 
1965, Gallup, Sept. 2, 2021 available at https://news.gallup.com/poll/
354455/approval-labor--unions-highestpoint--1965.aspx.
    \10\  National Labor Relations Board, First Three Quarters' Union 
Election Petitions Up 58 percent, Exceeding All fiscal year 2021 
Petitions Filed, July 15, 2022 available at https://www.nlrb.gov/news-
outreach/news-story/correction-first-three-quarters--union-election-
petitions-up--58-exceeding.

    But even so, even with support for workers and their unions at an 
all-time high, workers are hitting a wall built by and for the wealthy 
and powerful.
   Corporations Have Rigged the Rules of Our Economy Against Working 
                 People to Maximize Their Own Profits.
    They're pulling out all the stops against the very workers that 
power their profits.

    They're exploiting workers, union-busting, and retaliating against 
worker organizing.

    They're bullying workers, plain and simple. And, often, it's 
illegal.

    Union-busting is big business, and employers like McDonald's, 
Amazon, American Airlines, HCA Healthcare, and Starbucks are willing to 
spend hundreds of millions to keep it booming.

    Even when workers get creative and organize to make a change, 
corporations and their lobbyists spend millions to squash the gains 
workers make.

    That's Crystal's story. Immediately after 500,000 fast-food workers 
won a voice on the job, fast-food corporations bankrolled a deceptive, 
multi-million-dollar campaign to silence them. \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\  See, e.g., Suhauna Hussein, `I feel duped': Inside the fast-
food industry's push to dismantle a new California labor law, L.A. 
Times, Feb. 2, 2023 available at https://www.latimes.com/business/
story/2023--02--02/inside-fast-foods-push-against-california-ab--257-
higher-minimum-wages.

    Or just look at Howard Schultz, who has refused to testify before 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
this very Committee.

    Under Schultz's leadership, Starbucks continues to repeatedly, 
shamelessly stand in the way of partners who are demanding a voice in 
their workplace and a strong contract to build a better future for 
themselves and their families. \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\  See, e.g., Dee-Ann Durbin, Starbucks violated workers' rights 
`hundreds of times,' says labor judge, TODAY, Mar. 2, 2023 available at 
https://www.today.com/food/news/starbucks-violated-worker-rights--
unionization-labor-judge-rcna73078.

    Rachel Ybarra and their coworkers organized a store in Seattle, 
naming erratic scheduling, short staffing, low pay, and disrespect. 
Theirs became the twelfth union store that Starbucks corporate 
leadership decided to close after a campaign of anti-union bullying 
failed to quash workers' organizing. \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\  Rachel Ybarra, Starbucks cannot silence us by closing our 
stores, Seattle Times, Dec. 16, 2022 available at https://
www.seattletimes.com/opinion/starbucks-cannot-silence-us-by-closing-
our-stores/.

    It's ridiculous that the future for tens of thousands of workers in 
a company like Starbucks is up to the whims of just one person--Howard 
Schultz--who continues to oversee a company that breaks the law without 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sufficient consequence.

    It's not just Starbucks.

    When workers exercise their right to form a union, they are 
routinely met with vicious corporate union-busting campaigns. 
Corporations break the law or strategically refuse to reach a first 
union contract --without facing any penalties.

    Federal labor law still contains racist and sexist exclusions 
rooted in Jim Crow. We need to write new rules that protect all 
workers--Black, brown, and white--to ensure we can all thrive.
          It's time for politicians to heed workers' demands.
    Working people have made meaningful progress under President Biden.

    We've won 12 million new jobs--and many of these are union jobs.

    We've won higher wages, action on climate, lower prescription drug 
costs, and more rights for pregnant and postpartum workers.
 But there's more work to do. Workers are demanding that their elected 
         leaders finish the job by taking up a workers' agenda:
          Pass a minimum wage of at least $15.

          Pass legislation that makes it easier for workers to 
        come together in unions and stop corporations from getting in 
        their way--like the PRO Act. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\  Protecting the Right to Organize Act, S. 567, 118th Cong. 
(1st Sess. 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Pass the Good Jobs for Good Airports Act \15\ to 
        ensure that all airport workers are respected, protected and 
        paid living wages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\  Good Jobs for Good Airports Act, S. 4419, 117th Cong. (2d 
Sess. 2022).

          Invest in our care economy to ensure care is 
        affordable for working families and care jobs are good, union 
        jobs, by passing the Better Care for Better Jobs Act \16\ and 
        the Childcare for Working Families Act, \17\ among other 
        measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\  Better Care Better Jobs Act, S. 100, 118th Cong. (1st Sess. 
2023).
    \17\  Child Care for Working Families Act, S. 1360, 117th Cong. 
(1st Sess. 2021).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Pass commonsense immigration reform.

          And substantially increase funding for the Federal 
        agencies that protect workers' rights, including the National 
        Labor Relations Board, the Department of Labor, and the Equal 
        Employment Opportunity Commission.

    We need leaders who advance the vision of unions for all and hold 
union-busting corporations accountable.

    In turn, working people of all races and backgrounds will back 
politicians who take action to support their demands.

    Their demands are big and bold, and they're necessary to rebalance 
the scales of our economy.

    History shows sometimes the only way to rewrite the rules is 
through great disruption, militancy, and strikes.

    Nothing is off the table because our future--the future of 
America's working families--is at stake.

    We won't stop fighting until we win.
                                 ______
                                 
                 [summary statement of mary kay henry]
    Good morning and thank you to Members of the Committee. I'm honored 
to be here today as the International President of the Service 
Employees International Union, representing more than two million 
workers across the service and care sectors. It's an urgent and timely 
topic because, to be frank, the deck is stacked against working 
families across the Nation. Take the example of Crystal Orozco, a 
California fast-food worker who has been in the industry for 15 years. 
When Crystal and her co-workers won a historic seat at the table for 
half a million California workers, fast-food corporations pooled their 
resources to put a landmark state labor law \1\ on hold and potentially 
overturn it. \2\ Working people are united--standing up in historic 
numbers, striking and organizing their unions. Working people are 
driving forward solutions that support workers and their families 
across entire industries and across wide geographies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  See Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act, 2022 
Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 246 (A.B. 257) (WEST).
    \2\  See, e.g., Suhauna Hussein, `I feel duped': Inside the fast-
food industry's push to dismantle a new California labor law, L.A. 
Times, Feb. 2, 2023 available at https://www.latimes.com/business/
story/2023-02-02/inside-fast-foods-push-against-california-ab-257-
higher-minimum-wages.

    This is happening as public support for workers and their unions is 
at a 57-year high. \3\ NLRB data show union filings were up more than 
50 percent in 2022, \4\ and last year saw historic levels of strikes 
and worker-driven action. But even so, workers are hitting a wall built 
by and for the wealthy and powerful. Corporations have rigged the rules 
of our economy against working people to maximize their own profits. 
It's ridiculous that the future for tens of thousands of workers in a 
company like Starbucks is up to the whims of just one person--Howard 
Schultz--who continues to oversee a company that breaks the law without 
sufficient consequence. It's not just happening at Starbucks. Union-
busting is big business, and employers like McDonald's, Amazon, 
American Airlines, HCA Healthcare, and Starbucks are willing to spend 
hundreds of millions to keep it booming. It's time for politicians to 
heed workers' demands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\  Megan Brenan, Approval of Labor Unions at Highest Point Since 
1965, Gallup, Sept. 2, 2021 available at https://news.gallup.com/poll/
354455/approval-labor-unions-highestpoint-1965.aspx.
    \4\  National Labor Relations Board, First Three Quarters' Union 
Election Petitions Up 58 percent, Exceeding All fiscal year 2021 
Petitions Filed, July 15, 2022 available at https://www.nlrb.gov/news-
outreach/news-story/correction-first-threequarters-union-election-
petitions-up-58-exceeding.

    Working people have made meaningful progress under President Biden. 
We've won 12 million new jobs--and many of these are union jobs. We've 
won higher wages, action on climate, lower prescription drug costs, and 
more rights for pregnant and postpartum workers. But there's more work 
to do. Workers are demanding that their elected leaders finish the job 
by taking up a workers' agenda: That starts with a Federal minimum wage 
of at least $15, investments in good union care jobs, the PRO Act, \5\ 
the Good Jobs for Good Airports Act, the Better Care Better Jobs Act, 
the Childcare for Working Families Act, commonsense immigration reform, 
funding for agencies that protect workers' rights and measures that 
make it easier for working people to join together in unions. We won't 
stop fighting until we win.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\  Protecting the Right to Organize Act, S. 567, 118th Cong. (1st 
Sess. 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chair. President Henry, thank you very much. Sean 
O'Brien is the General President of the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters and a fourth generation Teamster. 
Since his election last year, he has been all over this country 
urging workers to stand up and fight for their rights. 
President O'Brien, thanks so much for being with us.

  STATEMENT OF SEAN O'BRIEN, GENERAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL 
            BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. O'Brien. Good morning, Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member 
Cassidy, distinguished Members of the Committee, and my union 
sisters, President Shuler and Henry. My name is Sean O'Brien 
and the General President of the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters.

    Thank you for the opportunity to appear today before you. 
It is important the American public knows that their elected 
officials care about regular people and not just billion-dollar 
corporations. For that reason, I am encouraged that this 
Committee has compelled Howard Schultz to appear as a witness.

    The last time I testified in 2022, Senator Lindsey Graham 
said workers in the U.S. didn't want to belong to unions 
anymore. In reality, the opposite is true. The percentage of 
American workers who support unions is at an all-time high, but 
they are unable to join unions, form unions, or get a first 
contract because in America, the game is rigged.

    Our nation's labor laws are weak, ineffectual, and 
unenforced. Look at Starbucks. Almost 300 Starbucks locations 
have voted to unionize, but the company and Howard Schultz 
refuse to come to the bargaining table.

    These workers want a union at 300 stores. Howard Schultz 
has said there will never be a union at Starbucks. He stated 
his intentions clearly. He has closed unionized Starbucks 
locations. He has threatened workers in their benefits. As a 
result, there have been more than 500 unfair labor practice 
charges filed against Starbucks.

    But sadly, those groups do nothing to stop Schultz's 
illegal behavior. Why? Because there are no meaningful 
consequences for businesses and CEOs like Howard Schultz when 
they break our laws. Instead of supporting legislation to 
protect our workers' choice to join a union, half the Senate 
Rules Committee are only willing to offer a right to work laws.

    These deceptive laws create the ability to leave a union 
while still reaping all the benefits and belonging to one. We 
have the data on the right to work these laws, lower wages, 
create substandard benefits, and erode workers' rights in every 
state where they are passed. These laws never benefit working 
people, only big business.

    That is why the Koch brothers and Wal-Mart have always been 
the biggest donors to the National Right to Work Foundation. I 
have spent the last 3 years traveling this Nation, visiting 
hundreds of warehouses, loading docks, and job sites, and 
listening to real union members.

    Teamsters are conservatives and progressives. Some are 
laser focused, focused on politics, and some stay out of it 
altogether. Our members love their union for one simple fact, 
they get more money and better benefits because they are 
Teamsters. It is not complicated. Even nonunion workers in 
right to work states make more money because of Teamsters. The 
data proves it.

    Going to work without union representation is like 
defending yourself in court with no lawyer on your side. Why 
would a politician, Republican or otherwise, advocate for any 
American worker to be in that position? I know why Wal-Mart 
would.

    But why would somebody, someone to represent the people, 
want workers to be more vulnerable and exploited. Just a couple 
of months ago, Teamster real members were telling every one of 
you that working conditions were bad with these major rail 
carriers. These workers felt vulnerable.

    Safety concerns were ignored. The companies were 
understaffed. The trains ran too long and railroads were 
overworked. Nobody cared until it was too late. This kind of 
behavior is where the term getting railroaded comes from 100 
years ago, when the railroads always got their way, when any 
employer, be the rail carriers, package companies, or coffee 
shops gets away with repeated abuse of American workers.

    The legislators who let it happen are complicit in these 
crimes. The Teamsters biggest employer is UPS. We have a 
contract coming up with the national negotiation set to start 
in a few weeks. This is the largest private sector collective 
bargaining agreement, representing 360,000 workers.

    UPS's biggest competitors are FedEx and Amazon. This may 
come as news to some Committee Members, but companies that 
threaten their workers and violate their rights are not 
interested in investing in their workforce and they are not 
creating good jobs. Amazon's whole business model is about 
avoiding responsibility for their workers. They have a 150 
percent turnover ratio.

    A Teamster package car driver at UPS makes twice what the 
same driver makes on Amazon and FedEx, twice as much. Why is 
that? It is because a driver at UPS is a Teamster. We get twice 
as much because we are union.

    Remember, UPS still made more money in profits these past 3 
years than it ever has made in history. Do the Members of this 
Committee want American workers to make more or less? This 
summer, I promise you, the Teamsters at UPS and the negotiating 
committee will negotiate the strongest private sector 
collective bargaining agreement in the country.

    It will set the standard for what a good union job in 
America should be. And all of America will be watching as the 
Teamsters take on Carol Tome and UPS. We are at a critical 
moment. Workers are drawing a line while conservative court 
chip away at the Constitutionally protected right to organize.

    I ask the Members of this Committee, especially those who 
co-sponsored Senator Paul's Right to Work bill, whose side will 
you be on? Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Brien follows:]

                   prepared statement of sean o'brien
    Good morning, Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy, 
distinguished Members of the Committee and my ``Sisters'' in Labor, 
Presidents Shuler and Henry. My name is Sean O'Brien. I serve as the 
General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Thank 
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss corporate 
America's longstanding, systematic and often illegal attack on working 
people who organize to form unions.

    Union support is at an all-time high. A Gallup survey done in 
August 2022 found that 71 percent of Americans approve of unions. \1\ 
In 2021, the Cornell School of Industrial Relations published its first 
annual report tracking instances of workers withholding their labor. In 
2022, that report totaled 424 work stoppages involving approximately 
224,000 workers. Work stoppages had increased by 52 percent year to 
year and the total number of workers involved in work stoppages 
increased by 60 percent. During the first 9 months of Fiscal Year 2022, 
union representation petitions filed at the NLRB increased 58 percent. 
By May 25, fiscal year 2022 petitions exceeded the total number of 
petitions filed in all of fiscal year 2021. At the same time, unfair 
labor practice (ULP) charges increased 16 percent. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  https://news.gallup.com/poll/398303/approval-labor-unions-
highest-point-1965.aspx
    \2\  https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/election-
petitions-up-53-board-continues-to-reduce-case-processing-time-
in#:?:text=In percent20Fiscal percent20Year percent202022 
percent20(October,1 percent2C638 percent20petitions percent20field 
percent20in percent20FY2021.

    It's clear that Gallup's opinion poll results don't just reflect 
unrealized sentiment. Workers are taking action to improve their 
standard of living, stay safe, and have a voice at work. They are 
motivated by longstanding inequity in a system rigged against them, but 
it is the dramatic and tragic experience of many working throughout the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pandemic that understandably lit the fuse.

    In October 2022, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) published a 
report on the productivity pay gap. The report showed that, unlike 
prior decades, from 1979 to 2020, net productivity rose 61.8 percent, 
while the hourly pay of typical workers increased only 17.5 percent 
over four decades. The wealth generated by increased productivity isn't 
going to workers, but it isn't going into a black hole. Additional 
research by EPI concludes that compensation of top CEOs increased 
1,460.2 percent from 1978 to 2021. Top CEO compensation grew roughly 37 
percent faster than stock market growth during this period and far 
eclipsed growth in a typical worker's annual compensation. Increased 
wealth also went into higher profits like returns to shareholders. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\  https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/; https://
www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/

    It is against that economic backdrop that, in April 2020, the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that the pandemic-induced 
unemployment rate had reached 14.8 percent, the highest rate observed 
since data collection began in 1948. Many millions of others, including 
a majority of our union's members, continued to work in essential 
occupations. As Chair Sanders aptly put it in his recent article for 
the Nation, while millions of essential workers got sick and tens of 
thousands died unnecessarily, we were reminded that, like the kings and 
queens of past eras, the very rich know nothing about how most people 
live, couldn't care less about real people, and firmly believe they 
have a divine right to rule. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\  https://www.thenation.com/article/society/bernie-sanders-
angry-about-capitalism/

    All essential workers faced danger, hardship, and greedy, callous, 
and self-interested employers during the pandemic crisis, but unionized 
workers were able to secure enhanced safety measures, additional 
premium pay, paid sick time, and a say in the terms of furloughs or 
work-share arrangements to save jobs. Perhaps most importantly, union 
workers felt safer to speak out about hazards on the job, whereas 
nonunion workers faced retaliation for doing so. This should come as no 
surprise. On average, a worker covered by a union contract earns 11.2 
percent more in wages than a peer with similar education, occupation, 
and experience in a nonunionized workplace. Union workers are also more 
likely to be covered by employer-provided health insurance and nine in 
10 workers covered by a union contract (91 percent) have access to paid 
sick days, compared with 73 percent of nonunion workers. \5\ The union 
difference for workers is real. Encouraging and supporting unionization 
sets standards within industries that require employers to ensure safe 
workplaces and family sustaining wages to be competitive--a win for 
union and nonunion workers. This summer, it is with this truth in mind 
that Teamsters at UPS will negotiate and ratify the strongest and most 
comprehensive private sector collective bargaining agreement in the 
country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\  https://www.epi.org/publication/why-unions-are-good-for-
workers-especially in-a-crisis-like-covid-19-12-policies-that-would-
boost-worker-rights-safety-and-wages/#:?:text=During percent20the 
percent20crisis percent2C percent20unionized percent20workers,many 
percent20ways percent20unions percent20help percent20workers.

    Yet despite clear evidence that workers support unions, need 
unions, and are taking action to form their unions--and despite having 
the most pro-union President of our time in office--the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) reported in January that the percent of workers who 
are union members had once again declined over the prior year. \6\ 
Anti-union forces in business and politics were quick to conclude that 
workers don't in fact want to be union members, but that's not the 
truth. The truth is that when workers set about forming their union, 
they often face insurmountable obstacles. The law is not on their side. 
Where the law is balanced or favorable to workers, there is a lack of 
resources to allow for impactful enforcement. And, at the first sign of 
worker collaboration, employers, armed with seemingly limitless funds, 
will immediately engage in a campaign of threats and intimidation 
tactics. In fact, these anti-union campaigns have become so formulaic 
and commonplace that employers spend $340 million per year on ``union 
avoidance'' consultants who teach them how to exploit weakness in 
Federal labor law to effectively scare workers out of exercising their 
legal right to collective bargaining. \7\ And when workers do win an 
election, employers use the same tactics to extend first contract 
negotiations for years. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\  https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf
    \7\  https://www.epi.org/publication/fear-at-work-how-employers-
scare-workers-out-of-unionizing/
    \8\  https://files.epi.org/page/-/pdf/bp235.pdf

    A December 2019 EPI report concludes that in 2016--2017, employers 
were charged with violating workers' legal rights in 41.5 percent of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
all NLRB-supervised union elections.

    Employers were charged with illegally firing workers in at least 
one-fifth of elections. In nearly a third of all elections, employers 
were charged with illegally coercing, threatening, or retaliating 
against workers for union support. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\  https://www.epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer-opposition-
to-union-election-campaigns/

    In our over 100-year history, the Teamsters have encountered too 
many anti-union employers to count. The Teamsters' Union was proud to 
announce last year that we are engaging in historic efforts to organize 
mechanics at Delta Air Lines. For years, Delta has persisted as the 
most vicious anti-union mainline carrier, using its deep pockets to 
unlawfully interfere with union elections and mislead its employees 
about organizing efforts. In 2019, Delta infamously hung posters in 
employee break rooms suggesting that its workforce would be better 
served with an Xbox, reading that, ``A new video game system with the 
latest hits sounds like fun. Put your money toward that rather than 
paying dues to the union.'' Delta's employees were not fooled, and 
neither are we; we are prepared to defeat Delta's reprehensible union-
busting once and for all and welcome its mechanics into the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\  https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/5/10/18564745/delta-anti-
union-video-game-poster

    The Teamsters represent 10,700 Sysco drivers and warehouse workers. 
Sysco is the largest broadline foodservice company in the U.S., with 
revenue of $73.6 billion for the calendar year 2022. Like its 
competitors in the foodservice industry, such as U.S. Foods and 
Performance Food Group, Sysco has grown primarily through acquisitions 
of smaller regional foodservice companies. Union members often see 
their employer change multiple times in their careers as companies are 
repeatedly acquired or merged. In 2013, Sysco attempted to merge with 
the second largest broadline foodservice company, U.S. Foods. The 
Teamsters strongly opposed this merger. It would have created virtual 
monopoly power for Sysco in numerous markets, and could have resulted 
in significant facility closures and, in the absence of meaningful 
competition, downward pressure on foodservice workers' wages 
nationwide. \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\  https://teamster.org/2015/04/teamsters-decry-syscos-bullying-
rally washington-dc/

    Nonunion foodservice drivers and warehouse workers actively seek 
out union representation. In the past 10 years, 30 certification 
elections have been held at Sysco by workers seeking Teamster 
representation. Sixty percent of those elections were won. Despite an 
existing bargaining relationship with the Teamsters covering 
approximately 15 percent of Sysco's global workforce, Sysco 
consistently fails to respect labor laws and honor employees' choice to 
gain union representation. In the past 10 years, over 330 unfair labor 
practice charges have been filed against Sysco. In the past 10 years, 
Sysco has filed at least 28 reports with the U.S. Department of Labor 
(DOL) for retaining labor relations consultants or persuaders. These 
consultants often hold captive audience meetings with workers to 
intimidate them and provide them with misleading information to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
encourage them to vote against union representation.

    The Teamsters represent 7,500 Republic Services refuse truck 
drivers and related employees. Republic Services is the second-largest 
waste company in the U.S. with revenue of $13.5 billion for calendar 
year 2022. Nonunion Republic Services drivers and waste industry 
workers have a strong history of active organizing. In the past 10 
years, 51 certification elections have been held at Republic Services 
by workers seeking Teamster representation. Fifty-nine percent of those 
elections were won. Despite an existing bargaining relationship with 
the Teamsters covering over 20 percent of Republic's workforce, 
Republic consistently fails to respect labor laws and honor employees' 
choice to gain union representation. In the past 10 years, nearly 275 
unfair labor practice charges have been filed against Republic 
Services. \12\ In the past 10 years, Republic and its subsidiaries have 
filed at least 10 reports with the U.S. Department of Labor on 
engagement of persuaders and consultants. \13\ Four decertification 
elections involving Teamster-represented locations have been held at 
Republic in the past 10 years. Decertification is another union busting 
tactic. All too often, it is promoted by management through 
misinformation and false promises of raises and benefits if the union 
is voted out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\  Both ULP calculations searched for Sysco or Republic Services 
in the NLRB case search, for closed cases from 1/1/2013-21/31/2022. 
There may be additional filings made under different subsidiary names 
not captured here.
    \13\  Both OLMS searches covered 2013-2022 and searched for Sysco, 
Republic Services, Republic Waste, Allied Waste, or BFI in the company 
or organization name fields. There may be additional filings made under 
different subsidiary names not captured here.

    By now, we are well versed in Amazon and Starbucks' anti-union 
tactics. According to filings with the Department of Labor (DOL), in a 
single year Amazon spent $4.3 million on consultants to prevent its 
employees from unionizing. \14\ As part of their anti-union activity, 
they have surveilled workers' conversations, forced workers to attend 
closed-door anti-union meetings and discriminated against pro-union 
workers. \15\ Workers have been fired after engaging in lawful union 
organizing at both Amazon and Starbucks locations, and store locations 
have been shuttered in an effort to obstruct union activity. \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/02/business/amazon-union-
christian-smalls.html
    \15\  https://www.huffpost.com/entry/amazon-anti-union-
consultants--n--62449258e4b0742dfa5a74fb; https://www.bloomberg.com/
news/articles/2022-05-19/amazon-threatened-workers-over-union-vote-
labor-officials-find
    \16\  https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/02/business/starbucks-union-
organizers-risk-takers-22-ctrp/index.html

    Amazon has abandoned development plans when local communities have 
demanded that the company commit to ensuring that the jobs created are 
good jobs and the environmental concerns that come with Amazon 
facilities are mitigated. In 2021, Amazon announced that it was 
building an air cargo hub in Newark, N.J., but pulled out the following 
year when the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey conditioned the 
lease on labor and environmental protections. If companies like Amazon 
cannot bully local officials and communities, then they take their toys 
and go home. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/07/business/economy/amazon-
newark-airport-new-jersey.html#:?:text=the percent20main 
percent20story-,Amazon percent20Hub percent20in percent20Newark 
percent20Is percent20Canceled percent20After percent20Unions 
percent20and percent20Local,of percent20dollars percent20over 
percent2020 percent20years.

    Throughout the second half of 2022, Amazon workers at the company's 
regional air hub in San Bernardino, CA, took courageous steps to demand 
higher wages, safer working conditions, and an end to retaliation 
against worker organizing. In October, over 100 workers set up a 1-day 
ULP strike, walking on a picket line with hundreds of community members 
there in solidarity. Teamsters from nearby unionized warehouses were 
proud to be there in support of their fellow brothers and sisters in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the industry.

    In a recent op-ed, San Bernardino Air Hub worker Sara Fee described 
her motivations for organizing: ``I would like to get paid a dignified 
wage. I literally barely make enough to support myself.. I would also 
like the warehouse to be a safe place; we have high rates of 
musculoskeletal injuries, concussions, heatstroke, and repetitive 
motion injuries. \18\ And I would like it to be a place where you are 
not in fear of losing your job all the time. Where you could have a 
career or stay there and have a good job for a while. That's why last 
summer we started our group of KSBD employees, Inland Empire Amazon 
Workers United, and went on 1-day strikes in August and October.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\  What it's like working at Amazon during a heat wave--Los 
Angeles Times (latimes.com)
    \19\  https://labornotes.org/2023/02/how-my-co-workers-got-me-
reinstated-amazons-san-bernardino-air-hub

    With workers coming together in serious numbers, what did Amazon do 
in return? High-priced union-avoidance consultants began to surveil 
Sara and others who were organizing, isolating them, and attempting to 
divide and conquer. When Sara spoke up about this, she was suspended. 
In response, the San Bernardino workers began wearing stickers saying, 
``Where's Sara?'' Management noticed this, and Sara soon returned to 
work. Despite Amazon's ruthless attempts to target Sara, clear-cut 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
worker power protected Sara in the end.

    Both Andy Jassy and Howard Schultz have publicly asserted that 
their employees are better off without a union. Both make the claim 
that a union will interfere with the workers' direct line of 
communication with management and each individual employee's ability to 
advocate in their self-interest. \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\  https://3www.axios.com/2022/11/30/andy-jassy-sticking-with-
anti-union-talking-points; https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/21/business/
howard-schultz-unions/index.html

    This image of ``familial harmony'' between management and workers 
at Amazon is especially tough to swallow. Amazon's anti-union tactics 
are not just about captive audience meetings and direct threats to 
workers engaged in organizing. Their entire business model depends on 
worker exploitation and fosters worker turnover to stifle organizing 
and avoid investment in and responsibility for its employees. The 
company uses anticompetitive business practices to increase its 
dominance and drive down labor standards within its core industries. In 
order to do this, the company relies on weak and outdated labor, 
occupational safety, and antitrust law, underfunded and understaffed 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
enforcement agencies, and holes in regulatory jurisdiction.

    Last June, leaked documents showed that Amazon had a 150 percent 
turnover rate. The documents warned, ``If we continue business as 
usual, Amazon will deplete the available labor supply in the U.S. 
network by 2024.'' \21\ According to a report by the Strategic 
Organizing Center (SOC), Amazon's punishing pace-of-work results in 
worker injury rates that are nearly twice as high as that of all other 
non-Amazon warehouse facilities. \22\ As of last month, OSHA has cited 
six Amazon warehouses for failure to provide a safe workplace due to 
unsafe conditions and ergonomic hazards. \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/22/amazon-
workers-shortage-leaked-memo-warehouse
    \22\  https://thesoc.org/news/report-shows-amazon-workers-injured-
more-than-twice-industry-average/; https://thesoc.org/what-we-do/the-
injury-machine-how-amazons-production-system-hurts-workers/
    \23\  https://www.osha.gov/news/newsreleases/national/02012023

    Amazon's Delivery Service Partner (DSP) program is a textbook 
example of how Amazon utilizes weaknesses in both labor and antitrust 
law to obstruct worker organizing. Amazon has set up more than 2,000 
nominally independent DSPs in the U.S. to deliver its packages, 
employing an estimated 115,000 drivers. Amazon dictates the order of 
deliveries, the route, the progress and speed of each delivery. From 
the delivery vehicles to the drivers--DSP employees and their trucks or 
vans are branded with the Amazon logo. Amazon monitors DSP drivers 
though an app called Mentor that is installed on navigation devices DSP 
drivers must use. Amazon dictates prices for each delivery and limits 
the size of DSPs by limiting the number of routes it assigns to each. 
There are reports that Amazon terminates DSPs who attempt to reduce 
their drivers' grueling workload or increase their pay. DSPs and their 
workers cannot fight back. When they do, Amazon can simply terminate 
their contracts and shift this work to other DSPs. Keeping each DSP 
small and thus fragmented allows Amazon to prevent DSPs from 
challenging Amazon's power over them. For example, Amazon--DSP 
contracts contain ``de facto'' noncompete clauses that require DSPs to 
accept delivery request ``Monday through Sunday, 365 days a year, at 
times and days designated by Amazon.'' By preventing DSPs from working 
with competitors and growing their ``so-called'' independent 
operations, Amazon ensures it remains the only source of income for 
DSPs, and that they never build the power necessary to confront Amazon 
on their own. \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\  https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/22/tech/amazon-dsp-portland/
index.html; https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdbnw/i-had-nothing-to-my-
name-amazon-delivery-companies-are-being-crushed-by-debt

    Despite this extensive control and branding by Amazon, Amazon 
asserts that DSPs are independent businesses and disclaims corporate 
responsibility for the DSPs and employment responsibility for DSP 
drivers. Yet, in numerous instances, Federal wage and hour lawsuits 
filed by drivers against DSPs name Amazon as a co-defendant. In fact, 
Amazon has settled multiple cases in which it was a named defendant, 
accepting no liability under the terms of the settlement agreements. 
Thus, the company has avoided lengthy litigation that could ultimately 
determine Amazon to be a joint employer. By avoiding this 
classification, it enjoys all the control associated with having its 
own in-house fleet without concern for unionization efforts. With its 
dominance, Amazon uses the DSP arrangement to eradicate labor market 
competition by dictating standards to its supposed competitors, while 
also making them rely on Amazon for their business. Amazon is also 
replicating the DSP model in the tractor trailer middle mile segment 
with its Amazon Freight Partners. Amazon's freight operations serve 
both inter-facility movement of Amazon products and third-party 
shippers. These small trucking operations are often poorly vetted and a 
recent Wall Street Journal investigation showed that Amazon routinely 
hired companies with poor safety track records. \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\  Christopher Weaver, ``Amazon Routinely Hired Dangerous 
Trucking Companies, With Deadly Consequences,'' Wall Street Journal, 
Sept. 22, 2022.

    Unjust barriers to union representation and collective bargaining 
rights permeate Federal labor law. For decades, FedEx has exploited 
what is sometimes referred to as the ``express carrier loophole,'' 
placing tens of thousands of unequivocally non-airline employees, 
including truck drivers and package handlers, under the Railway Labor 
Act (RLA), instead of the NLRA. \26\ For a company that once circulated 
a manual to managers entitled ``Keeping the People Philosophy Alive: 
Making Unions Unnecessary,'' any insinuation that this is simply a 
fortuitous statutory quirk should be dismissed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\  https://www.politico.com/story/2010/06/ups-fedex-worlds-
apart-on-labor-law-039079

    Because the RLA requires an ``all or nothing'' approach to craft 
bargaining, this means that upwards of 100,000 employees would have to 
be organized simultaneously into a single unit, as opposed to the NLRA, 
which allows location by location organizing, as would be found at any 
FedEx competitor. This status, which FedEx has spent millions of 
dollars lobbying to preserve, is not rooted in well-reasoned labor law, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
but in a desire to deny rights to its employees.

    There is a misconception that unions stifle economic growth and 
entrepreneurship. There is a fear in these halls about speaking ill of 
anyone deemed a ``job creator.'' But many longstanding union companies 
like UPS are growing aggressively, taking in over $100 billion in 
profits in 2022, \27\ while I wouldn't wish the kinds of jobs that 
Amazon creates on my worst enemy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\  UPS Form 10-K, Filed 2/21/2023

    Teamsters have fought for nearly 120 years to ensure delivery and 
logistics work can support families with benefits and sustain middle 
class careers, but Amazon's power and approach to employing workers are 
gutting these industries. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that, 
when adjusted for inflation, average annual pay for workers in the 
General Warehousing and Storage Industry (NAICS 49311) have declined 
8.6 percent in the last 10 years, despite employment increasing 
substantially. Similarly, in the Couriers and Express Messengers 
Industry (NAICS 4921), where the vast majority of Amazon DSPs are 
categorized, inflation-adjusted average annual pay dropped by 10.8 
percent. \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\  Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and 
Wages, 2010-2020.

    A 2020 investigation into Amazon's labor practices by Bloomberg 
resulted in an expose titled ``Amazon has turned a Middle-Class 
Warehouse into a McJob.'' \29\ The article concludes that, ``despite a 
starting wage well above the Federal minimum, the company is dragging 
down pay in the logistics industry.'' The article cites a report by the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) stating that Amazon is a close 
4th behind Walmart, McDonalds and two dollar-store chains for having 
the largest number of employees, including full-time employees who 
struggle to pay their bills and who must utilize Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-12-17/amazon-
amzn-job-pay-rate-leaves-some-warehouseemployees-homeless
    \30\  https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-45

    The Strategic Organizing Center (SOC) conducted a survey of 
locations where Amazon directly employs a significant percentage of 
workers in the warehousing and storage industry and, based on evidence 
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other publicly available 
sources, identified several local labor markets where average wages in 
the industry fell after Amazon's arrival. The data detailed below were 
submitted to the Federal Trade Commission in February 2020, calling on 
the FTC to open an investigation into Amazon's anti-competitive 
practices. \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\  https://thesoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Petition-for-
Investigation-of-Amazon.pdf

    Amazon opened its largest New Jersey fulfillment center in Mercer 
County in June 2014. Mercer County's annual salary and weekly earnings 
averages in warehousing and storage have both fallen by 18 percent 
since the year of Amazon's arrival. A $45,699 average annual salary for 
warehouse work in 2014 had fallen to $37,546 by 2018. This was not part 
of a pre-existing trend. Prior to Amazon's emergence into this local 
labor market, wages in warehousing and storage had risen for three 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
consecutive years at both the county and state levels.

    Amazon is also one of the largest direct employers in Lexington 
County, South Carolina, and the county's largest source of warehousing 
and storage employment. After Amazon opened a fulfillment center in 
Lexington County in October 2011, the average annual salary and weekly 
earnings for warehousing and storage work in the county both fell by 21 
percent. The story is the same in Chesterfield County, Virginia. Since 
Amazon opened a fulfillment center in Chesterfield County in October 
2012, the average annual salary and weekly earnings for warehousing and 
storage work in the county have also fallen by 21 percent.

    The SOC concluded that Amazon's establishment of warehouses in 
concentrated labor markets where it can easily drive down wages for 
warehousing and storage labor is not by accident, but rather by design. 
Amazon leases more of its warehouses from Prologis, a corporate real 
estate developer, than from any other landlord. Prologis assists 
clients like Amazon with locating their warehouses strategically, not 
only in a manner that is most efficient for logistics operations, but 
in a manner that allows them to take advantage of vulnerable workers 
and weak local economies.

    For instance, one Prologis site selection document identifies a 
high unemployment rate and low local median income as being the ``labor 
advantages'' of one site's location outside of Atlanta, where Amazon 
also has a warehouse. In another Prologis document, the ``labor 
advantages'' for a second area where Amazon has a facility are 
presented as a ``combination of low wages in a nonunion environment.'' 
These site selection preferences raise the prospect that when Amazon 
does act as a direct employer, it may knowingly distance its warehouses 
from tighter local labor markets with higher wage expectations and 
place them instead in looser labor markets where workers are more 
likely to accept suppressed pay rates because of a lack of employment 
options. This strategy would allow Amazon to depress wages and exploit 
workers, particularly ones who lack union representation. \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\  https://thesoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Petition-for-
Investigation-of-Amazon.pdf,pages15-16. https://
freightpartner.amazon.com/marketing/; https://relay.amazon.com/

    Congress can do a lot to address the weaknesses in law that have 
allowed corporate America to violate workers' rights and degrade labor 
standards to their own enrichment. And, specifically to address the 
disconnect between workers' desire to form a union and their ability to 
form a union. I suspect that my fellow Presidents on the panel today 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and I share many of the same ideas. Here are a few:

          1. Pass the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. The 
        PRO Act would address weaknesses and close loopholes in Federal 
        labor law. Especially relevant to this testimony, the bill 
        would bring clarity and accuracy to legal definitions of joint 
        employment and independent contractor status; impose meaningful 
        penalties on employers who violate the NLRA; ban captive 
        audience meetings; expedite first contract negotiations, and 
        protect the right to strike. We must never forget that workers' 
        right to organize is a constitutional right--freedom of 
        association and the power to picket are guaranteed by our First 
        Amendment, and the right to strike is enshrined in our 
        Thirteenth Amendment.

          2. Hold Corporate CEOs Accountable. Recently, Starbucks CEO 
        Howard Schultz was invited to testify before this Committee 
        about why the National Labor Relations Board has lodged over 75 
        complaints against Starbucks for violating Federal labor laws. 
        Mr. Schultz declined. The Teamsters urge this Committee to use 
        all available avenues to compel Mr. Schultz to publicly answer 
        for his union busting actions.

          3. Fully Fund the NLRB and OSHA. The recent surge in 
        collective worker action means more work for the NLRB and for 
        OSHA. Both agencies have been starved for resources for too 
        long. We can pass model legislation, but it means little 
        without meaningful enforcement.

          4. Modernize Antitrust Laws and Address the Impact of 
        Excessive Concentration and Anti-competitive Action on Labor 
        Markets. The Teamsters will continue to support robust 
        antitrust enforcement and reform. Our agenda is defined by 
        three objectives: 1) curtailing concentrations of corporate 
        power that harm workers, 2) attacking unfair and abusive 
        business models and practices that threaten workers, and 3) 
        empowering working people to engage in collective action 
        against corporate criminals who seek to deny their fundamental 
        right to organize. Congress can take a first step in advancing 
        this agenda by passing Senator Klobuchar and Grassley's 
        American Innovation and Choice Online Act. This legislation is 
        the tip of the spear of a broader pro-worker antitrust agenda, 
        and would stop predatory Big Tech platforms like Amazon from 
        placing their own products and services at an unfair advantage 
        over high-road employers in the warehousing and logistics 
        sector. In addition to supporting greater oversight of the 
        labor market impacts of companies like Amazon, we support 
        enforcement and regulation efforts to treat pernicious 
        practices such as use of vertical restraints and 
        misclassification schemes as unfair methods of competition. The 
        labor dispute exemption to antitrust law must also be 
        respected, and if necessary Congress should clarify for the 
        courts what our labor and antitrust laws already state clearly: 
        worker organizing efforts to improve labor conditions are 
        exempt from antitrust scrutiny, in acknowledgement of workers 
        fundamental right to organize.

          5. Pass the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act: The 
        PSFNA gives public employees in every state the freedom to join 
        together in a union and collectively bargain over wages, hours, 
        and terms and conditions of employment.

          6. End Special Tax Treatment for Union Busting Activity: The 
        No Tax Breaks for Union Busting Act would end the taxpayer 
        subsidization of anti-union activity by corporations. The bill 
        would classify business' interference in worker organization 
        campaigns as political speech under the tax code and therefore 
        not tax deductible.

          7. Deny Federal Contracts to Union Busting Companies: Full 
        stop.

          8. Increase the presence of workers on the boards of 
        corporations that are privately owned.

          9. Enforce the DOL Rule on ESG Investment: And ensure that 
        union workers can put their own pension money to work in their 
        best interest.

          10. Close the Express Carrier Loophole: And ensure that tens 
        of thousands of misclassified non-airline workers are 
        appropriately covered by the NLRA.

    Referencing again Chair Sanders' recent article, for much of the 
20th century there was a shared understanding of the role unions needed 
to play, not just in improving the circumstances of workers but in 
providing a counterbalance to powerful business interests. The 
corporate world understands that strong unions can put a check on the 
kinds of greed, exploitation, and unilateral decisionmaking that exist 
in non-union companies. \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\  https://www.thenation.com/article/society/bernie-sanders-
angry-about-capitalism/

    We are at a critical moment. Workers are drawing a line against 
employers who refuse to bargain fairly with them while conservative 
courts chip away at the constitutionally protected right to organize 
and engage in lawful, protected concerted activities. Earlier this 
year, Supreme Ct. heard oral argument in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174. At issue in 
this case is whether the declared policy of the United States to 
promote collective bargaining involving both small and large, multi-
state companies will be allowed to disintegrate into 50 or more 
separate state labor laws and rules or whether that declared policy 
will remain part of a long-established, uniform, Federal administrative 
system. If it devolves into separate, non-uniform systems administered 
by state and local politicians and corporate interests who contribute 
to their campaigns, then workers across the country will continue to be 
crushed by the weight of huge, corporate syndicates that put profit 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
over lives, families, communities, and sheer common decency.

    For over six decades, this Court has consistently recognized that, 
in exercising its authority under the Supremacy Clause of the United 
States Constitution, Congress established a regulatory system governing 
the process of collective bargaining for employers and unions across 
the country. In addition to creating Federal labor standards through 
the National Labor Relations Act, it established the National Labor 
Relations Board as the agency to administer the NLRA. This included 
administratively determining what conduct is protected or prohibited by 
its provisions. In the Garmon case, which was decided in 1959, the 
Supreme Court balanced the Federal interests embodied in the NLRA and 
certain state interests so as to avoid state law interference with 
Federal labor policy while preserving the states' authority over 
matters of local concern. While preserving the role of the Federal 
statute and agency over labor relations, the recognized certain 
specific areas involving deeply rooted state interests are not 
displaced by the Federal statutory scheme: namely situations involving 
violence and threats of violence, including sabotage and breach of the 
peace.

    In the Glacier case, the company claimed that cement drivers who 
lawfully went on strike against it returned their vehicles with cement 
still in the drums. The drums were left rolling and that kept the 
cement intact. But because the company's managers could not figure out 
how to unload or deliver the concrete to the company's customers, it 
decided to unload and waste its concrete. The company then retaliated 
against those drivers by imposing discipline on them. The NLRB later 
issued a complaint against the company. A decision by the NLRB is 
pending. In making its decision, the NLRB will determine whether the 
drivers' conduct of safely returning the cement in the cement trucks to 
the employer after they lawfully went on strike was lawfully protected 
conduct.

    While the NLRB case is going on, the company has urged the Supreme 
Court to ignore the existing law and circumvent the NLRB altogether and 
to let companies run wild into state courts to enjoin and even attempt 
to criminalize all strikes. For many decades, Federal law has protected 
workers' right to strike in order to improve their wages, hours and 
working conditions, and it has required that labor disputes be handled 
in a consistent, uniform way that promotes United States labor 
policies. The anti-worker case before the Court is undemocratic and 
disregards long-standing legal precedent. It is about corporations 
using the legal system to try to deny workers their inherent rights. 
Regardless of the outcome, American workers will never be broken.

    For both the American worker and our entire country, the Supreme 
Court must affirm the lower court's ruling that the legality of the 
strike falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the National Labor 
Relations Board.

    Unions are good for workers, good for the economy and good for 
business. \34\ President Biden has been quite clear that his 
Administration is built on the principle that a strong America relies 
on strong unions. The Teamsters stand with workers wherever and 
whenever they are ready to claim their power at work. I know I am the 
one answering your questions today, and I am encouraged by the 
convening of this hearing with this panel and by Chair Sanders' 
leadership, but I have to ask: what is Congress going to do to ensure 
that workers are free to exercise their labor rights without the threat 
of coercion and intimidation? Why is the PRO Act not passed 
overwhelmingly with bipartisan support? Why is there not a single 
Senate Republican co-sponsor on that bill? Why is Congress allowing 
corporate criminals to destroy good middle class careers and create 
dead-end low-wage jobs in their place? As Senator Ted Kennedy once 
remarked, ``Federal Express is notorious for its anti-union ideology, 
but there is no justification for Congress becoming an accomplice in 
its union-busting tactics.'' \35\ At the Teamsters union, we often say 
that fighting for workers' rights is a full contact sport. The 
Teamsters are in this fight to win. Whose side will you be on?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\  https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/scheinman-institute/blog/
outreach/unions-are-having-moment-heres-how-can-be-good-labor-and-
business
    \35\  https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/01/us/senate-fight-over-
phrase-demonstrates-words-effect.html

    I thank you for your time and attention and look forward to your 
questions.
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chair. President O'Brien, thanks very much. Senator 
Cassidy, do you want to introduce your witness?

    Senator Cassidy. Sure. Welcome to all our witnesses, but I 
will first introduce Mr. Ring. Mr. Ring is a former chairman of 
the NLRB and an expert in the field of labor and employment. 
Mr. Ring was confirmed to the NLRB on April the 11, 2018 and 
served as chair until January 2021, and then as a Board member 
till the end of his term in December 2022.

    He led efforts to streamline the NLRB's case handling 
procedures, reducing backlog to a historic low. He holds a B.A. 
from Catholic University and a J.D. from Catholic University's 
Columbus School of Law. Chairman Ring, we welcome your presence 
and expertise. We look forward to your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. RING, PARTNER, MORGAN LEWIS & 
BOCKIUS, FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Ring. Thank you, Senator. Chairman Sanders, Ranking 
Member Cassidy, and Members of the Committee, thank you for 
your invitation to participate in the hearing today. It is an 
honor to appear before you.

    Senator Cassidy said I am a partner at the law firm of 
Morgan Lewis, where I practiced labor law for almost 30 years 
before serving on the National Labor Relations Board. I 
recently turned to Morgan Lewis following my service.

    As I noted in my confirmation hearing in front of this 
Committee almost 5 years ago, my career in the labor field 
started at the Teamsters' Washington, DC. headquarters, where I 
worked for nearly 7 years during college and law school.

    That experience offered an important perspective that 
shaped my law practice, gave me tremendous respect for the 
collective bargaining process, and informed my overall approach 
to labor law. As this Committee looks at the state of union 
organizing, I know that there are many who think that the PRO 
Act is a panacea and that corporate America is the problem.

    I would urge Congress, particularly this Committee, not to 
turn its back on the National Labor Relations Act quite yet. 
Instead, Congress should consider whether the problems the PRO 
Act is supposed to fix can be addressed short of a major 
rewrite in Federal labor law.

    After my recent service on the NLRB, I am convinced that 
some commonsense modifications to at least three aspects of the 
NLRB's current enforcement approach would accomplish a great 
deal.

    First and foremost, the NLRB must process its cases more 
quickly. Parties, employees, unions, and employers should not 
have to wait years to get their cases resolved. It is simply 
justice denied for employees to wait multiple years for a union 
election, or to wait to be reinstated following an unfair labor 
practice.

    The delays are so bad that the PRO Act seeks to establish 
an NLRB workaround, creating a dual track for a private right 
of action for labor violations. The good news from my 
perspective is that this is all fixable. One of the 
accomplishments that I am most proud of from my time as an NLRB 
chairman was the work, we did to reduce case processing time.

    When I arrived at the NLRB in 2018, there were cases that 
had been pending for almost 10 years, and many were 3 to 5 
years old. By making modest process management improvements, we 
were able to reduce the median age of cases pending before the 
Board from 233 days in Fiscal Year 2018, to 85 days at the end 
of 2000--Fiscal Year 2020. So, it can be done.

    For the second enforcement change that I would like to 
recommend, that the Board must return to its focus--and focus 
on its core mission. That is overseeing union organizing and 
collective bargaining. In recent years, the Board has embarked 
on a series of ill-fated efforts to test the boundaries of its 
statutory authority that has wasted countless resources, 
clogged the Board's docket, and diverted the agency's attention 
from its core mission.

    Several years ago, for example, the NLRB decided that it 
would challenge mandatory arbitration agreements. After years 
of litigation and hundreds of charges, the Board was 
resoundingly rebuffed by the Supreme Court. And the Board has 
pushed other of these wasteful forays in an attempt to expand 
the Act's protections, from policing employer handbooks, to 
just recently deciding to prohibit standard provisions in all 
employers' severance agreements.

    These various initiatives have little to do with 
unionization or collective bargaining. Unfortunately, while 
pursuing all these initiatives, the Board fails those who need 
it the most. Last month, amid the Board's recent renewed 
activity to expand protections again on these various non-core 
issues, the Board finally issued an election for 86 mechanics 
at a Nissan plant in Mississippi after 2 years.

    The machinists union statement after the decision lamented, 
``a broken and painstakingly slow NLRB process.'' Finally, the 
NLRB needs to end the destructive practice of policy and 
precedent oscillation. When I was chairman, we worked to 
restore much of the decades old precedent that had been upended 
by the Board before us.

    The current Board is determined, it appears, to swing the 
pendulum even further. These swings in precedent makes it 
difficult for anyone to know the rules and undermines respect 
for the Board. Industrial peace is best served when everyone 
knows what the rules are and has confidence in the Board to 
enforce those rules in a neutral and consistent manner.

    In closing, I would say that rather than rewrite Federal 
labor law, Congress should consider these necessary NLRB 
enforcement changes. Not only are they eminently doable, these 
changes avoid the PRO Act's sweeping and far-ranging impacts, 
particularly on employee free choice, basic democratic rights 
to a secret election, and free debate. I appreciate the 
opportunity to be here with you today.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ring follows:]

                   prepared statement of john f. ring
    Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy, and Committee Members, 
thank you for your invitation to participate in this hearing. It is an 
honor to appear before you today. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  My testimony today reflects my own views, which should not be 
attributed to Morgan Lewis & Bockius or the NLRB. I am grateful to 
Lauren M. Emery and Gregory B. Nelson for their assistance.

    I am a partner in the law firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, where 
I practiced labor law for almost 30 years prior to serving on the 
National Labor Relations Board (``NLRB'' or ``Board''). I had the 
privilege of serving as Chairman from April 2018 to January 2021, and 
as a Board Member until the end of my term on December 16, 2022. I 
recently returned to Morgan Lewis and private practice. My law practice 
has focused on management-side negotiating and administering collective 
bargaining agreements, mostly in the context of multiemployer 
bargaining. As I noted during my confirmation hearing in front of this 
Committee almost 5 years ago, my career in the labor field started at 
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Washington D.C. 
headquarters, where I worked for nearly 7 years during college and law 
school. That experience offered an important perspective that shaped my 
law practice, gave me tremendous respect for the collective bargaining 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
process, and informed my overall approach to labor law.

    Today I am here to talk about the Protecting the Right to Organize 
Act (``PRO Act''), S. 567, reintroduced in the Senate last week. This 
legislation has been introduced in every Congress over the past 10 
years and has failed to pass each time, including when both houses of 
Congress and the White House were controlled by the same party. There 
is a reason this legislation has failed to be enacted in my view. The 
PRO Act advances the objectives of a small interest group--labor 
unions--and represents a compilation of every ``wish list'' item the 
labor movement could come up with to change the historic balance 
between labor and management to favor unionization. It is based on 
unions' belief that increasing union membership is in the best interest 
of the country.

    While no one can fault organized labor's desire to pursue 
legislation that would advance its own self-interest, there are several 
reasons to step back and take a more serious approach. This is 
particularly true today where the country faces the challenges of a 
changing workforce, unprecedented global economic forces, and a highly 
integrated market economy where we do not have the luxury of 
approaching issues in isolation. Indeed, given these challenges, we 
need to be focused not on how we address historic grievances, but on 
how we build the best labor-management framework for the workforce of 
the future.

    As this Committee considers the PRO Act, I would ask that it take 
into consideration several points. First, while not perfect, the 
National Labor Relations Act (``NLRA'' or ``Act''), as amended over the 
years, is a unique and carefully crafted law that has done an admirable 
job over the last almost 90 years of balancing labor and management 
interests to accomplish its central objectives: promoting workplace 
democracy and ensuring industrial peace.

    Second, before undertaking a radical overhaul of Federal labor law, 
I would suggest that many of the criticisms levied against the NLRA, 
which the PRO Act is supposed to address, can be fixed through certain 
relatively easy modifications to the NLRB's enforcement approach.

    Finally, as the Committee considers the sweeping and far-reaching 
changes that will affect every segment of our economy, I would urge the 
Committee to take a more serious approach. As discuss below, there are 
many unanswered questions that deserve input and debate from all 
stakeholders, not just those promoting the PRO Act.
           The NLRA: Workplace Democracy and Industrial Peace
    Before Congress embarks on an overhaul of the NLRA, it is worth 
taking stock of the Act's successes and not just focus on its failures. 
Indeed, the success of the Act should not be underestimated. Although 
the law is not perfect, it is far from requiring a total rewrite.

    The NLRA has been in place for almost a century, and, over that 
time, has continued to achieve the objectives Congress set: ensuring 
workplace democracy and industrial peace. As is clear from the 
statutory language of the Act and its legislative history, the NLRA 
seeks to ensure industrial peace by affording employees the right to 
organize while seeking to prevent ``strikes and other forms of 
industrial strife or unrest.'' \2\ As the Supreme Court has recognized, 
the NLRA ``is not intended to serve either party's individual interest, 
but to foster in a neutral manner a system in which the conflict 
between these interests may be resolved.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\  29 U.S.C. Sec.  151 et seq..
    \3\  First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 680-
681 (1981).

    No one would claim the NLRA is perfect. As evidenced by a series of 
amendments over the years, Congress has seen fit to fix some of those 
imperfections as they have been identified. Both labor and management 
interests can find fault with the Act for one thing or another. Union 
interests say that the Act is deficient in supporting their organizing 
goals and in stopping employers from violating the law. Some management 
interests says the Act throttles their business objectives and denies 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
employees free choice.

    Until recently, it was widely understood that the NLRA was created 
to provide both the employer and the employees a voice--workplace 
democracy--and to maintain a system that promotes a more productive 
relationship between labor and management. Until recently, most would 
say the NLRA has admirably achieved these goals. Now Congress is 
considering a major overhaul. The real question is whether the Act is 
not meeting its goals or whether the goals of the Act have changed.

    Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that the NLRA has 
largely done what Congress intended. It does not establish involuntary 
sectoral bargaining or a European-type model of works councils. It 
doesn't force unions on employees or impose economic terms on 
employers. Rather, it affords employees the right to form, join or 
assist a union, or not do so, based on the circumstances of their 
individual workplace. In making that decision about whether to be 
unionized, the Act provides for robust American-style democratic 
debate, one that has always included all voices including that of the 
employer.

    It is only through an employee's ability to hear all arguments--
from a union, their employer, and their coworkers--that they can make 
an educated decision about whether or not they wish to be represented. 
The NLRA offers employees a voice and the ability to collectively 
decide upon representation while, at the same time, allowing employers 
to lawfully communicate with its employees in a non-coercive manner. 
From its inception, the NLRA has struck the delicate balance between 
empowering employees, while allowing employers to present their 
arguments to workers.

    In fact, in the creation of our Federal labor law, there was clear 
``congressional intent to encourage free debate on issues dividing 
labor and management.'' \4\ The Supreme Court has ``characterized this 
policy judgment, which suffuses the NLRA as a whole, as `favoring 
uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate in labor disputes,' stressing 
that `freewheeling use of the written and spoken word . . . has been 
expressly fostered by Congress and approved by the NLRB.' '' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\  Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of Am., Loc. 114, 383 U.S. 
53, 63, (1966).
    \5\  Chamber of Com. of U.S. v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60, 67 (2008) 
(citing Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 272--273, (1974)).

    The NLRA also offers employees the rights and related protections 
to act on a concerted basis for their mutual benefit. Employees may 
decide to act concertedly without joining a union, and the Act protects 
that activity. In those workplaces where employees indicate their 
interest in a union, the Act establishes a procedure for determining 
support that is anchored in the most fundamental American democratic 
ideal: the right to a secret vote. Further grounded in another of our 
Nation's founding principles of capitalism, the Act establishes a 
system of collective bargaining that offers union and management the 
ability to negotiate a labor contract based on the relative economic 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
strength of each party.

    Congress further ensured that there would be compliance with the 
Act, creating the NLRB and unique enforcement procedures and remedies 
that advance the public interests underlying the statute. Under the 
NLRA, parties can pursue a charge or petition for a union election 
without the need for an attorney or legal representation. This is a 
rare system when compared to most other Federal and state employment 
statutes.

    Additionally, the NLRB annually processes thousands of charges and 
petitions. In 2022 alone, the Agency oversaw 1,522 representation 
elections, reviewed almost 18,000 unfair labor practices (``ULP''), 
achieved $51.6 million in monetary remedies, and secured offers of 
reinstatement for almost 1,000 employees. And while these enforcement 
achievements are notable, a hallmark of the NLRB's success has been the 
ability to resolve labor disputes at their early stages. In 2022, the 
Agency brokered 5,587 ULP settlements and adjustments, and out of the 
almost 18,000 charges filed, the General Counsel issued complaints in 
only approximately 4 percent of cases, a testament to the Agency's 
ability to review, dismiss and settle a large majority of charges.

    With this basic structure, the NLRA has produced enormous benefits 
for millions of Americans, including employees, unions, employers and 
the U.S. economy, for almost nine decades. In recent years, however, 
and particularly as the PRO Act has dominated the conversation, some 
have decided that the NLRA is outdated and in need of overhaul. In my 
view, before we jump to such a conclusion, we should take account of 
the effectiveness and accomplishment of our current Federal labor law. 
Given its successes, the Act is worth preserving.
                  NLRA Fixes Without PRO Act Overhaul
    The NLRA undeniably has produced enormous benefits to the country. 
However, having recently completed my term on the NLRB and after 
serving for almost 3 years as Chairman, I am convinced that there are 
undoubtedly ways to make it better. And before undertaking such a 
substantial overhaul of the NLRA, Congress should consider whether 
certain modifications could be made to the Board's enforcement of the 
Act. Doing so could go a long way toward achieving many of the goals of 
the PRO Act.

    First, the NLRB should be able to process its cases--from start to 
finish--faster. Nowhere is the old adage ``justice delayed is justice 
denied'' more apt than with the NLRB. Employees willing to exercise 
their rights under the Act should not have to wait years for a 
decision. Second and relatedly, the NLRB should recommit its focus to 
its core union-related mission. In my view, the Board should stop 
distracting itself from traditional matters in order to achieve 
peripheral objectives. Time and again in recent years, the Board has 
spent countless resources and racked up untenable case delays seeking 
to advance new and imaginative legal theories at the expense of its 
core collective bargaining mission. Third, the NLRB should end the 
destructive practice of policy and case precedent oscillation.

    Considering case processing delays, the NLRB has long been 
criticized for the time it takes to issue its cases. \6\ One of the 
accomplishments of which I am most proud from my time as NLRB Chairman 
is the work we did to reduce case processing time and nearly eliminate 
the Board's case backlog. When I arrived at the NLRB in 2018, there 
were cases that had been pending almost 10 years and many were 3 to 5 
years old. In my view, this was appalling. We immediately initiated a 
series of process management changes. A majority of Board Members at 
the time committed to this initiative, collectively affirming the 
critical importance of timely case processing to the mission of the 
Act. This was a relentless focus, particularly in representational 
matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\  See e.g., GAO Report to Congressional Requesters, The National 
Labor Relations Board Action Needed to Improve Case-Processing Time at 
Headquarters (Jan. 1991). see also, Miller, An administrative appraisal 
of NLRB, Industrial Research Unit, Wharton School, University of 
Pennsylvania Related Series: Labor relations and public policy series; 
no. 16 (1977).

    Based on our efforts, the median age of all cases pending before 
the Board was reduced from 233 days in fiscal year 2018 to 157 days at 
the end of fiscal year 2019, an almost 33 percent reduction. The next 
year, fiscal year 2020, the median age of cases before the Board was 
reduced further from 157 days to 85 days, a 46 percent reduction. At 
the end of fiscal year 2020, the number of cases pending before the 
Board is at its lowest level in over 40 years. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\  NLRB Press Release: NLRB Closes Out fiscal year 2020 With 
Favorable Case Processing Results https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/
news-story/nlrb-closes-out-fy-2020-with-favorable-case-processing-
results (Oct 30, 2020); NLRB Press Release: NLRB Closes Out fiscal year 
2019 With Positive Case Processing Results https://www.nlrb.gov/news-
outreach/news-story/nlrb-closes-out-fy-2019-with-positive-case-
processing-results (Oct 7, 2019).

    I am pleased that the Board has continued many of the reforms we 
initiated. But I know there is more that can be done. In my view, 
before Congress embarks on efforts to overhaul our labor laws, 
particularly changes that would allow individuals to bypass the Board 
if it does not act promptly, it should find ways to build on the 
process improvements in case processing that we began. As our efforts 
showed, case processing can be improved, and the advantages to all NLRB 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
stakeholders is tremendous.

    Some case-processing delays could be addressed by another change in 
the Board's enforcement approach that I would strongly recommend. In 
recent years, the Board has periodically embarked on a number of ill-
fated efforts to test the boundaries of its statutory authority. In 
2014, for example, the Board took the position for the first time that 
the Act prohibited mandatory arbitration agreements. This new 
interpretation not only expanded the historic understanding of Section 
7 rights, it placed the NLRA squarely in conflict with the Federal 
Arbitration Act. There were immediately legal challenges, but the 
Agency continued to prosecute hundreds of cases under the new 
interpretation of the Act. After more than 5 years of litigation, the 
Supreme Court resoundingly rejected the Board's overreach in Epic 
Systems. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\  Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S.----, 138 S.Ct. 1612 
(2018).

    In the end, the NLRB wasted countless resources, flooded the 
dockets at the Board and in the Regions and diverted attention from its 
core mission. Indeed, many of these cases contained other charges of 
violations under established precedent that were left unresolved for 
years while the mandatory arbitration issue was litigated. This all was 
entirely predictable. \9\ And it is safe to say, nothing in this 
diversion helped organize one union member or achieve one successful 
collective bargaining outcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\  See Murphy Oil, 361 NLRB 774, 830 (2014) (``My colleagues in 
the majority embark on this course in good faith, motivated by the goal 
of enforcing the Act as they understand it. Their good intentions, 
however, cannot change the fact that both D. R. Horton and today's 
decision are steering the agency on a collision course with the Supreme 
Court. This might be understandable if these cases involved the core 
employee-to-employee concerted activity that lies at the heart of the 
Act. As shown, that is not the case. What is at stake here, instead, is 
merely an increase in the utilization of class and collective action 
procedures established by other Federal laws and administered by the 
Federal courts according to decades of their own precedent--all areas 
where this agency has no expertise. In these circumstances, the likely 
outcome is a regrettable but completely predictable, understandable 
diminution of deference to the Board's orders, as various courts 
continue to reject D. R. Horton's reasoning and this agency's attempt 
to interfere with their management of their own cases. And, 
unfortunately, in the interim, reviewing courts will be less and less 
likely to defer to the Board's construction of Section 7 in other 
contexts after dealing with D. R Horton's unjustified refusal to apply 
the FAA as the courts have directed. Finally, and most importantly, 
this unfortunate conflict will almost certainly end with the inevitable 
reaffirmation by the Supreme Court that the Act, too, must yield to the 
Federal policy of enforcing arbitration agreements according to their 
terms. The prospect of victory is too slight, and the possible rewards 
are too limited to justify D. R. Horton's extraordinary cost in 
diverted resources and lost judicial deference, in my view.'') (Member 
Johnson dissenting) (footnote omitted).

    As another example (and there are many others), the Board in 2004, 
began a new aggressive enforcement policy toward ordinary employer 
rules, policies and handbook provisions. \10\ The maintenance of 
commonplace, facially neutral rules--imposing innocuous requirements 
like civility in the workplace--were now being found unlawful. Like the 
mandatory arbitration cases, there were hundreds of these rules cases 
that flooded the docket and distracted the Board. And because these 
rules cases came at around the same time the NLRB was pursuing its 
mandatory arbitration theory, the backlog only worsened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\  See Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004).

    With a change in majority, the NLRB in December 2017 adopted a more 
commonsense approach to enforcing employer rules, policies and 
handbooks that eliminated these cases. \11\ This change allowed the 
Board to better focus on the core mission but, unfortunately the damage 
was already done. There was a backlog of these rules cases when I 
arrived at the Board, many of which contained other violations that 
went unresolved for years. This, of course, is particularly unfortunate 
when those violations involved representational issues or employees 
discharged for engaging in activity protected by the Act. I was pleased 
that we were able to clear the backlog of these cases, but the problem 
was one created by the Board and totally avoidable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\  The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017).

    Unfortunately, the NLRB appears to be reverting to its prior 
course. Both the Board and General Counsel are once again pursuing 
issues that either are outside the core mission or involve dubious 
statutory interpretations that will result in litigation unlikely to 
prevail. For its part, the Board looks like its reupping its mandatory 
arbitration agreement and employer rules legal battles. Recently asking 
for public briefing on these issues, the Board appears poised to devote 
its limited resources to protecting matters that have nothing to do 
with unionization and collective bargaining. Making this argument, 
among others, Member Marvin Kaplan and I, as minority members of the 
Board at the time, dissented to these latest diversions. \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\  See Stericycle, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 48 slip op at 8 (2022) 
(``The Supreme Court recently reminded us that `Section 7 focuses on 
the right to organize unions and bargain collectively.' In keeping with 
this observation, the Board ought to devote the better part of its time 
and energy to ensuring free and fair elections and to dealing with 
employers who quell organizational efforts through intimidation or who 
refuse to bargain in good faith. Scrutinizing facially neutral 
workplace rules that target unprotected conduct to determine whether 
they might be construed by labor-law professionals to reach some 
protected conduct as well consumes resources better devoted to going 
after the real bad apples. Policing the margins of Section 7 in this 
way occupied an undue amount of the Board's resources, distracted the 
Agency from its core mission, and interfered with the Board's ability 
to issue cases in a timely manner. The majority's decision to issue 
this Notice and Invitation should prompt concern that those days may 
soon return.'') (Members Kaplan and Ring dissenting); Ralph's Grocery, 
371 NLRB No 50 slip op at 7n. 19 (2022) (``Dozens of cases, including 
this one, were decided under D. R. Horton and Murphy Oil only to have 
the violation finding denied enforcement by a court of appeals both 
before and after Epic Systems. The resources expended on the fruitless 
litigation of those cases contributed significantly to the backlog of 
pending cases in place at the time we joined the Board. For example, 
the median age of cases pending at the Board stood at 233 days at the 
end of fiscal year 2018, shortly after Epic Systems was decided. 
Thereafter, the median age of pending cases decreased to 157 days at 
the end of fiscal year 2019, 85 days at the end of fiscal year 2020, 
and 72 days at the end of fiscal year 2021. Indeed, this case remains 
pending at the Board even though the court of appeals issued its 
mandate denying enforcement in part and remanding on August 27, 2018. 
The likelihood is that the majority's efforts to challenge arbitration 
agreement will result, once again, in delayed case processing.'') 
(Members Kaplan and Ring dissenting).

    And this appears to be just the start of the NLRB's efforts to 
distract itself once more from its core mission. Just a few weeks ago, 
for example, the Board issued a decision effectively invalidating all 
private sector severance agreements that contain confidentiality or 
non-disparagement provisions affecting largely non-union settings. If 
the past is any indication of how this will play out, the Board's 
decision to police all severance agreements will result in another 
drawn-out legal battle that drains agency resources and clogs the 
Board's docket. And, of course, this comes at the expense of the 
Board's ability to timely process pending organizing petitions and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
unfair labor practices.

    The harm done to the Agency's core mission by these types of 
distractions is real and cannot be overstated. For example, while the 
NLRB has been focusing on mandatory arbitration agreements, employer 
handbooks and severance agreements, a group of 86 maintenance 
technicians at a Nissan plant in Mississippi recently waited almost 2 
years for their case to be decided. The Board ultimately ruled in the 
union's favor on February 2, 2023, but the delay caused potentially 
irreparable damage to the employees' organizing effort. \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\  Nissan N. Am, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 48 (Feb. 2, 2023).

    In a statement provided to the press following the decision, the 
Machinists Union said: ``It is unfortunate that a broken and 
painstakingly long NLRB process has again allowed a company to put the 
brakes on workers obtaining a voice on the job without delay. The IAM 
will discuss the ruling and its consequences with this group of skilled 
tool and die maintenance technicians at Nissan to determine the best 
path forward.'' \14\ It seems the Board's message to those like the 
Nissan mechanics is that protecting non-union employees against 
mandatory arbitration, employer handbooks and severance agreements is 
more important than them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\  Josh Eidelson, Nissan Techs Can Vote on Union, U.S. Labor 
Board Rules, Bloomberg, Feb 2, 2023.

    The General Counsel also is focusing on many areas that do nothing 
for union organizing and collective bargaining, including efforts to 
expand NLRA coverage for college athletes \15\ and for the faculty at 
religiously affiliated colleges and universities. \16\ She is pushing 
to expand the definition of protected activity for non-union employees 
unrelated to union organizing, \17\ and to affording so-called 
Weingarten rights to non-union employees. \18\ Assisting other Federal 
and state agencies, the General Counsel has signed various inter-agency 
coordination agreements, \19\ including a memorandum with the Federal 
Trade Commission to assist that agency with its merger review 
activities. \20\ All these far-flung initiatives, I should note, have 
being undertaken while the NLRB continues to say it is underfunded and 
understaffed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\  NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 21-08, Statutory Rights of 
Players at Academic Institutions (Student-Athletes) Under the National 
Labor Relations Act (Sept. 29, 2021).
    \16\  NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 21-04, Mandatory 
Submissions to Advice (Aug. 12, 2021).
    \17\  Id.
    \18\  Id.
    \19\  NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 23-03, Delegation to 
Regional Directors of Section 102.118 Authorization Regarding Record 
Requests from Federal, state, and Local Worker and Consumer Protection 
Agencies (Nov. 9, 2022); NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 22-03, 
Inter-Agency Cooperation (Feb. 10, 2022); see also NLRB Release, 
National Labor Relations Board and Department of Justice Announce New 
Partnership to Protect Workers (July 26, 2022).
    \20\  NLRB News Release, National Labor Relations Board and Federal 
Trade Commission Forge New Partnership to Protect Workers from 
Anticompetitive and Unfair Labor Practices (July 19, 2022).

    In addition, the General Counsel is urging the Board to make 
radical changes in well-established precedent that will further divert 
the NLRB from its core mission. In changes that would fundamentally 
alter union organizing, the General Counsel has proposed radical 
interpretations of the Act prohibiting employer communications to 
employees over matters protected by the Act and abolishing employees' 
rights to an NLRB secret ballot election. Of course, the argument that 
these changes are supported by existing statutory authority is belied 
by their inclusion in the PRO Act and other legislative measures over 
the years. Nevertheless, neither has any chance of surviving judicial 
scrutiny. \21\ More to the point, these overreaches will result in the 
same endless litigation, wasted Board resources and distraction from 
the NLRB's core mission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\  The General Counsel's new and radical position that employers 
should be prohibited from union-related speech during paid time is 
contrary to Section 8(c) of the NLRA and the First Amendment. Section 
8(c) affirmatively protects the expression of union-related ``views, 
argument, or opinion,'' and the Supreme Court has held Section 8(c) 
``implements the First Amendment'' and reflects a ``policy judgment, 
which suffuses the NLRA as a whole, . . . `favoring uninhibited robust, 
and wide-open debate in labor disputes.' '' Chamber of Com. Of U.S. v. 
Brown, 554 U.S. 60, 67-68 (2008) (citation omitted). Likewise, the 
General Counsel's proposal to eliminate NLRB secret-ballot elections is 
without legal support. Although the General Counsel advocates this 
approach based on Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263 (1949), enforced, 
185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 914 (1951), two 
subsequent Supreme Court decisions--Gissel Packing Co. v. NLRB, 395 
U.S. 575 (1969), and Linden Lumber v. NLRB, 419 U.S. 301 (1974)--have 
rejected mandatory union recognition based on authorization cards 
(absent ``outrageous,'' ``pervasive'' or other unlawful conduct that 
would ``seriously impede'' holding a fair election). The Supreme Court 
and the courts of appeals have consistently held that authorization 
cards are ``admittedly inferior'' to elections, they are subject to 
``abuses'' and ``misrepresentations,'' and employers ``concededly may 
have valid objections to recognizing a union on that basis.'' Notably, 
Congress has repeatedly considered amendments to the NLRA which, if 
enacted, would have required union recognition based on authorization 
cards; the failure to enact these proposals is compelling evidence that 
card-check recognition is not available under current law.

    The third change in the NLRB's enforcement approach I recommend is 
an end to the destructive practice of policy and case precedent 
oscillation. In recent years, the Board has earned the reputation of an 
unreliable arbiter of labor disputes. The policy swings make it 
difficult for all the Board's stakeholders--unions, employers and 
employees--to know the rules, and it undermines confidence in the 
Board. These policy flip-flops also undermine the confidence of 
reviewing courts that must enforce the Board's orders. And the NLRB's 
non-acquiescence policy, which lets the Board ignore individual circuit 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
court decisions, creates additional enforcement inconsistencies.

    The Obama-era Board in particular overturned numerous long-standing 
case precedents in many areas of established Board law. By some 
estimates, the Board overturned more than 4,000 years of collective 
precedent in some 91 cases. Much of this was part of what I described 
above: ill-fated efforts to test the boundaries of its statutory 
authority in areas such as mandatory arbitration clauses. In other 
areas, the Board upended the historic balance between employer and 
employee interests that had been the hallmark of our Federal labor law.

    While I was NLRB Chairman, the Board worked to restore much of the 
precedent that had been changed by the prior majority. We returned many 
of the standards to what they had been for decades, including joint 
employment, independent contractor and rules governing the conduct of 
union elections. Notably, we restored much of this precedent; we did 
not attempt to swing to the other extreme. In a number of cases, we 
aligned our precedent to the standard set by prior court decisions to 
ensure consistent enforcement. We also undertook an aggressive 
rulemaking initiative--doing more than any prior Board--to provide 
better guidance and greater stability in the law.

    Now, the current Board and General Counsel has embarked on a 
mission to undo nearly every case precedent we restored. This, of 
course, is in addition to pushing for their other new ill-fated 
precedent changes described above. The current Board is also working to 
undo the rulemaking we did. And the General Counsel announces a new 
policy change nearly every few weeks, making compliance with ever-
changing Board law nearly impossible.

    Industrial peace is best served when everyone knows what the rules 
are and can have confidence that the NLRB is enforcing those rules in a 
neutral and consistent manner. The Board's current approach has 
undermined confidence in the Board and its precedent.

    The bottom line is that, before Congress pushes ahead with a major 
overhaul of Federal law, it should first consider what could be done to 
improve the enforcement efforts under the Act. The NLRB should more 
expeditiously process all its matters, and particularly representation 
petitions. If the employer violates the Act during an election, it 
should be addressed within a matter of months, not years. In the event 
an employer fails to bargain in good faith for its first contract, the 
Board must be able to get the parties back to the table in less than 2 
years. None of this is a criticism of the Agency or its personnel; they 
are working within the current system. I raise these points to say that 
the NLRA may not be as broken as are its current enforcement methods.
A More Serious Discussion Is Required for an Overhaul of Federal Labor 
                                  Law
    S. 567 is a list of pro-labor changes unions have been seeking for 
years. It has been presented as the only way to update our labor laws 
in light of the changing economy, a growing economic gap between labor 
and management and the need to strengthen employee rights, among other 
reasons. But is it? I would suggest that there has not been serious 
consideration of the proposed changes, how they will affect the 
economy, including job creation and economic growth, and whether the 
changes will solve--or make worse--the problems they are intended to 
address.

    To date, the PRO Act debate has been one-sided. If Congress is 
going to consider Federal labor law reform, and certainly any reform of 
the magnitude of the PRO Act, there must be a more serious review of 
the legislation's impact as well as input from and dialog among all 
stakeholders.

    Of most serious concerns are the PRO Act changes that would 
detrimentally affect employee free choice and stifle basic democratic 
rights to a secret ballot and free debate, impose collective bargaining 
agreements on parties, wholly change how employers structure their 
business operations, and incentivize more strikes, picketing and 
secondary boycotts. These and other proposals in the legislation 
completely upend Federal labor law and will have wide-ranging 
consequences that need to be fully considered.
                        Employee's Right to Vote
    S. 567 would eliminate one of the most fundamental protections 
afforded employees under the NLRA: the guaranteed right to a vote on 
whether to unionize. Instead, the PRO Act calls for the use of ``card 
check'' in lieu of a secret ballot election. The secret ballot 
election, of course, is the way representation elections have been 
conducted since the inception of the Act. It's how we elect our 
government officials. And it is the method Congress chose to use when 
imposing certain labor provisions in the United States-Mexico-Canada 
Agreement (USMCA) and for organizing of Congressional offices.

    As proposed, the legislation also would impose a union on 
employees--regardless of whether the employees supported it--in the 
event that the employer engaged in violations during an NLRB election. 
We cannot overlook employer misconduct during an election and there 
must be consequences. However, the punishment for the violations should 
not be imposed on employees and result in workers losing their right to 
choose or not choose to be represented by a union.

    These radical changes--abolishing secret ballot elections and 
issuing bargaining orders for any employer proven irregularities in an 
NLRB election--are a significant diminution of employees' rights. There 
also are a number of questions about how, in the absence of secret 
balloting, employees can exercise free choice without coercion or 
influence. PRO Act proponents do not share any of these concerns (and 
the legislation does not address them) because they assume that all 
employees should be unionized. There are other views that need to be 
taken into account and, given the important rights being arrogated 
here, more serious debate about this proposal is warranted.
           Workplace Democracy--Free Speech and Open Dialogue
    The PRO Act would substantially reduce important aspects of 
workplace democracy enjoyed under the NLRA. Specifically, the 
legislation seeks to eliminate free speech and open dialog during a 
union organizing drive. Proponents argue that there should be no role 
or voice for employer's in organizing campaigns, and the PRO Act would 
eliminate employers' right to express opinions and provide information 
to employees regarding union representational issues. S. 567 seeks to 
further restrain employer free speech by reinstating the Obama-era 
Department of Labor reporting requirements for entities that provide 
assistance to employers in union campaigns.

    Additionally, to reduce open dialog, the PRO Act seeks to minimize 
the opportunity employees have to discuss and debate during an 
organizing campaign, including hearing from their employer and others 
that might have a contrary view about unionization. Indeed, one of the 
justifications for the PRO Act advancing card check and other proposed 
changes such as a return to the Board's 2014 so-called ``quickie 
election'' rules, is to reduce the time employees are given to weigh 
the pros and cons of union representation.

    The cumulative effect of these changes would mean less democratic 
free speech and exchange of ideas in the workplace. It also would mean 
less informed decisionmaking by employees about whether to unionize. 
These are major changes that require more serious and more balanced 
deliberation.
         Imposition of Initial Collective Bargaining Agreements
    The PRO Act would upend another central tenet of Federal labor law 
by imposing on both employees and employers a first contract if an 
arbitrary time deadline is not met. This proposed change not only takes 
away employees' right to vote on the terms of their own labor 
agreements, it removes the parties' ability to exercise their relative 
economic strength to determine the terms of their contract.

    Under current Federal labor law, collective bargaining is based on 
the relative strength of the parties. A union believing it has the 
economic strength and backing of its members will seek to extract 
maximum terms in bargaining by applying its leverage. This may include 
economic pressure through a work stoppage or other job actions to force 
the employer to meet its demands. Likewise, an employer believing it 
has the stronger relative position vis-`-vis the union will assert its 
strength. For example, an employer that does not believe it can remain 
competitive or in business if it accedes to the union's demands may be 
willing to withstand damage done to its business from a strike, a 
lockout or other job action.

    This system of collective bargaining, in place since the outset of 
the Act, puts the terms of the labor contract in the hands of those 
best able to know the current economic condition of their businesses. 
Shifting the outcome of a collective bargaining agreement to a third-
party arbitrator, as the PRO Act proposes, means that the future of the 
business and the jobs that depend on that business rest on terms that 
may not meet the economic realities of the employer. In addition, the 
agreement may not align with the interests of either party.

    Before making such a significant and far-reaching change, one that 
could affect the operations and viability of many businesses, there 
should be significant study and analysis of the impact.
                          Business Structures
    Proponents of the PRO Act point to the changing role of workers in 
today's economy to justify the legislation's redefinition of 
``employee'' and ``employer.'' Among other things, they point to the 
increased use of so-called gig workers, temporary employees, and 
independent contractors. While the roles of various types of workers is 
undoubtedly changing, these challenges require a thoughtful approach.

    The PRO Act's solution to this problem, however, is a one-size-
fits-all answer: change the law to create more employer-employee 
relationships so unions can organize more employees. It is not hard to 
see why labor unions support this, but the approach fails to consider 
that many workers prefer the flexibility and entrepreneurial 
opportunities of non-employee status. It also overlooks the important 
role these workers play in a changing economy. It is not at all clear 
that the answer to these challenges is simply to create more employer-
employee relationships to facilitate greater unionization.

    Whole segments of the economy have been developed under a well-
established definition of independent contractors. If adopted, the PRO 
Act would invalidate decades of legal precedent defining independent 
contractors and would make it far more difficult for workers to 
establish independent status.

    The one-size-fits-all approach of creating more employer-employee 
relationships will only lead to more difficulties, evidenced by 
California's struggle to codify such a standard into law without 
creating multiple carve outs. Simply because an individual performs a 
service for a business that is within the scope of the services 
customarily provided by such entity should not--and has not 
automatically established an employer-employee relationship. In light 
of the evolving nature of the type of work that many individuals do on 
an independent basis in the evolving ``gig'' economy, this proposed 
change could have a devastating impact on such workers and the segments 
of the economy in which they operate.

    Similarly, the PRO Act proposes major changes to the joint-employer 
standard that would fundamentally change business structuring 
throughout the economy. The standard calls for joint-employer status 
under the NLRA based solely on ``indirect or reserved control.'' This 
standard could potentially destroy the franchisor and franchisee model 
which has created millions of jobs and established hundreds of 
thousands of successful small business entities. \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\  For a comprehensive analysis detailing the negative economic 
consequences of an overly expansive joint employer standard, see 
International Franchise Association, Comment Letter on Proposed Rule on 
the Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status (Jan. 28, 2019).

    The proposed changes to the independent contractor and joint-
employer standards would have a significant impact on all segments of 
the economy. No changes in this area should be undertaken without a 
study of the many complex issues and a full understanding of their 
impacts.
                            Industrial Peace
    The PRO Act would make several major changes to core areas of 
current Federal law that have provided decades of industrial peace, a 
primary objective of the NLRA. First, it would make lawful intermittent 
strikes, which would allow employees to engage in frequent and on-and-
off work stoppages and strikes. It also would allow secondary boycott 
activities by unions. This would extend lawful strikes, boycotts and 
picketing beyond the primary employer involved in a particular dispute, 
and permit picketing, boycotts and strikes at all ``neutral'' 
employers. Secondary boycott activity would embroil neutral employers 
that have nothing to do with the dispute other than doing business with 
the primary employer.

    In addition to potentially having a devastating effect on the 
supply chain and other aspects of the economy, changes to intermittent 
strike and secondary boycott law would dramatically change the balance 
of competing interests that had been carefully constructed by Congress 
over almost nine decades. These types of radical legislative changes 
need to be fully understood before being adopted.
                         Dual-Track Enforcement
    Perhaps out of frustration with the NLRB's historically slow case 
processing discussed earlier, the PRO Act would create a two-track 
enforcement process allowing employees to circumvent the NLRB. As 
proposed, employees would be able to pursue a separate civil action in 
Federal district court if the Board failed to initiate an injunction 
proceeding in Federal court within 60 days following the filing of 
unfair labor practice charges.

    Perhaps a quick work-around to a systemic (but fixable) delay 
problem, establishing this type of dual track enforcement would 
undermine--not strengthen--the NLRB's ability to establish a consistent 
labor policy and effectively remedy labor law violations. Federal 
district courts have had little involvement with labor law matters, and 
the details of how such a enforcement scheme would work and be 
coordinated are unclear. Once again, before Congress undermines the 
NLRB with such a significant change, efforts first should be made to 
address the underlying problem--delay.
                Employer Role in Representation Matters
    The PRO Act proposes to eliminate the right of employers to 
participate as a ``party'' in Board proceedings in representational 
cases. Under this approach, only the union would have ``party'' status, 
even though representation cases require determinations about whether a 
particular unit is ``appropriate,'' whether particular individuals are 
``supervisors'' (excluded from the unit as a matter of law), and what 
individuals are eligible to vote.

    It appears that no consideration has been given to the fact that, 
as to these important issues, the employer is the party most familiar 
with these types of facts. Before making such a change, Congress should 
give serious consideration to how these important issues will be 
resolved without employer participation in a representation hearing.
                               Conclusion
    While the focus has been on the PRO Act and rewriting Federal labor 
law, the current statutory scheme under the NLRA is not perfect, but it 
has succeeded in establishing robust workplace democracy and necessary 
industrial peace. Congress should consider several modifications to the 
NLRB's current enforcement approach that could address many of the 
criticisms levied against the NLRA. In considering the PRO Act, it is 
important to seriously consider the sweeping and far-reaching changes 
that will affect every segment of our economy. There continue to be 
many unanswered questions that deserve input and debate from all 
stakeholders, not just those promoting the PRO Act.

    This concludes my testimony. I look forward to answering questions 
from Members of the Committee.
                                 ______
                                 
                  [summary statement of john f. ring]
    The Protecting the Right to Organize Act (``PRO Act''), S. 567, has 
failed to be enacted repeatedly because it advances the objectives of a 
small interest group--labor unions. While no one can fault organized 
labor's desire to pursue legislation that would advance its own self-
interest, there are several reasons to step back and take a more 
serious approach. This is particularly true today where the country 
faces the challenges of a changing workforce, unprecedented global 
economic forces, and a highly integrated market economy where we do not 
have the luxury of approaching issues in isolation.

    In debating the PRO Act, I believe the Committee should consider 
three points. First, while not perfect, the National Labor Relations 
Act (``NLRA'' or ``Act'') is a unique and carefully crafted law that 
has done an admirable job of balancing labor and management interest to 
accomplish its central objectives: promoting workplace democracy and 
ensuring industrial peace. It affords employees the right to form, join 
or assist a union, or not do so, based on the circumstances of their 
individual workplace. The Act provides for robust American-style 
democratic debate, one that has always encompassed all voices including 
that of the employer. The NLRA also offers employees the important 
right to a secret vote. It grants rights and related protections for 
employees to act on a concerted basis for their mutual benefit and 
establishes a system of collective bargaining based on the relative 
economic strengths of the parties. Congress further ensured that there 
would be compliance with the Act, creating the NLRB and unique 
enforcement procedures and remedies.

    Second, many of the criticisms levied against the NLRA, which the 
PRO Act is supposed to address, can be fixed through certain relatively 
easy modifications to the NLRB's enforcement approach. To start, the 
NLRB should process its cases more quickly, and there are proven ways 
to do so. The Board also should stop embarking on ill-fated efforts to 
test the boundaries of its statutory authority. This wastes countless 
Board resources, floods its docket and diverts the Agency's attention 
from its core mission. Unfortunately, both the Board and General 
Counsel are once again pursuing issues that either are outside the core 
mission or involve dubious statutory interpretations that will result 
in litigation. Additionally, the NLRB needs to end the destructive 
practice of policy and case precedent oscillation. These swings in 
precedent make it difficult for everyone to know the rules, and it 
undermines confidence in the Board.

    Finally, the PRO Acts' sweeping and far-reaching changes will 
affect every segment of our economy. The legislation detrimentally 
affects employee free choice and stifles basic democratic rights to a 
secret ballot and free debate, imposes collective bargaining agreements 
on parties, wholly changes how employers structure their business 
operations, and incentivizes more strikes, picketing and secondary 
boycotts. There are many unanswered questions that deserve input and 
debate from all stakeholders, and there needs to be a more serious 
approach to the consideration of this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
    Senator Cassidy. Mr. Mix, I get to introduce you, sir. Mark 
Mix is the President of the Right to Work Committee and the 
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a position he 
has held since 2003.

    For decades, Mr. Mix has been a stalwart defender of 
workers' rights and independence, providing legal assistance 
and protection for workers against abuses of forced 
unionization.

    Mr. Mix holds a B.A. from James Madison University. Thank 
you for being here and I look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF MARK MIX, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK 
   COMMITTEE, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL 
              DEFENSE FOUNDATION, SPRINGFIELD, VA

    Mr. Mix. Thank you, Senator. And thank you, Senator 
Sanders, for the opportunity to appear, Senator Cassidy, and 
other Members of the Senate. I am Mark Mix. Have been the 
President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense 
Foundation for 20 years, and the National Right to Work 
Committee for 20 years.

    Have been working in the right to work movement for 36 
years. Grew up in a small town with more cows than people with. 
My stepfather was an international association machinist member 
for 32 years. Grew up in a union household, in a union 
environment in America.

    It wasn't until I understood what labor law looks like, as 
it compels workers going back to the 1930's to join and 
associate with an organization. Senator Sanders, who talked 
about Constitutional rights and the Constitutional right to 
organize.

    I mean, surely you are talking about the NAACP v. Alabama 
case in 1958 where the First Amendment was basically defined as 
being the right to associate, but also the right not to 
associate.

    Labor law, written back in 1935, talks about all of these 
flowery things, but in Section 7 of the Act, it says that 
workers have all these rights and they have the right to 
refrain, and if there had been a period at that moment, we 
probably wouldn't be here today because that would have given 
workers the choice under the National Labor Relations Act to 
refrain from union activity.

    But it didn't. It went on, except to the extent that a 
worker can be compelled to pay dues or fees or join a union at 
that time in order to work or get or keep a job. So, the 
Constitutional right comes with the right to associate versus--
and so it presupposes the right not to associate.

    But yet labor policy and the policies that are pushed by 
unfortunately the National Labor Relations Board and 
legislative bodies across the country continue to rely on force 
as opposed to volunteerism. And it is an interesting story when 
you think about the origins of the union, Samuel Gompers, the 
founder of the AFL.

    In his final speech in El Paso, Texas, in 1924, when you 
were getting ready to come to Congress in 1926 for the Railway 
Labor Act and imposing the Federal imposition of unionization 
on railway employees across the country, Gompers gave his final 
speech saying, the workers of America adhere to voluntary 
institutions.

    Anything else using force will destroy that which, together 
through volunteers, is invincible. Well, Gompers' message was 
very clear, and it is to the union officials down the row here 
on the table, that you have a great product. Go sell that 
product. Don't rely on Government to give you the force to 
compel people to join unions.

    That is exactly what happens in the American workplace 
today, whether it be at the National Labor Relations Board, 
ignoring the ideas and the views of literally tens of 
thousands, hundreds of thousands of employees. At the National 
Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, we have had the 
privilege of representing hundreds of thousands of employees in 
litigation against employers and unions.

    When employers violate workers' rights, we go after them. 
When unions violate workers' rights, we go after them. The idea 
of individual freedom and choice is a fundamental principle of 
who we are as a country, yet labor law destroys that 
fundamental voluntarism and independence that most workers 
enjoy.

    I am, here today--you know, Senator Sanders, you talked 
about one way to realize the American dream is to join a union. 
There are lots of other ways and there are lots of other 
examples of that. And frankly, today, 94 percent of the workers 
in the private sector in America today are not part of a union 
and not members of unions.

    Many of them would like to be. And you have heard President 
O'Brien talk about the high rate of favorability of labor 
unions. Absolutely, labor unions are being considered as 
favorable by the American public.

    But other question in that Gallup poll that he cites was 
not referenced in the media, and that asked those nonunion 
employees that were surveyed whether they had any interest in 
joining a union.

    58 percent said they had no interest in joining a union. 11 
percent said, yes, they are very interested. And in the medium, 
in the middle, there were piece of it, well, I don't really 
know or I don't care.

    The idea of giving a private organization the ability to 
compel someone to pay union dues or fees as a condition of 
getting or keeping a job is the wrong policy, not only for 
organized labor, but the wrong policy for America.

    Giving workers a choice whether or not they want to 
associate, but yet the labor policy this country wants a 
majority of those voting in a workplace ca combined and compel 
people to associate with a labor union.

    You know, in regular business law, we know the elements of 
a contract include a meeting of the minds. It means no duress. 
It means it must be legal and there must be consideration.

    Labor law in America today and since 1935 has stood that 
basic agency relationship on its head by allowing a private 
organization to compel workers to associate with them and 
accept their representation, even though they didn't ask for 
it, didn't want it, and may not even be interested in it 
because it hurts them.

    You know, there are lots of opportunities to explain how a 
union collective bargaining agreement can hurt the very worker 
that it claims to represent, and union officials here don't 
ever recognize that. Somehow, they know better than any 
individual worker in the workplace about what is right or wrong 
for them.

    I disagree with that. The right to work principle is a very 
simple principle. I would encourage you to support Senator 
Paul's bill, Senate Bill 532, that doesn't add a single word to 
Federal law, not one.

    It simply goes back into that antiquated labor policy in 
the 1930's and removes compulsion and makes the bias of this 
Government in favor of voluntary unionism. I think that is a 
good policy for America, and I think most American workers do 
as well.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mix follows:]

                     prepared statement of mark mix
    Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy, and Distinguished 
Committee Members:

    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I've been 
involved in the Right to Work movement for 36 years, and for the last 
20, I've had the privilege of serving as the President of the National 
Right to Work Committee, a grassroots organization with over 2 million 
members and supporters who are dedicated to the principle that 
unionization should be a voluntary choice for all Americans.

    We believe that workers should have the right to join a union, but 
they should never be forced to join and pay dues to a union as a 
condition of employment. Unfortunately, compulsory unionism--where you 
can be fired for refusing to give union bosses a portion of your 
paycheck--is the reality for nearly half of American workers because 
their states lack Right to Work laws.

    Right to Work laws do one thing: They make the payment of union 
dues voluntary, not forced. They don't restrict union organizers or 
workers who want to join a union in any way; they simply allow 
individual workers to make up their own mind about whether union dues 
are right for them. So far, 27 states have passed Right to Work 
protections for their workers, and I urge all of you to support passage 
of the National Right to Work Act (S. 532), introduced last week by 
Senators Paul and Cassidy, which would extend these protections to all 
50 states.

    The announced subject of this hearing is ``Defending the Right of 
Workers to Organize Unions Free from Illegal Corporate Union-Busting.''

    We do need to defend workers' rights, but not in the way that the 
leaders of the union movement propose to do it through the so-called 
``Protecting the Right to Organize Act.''

    The ``PRO Act,'' if it's ``pro'' anything, favors increased 
coercive powers for union officials at the expense of rank-and-file 
workers. It outlaws Right to Work, subjecting workers in all 50 states 
to forced union dues. It also subjects independent contractors to 
monopoly union bargaining and forced dues, depriving them of the one 
thing they like most about their work arrangements: Independence. It 
gives the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) the authority to 
unilaterally overturn a workplace election, handing union organizers a 
victory merely for having coerced or otherwise fraudulently obtained a 
majority of union ``cards,'' which cannot possibly be trusted to 
reflect the true level of worker support for the union.

    There are far too many provisions to list here, but in total they 
represent the largest Big Labor power grab attempted since the Great 
Depression.

    To justify these radical proposals, union officials claim we're in 
a crisis. Fewer Americans in the private sector are union members than 
we've ever seen, yet Gallup pollsters have found Americans' approval 
rating of unions is at record highs. It's clear that Big Labor has been 
able to clean up its public image despite the fact that corruption, 
financial mismanagement, violent strikes, and attacks on non-union 
workers continue.

    But that same Gallup poll of Americans' attitudes toward unions 
asked non-union workers whether they'd be interested in joining a 
union, and 65 percent said they had little or no interest. Only 11 
percent said they were ``extremely interested.''

    That overwhelming disinterest is what has caused a drop in union 
organizing, not restrictive laws and employer meddling, and certainly 
not Right to Work.

    But union officials' solution is to come here demanding even more 
power and privilege to force workers involuntarily into paying union 
fees for their so-called representation, rather than to do a better job 
attracting workers to join their ranks voluntarily.

    As someone who's spent decades defending the rights of individual 
workers, I vehemently oppose illegal actions taken by corporations 
against their own employees. When Charlene Carter was fired from her 
job as a Southwest Airlines flight attendant for standing up for her 
Christian faith and criticizing political stances taken by the 
Transport Workers Union officials she was forced to pay money to, it 
wasn't a union boss who signed her pink slip. A jury found that 
Charlene's firing was an illegal corporate action by Southwest 
Airlines: She had been fired by her employer (at the request of union 
officials), because of her religious views.

    I have the honor of also serving as President of the National Right 
to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which litigated Charlene's case, and 
so I've gotten an up-close view of how labor law is enforced in this 
country. And I have to say, the title of this hearing makes a common 
but critical error. It wrongly assumes that labor litigation is an 
endless struggle between two groups, corporations and unions, when in 
fact there is a third group that often gets overlooked: workers 
themselves.

    It's not always company vs. union: When workers are trapped in a 
corrupt, ineffective union that they don't want, their employer often 
can't do anything to help them. When workers are illegally fired by 
their employer, union officials who advocated the firing in the first 
place certainly won't do anything to help. Worker victimization at the 
hands of union bosses is a real problem, but workers don't have the 
armies of highly paid lawyers that corporations and union bosses have.

    So while we can be sure that any employer slip-up during a union 
drive will be pounced on by union lawyers, violations of workers' 
rights by their so-called union ``representatives'' are rarely exposed. 
Workers are pressured into silence, knowing that union militants take 
great pleasure in harassing union critics. They often don't know their 
rights, or how to bring legal action to enforce them, and even if they 
knew, they'd never be able to afford a prolonged court battle.

    Even if they retain free legal counsel from a group like the Right 
to Work Foundation, labor law is stacked against independent workers, 
and it is enforced by NLRB bureaucrats who are often former union 
activists themselves.

    Consider the case of Foundation client Kerry Hunsberger. Last July, 
she and her coworkers at Latrobe Specialty Metals in Pennsylvania voted 
down a United Steelworkers union contract, and circulated a petition to 
remove the USW bosses from their workplace altogether. Upon hearing of 
the petition, a USW official secretly ratified the rejected contract 
anyway, hoping to trigger the NLRB's ``contract bar.''

    The contract bar doesn't exist anywhere in Federal law. The NLRB 
created and imposed it on American workers. And the Board only allows 
union decertification votes when the union's contract is expired or is 
within 30 and 60 days of expiring. If the USW had successfully 
triggered its trap and ratified the contract that the workers at 
Latrobe Metals didn't want, Kerry and her colleagues would have been 
stuck paying dues to the USW for up to three more years. They avoided 
that fate only because their Right to Work Foundation attorneys found 
errors in the union's hastily ratified contract. Policies like the 
contract bar, which, again, the NLRB invented out of whole cloth and 
could repeal at any time, serve only to make it harder for workers to 
decertify a union.

    The contract bar isn't the only hurdle to decertification. The 
``voluntary recognition bar'' prevents workers from removing a union 
for up to a year after a union is installed by the corrupt ``Card 
Check'' system.

    The ``settlement bar'' blocks decertifications after an NLRB 
settlement to which the workers weren't a party.

    The ``successor bar'' blocks a vote for up to a year after a 
company is acquired by another company, something workers have no say 
in.

    To decertify a union, workers must wait up to 3 years for their 30-
day ``contract bar'' window to arrive, then hope that none of the other 
bars apply. They must collect signatures from more than 30 percent of 
their colleagues on a decertification petition, and complete the 
following steps:

          (1) Fill out NLRB Form 502RD (which has over 50 boxes);

          (2) Send Form 502RD to the employer and union officials, 
        along with ``Statement of Position'' and ``Description of 
        Procedures'' documents;

          (3) E-file a ``Certificate of Service'' proving the above 
        documents were sent; and

          (4) Mail or deliver the original petition to the appropriate 
        NLRB regional office.

    Failure to properly complete these steps will result in the NLRB 
throwing out the workers' decertification petition, leaving them 
saddled with union bosses they don't want. Most of the time, workers 
must navigate this entire process on their own. It's clear that these 
daunting procedures are meant to discourage workers from taking action. 
They're effectively told to stay out of it, leave the legal filings and 
petitions to the union lawyers, and accept the lie that union bosses 
know what's in their best interests.

    But union bosses clearly don't always have workers' interests in 
mind. They didn't have Charlene Carter's interests in mind when they 
encouraged Southwest to fire her.

    They didn't have Kerry Hunsberger's interests in mind when they 
tried to spring a contract bar trap on her.

    When Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689 President Raymond Jackson 
told union officers to ``slap'' employees who opposed the union agenda, 
he didn't have Thomas McLamb's best interests in mind. In November 
2021, McLamb was assaulted by a shop steward after he campaigned 
against incumbent officers to serve on local 689's board.

    A UFCW official did not have Jessica Haefner's best interests in 
mind when he falsely told her last August that the way to opt-out of 
union dues in Right to Work Texas was to write ``$0'' in the dues 
deduction field on her union membership form. Jessica later discovered 
her form had been altered to induce dues deductions.

    Operating Engineers union bosses did not have Rayalan Kent's best 
interests in mind when they filed spurious NLRB ``blocking charges'' to 
halt the count of a decertification vote Rayalan and his coworkers had 
taken at Reith Riley Construction Company. And by the way, the NLRB 
never even had a hearing to see whether those ``blocking charges'' 
justified stopping the election. The already-cast ballots were simply 
destroyed.

    These are just a few examples of the thousands of cases the Right 
to Work Foundation has litigated on behalf of the workers who've been 
victimized by union bosses, who force workers to accept so-called 
representation they do not want, and then demand that they pay for this 
``representation'' that they didn't ask for and believe they'd be 
better off without.

    The reforms we need are not in the ``PRO Act'':

          We need to end monopoly union bargaining, so that 
        every worker can decide for themselves whether union 
        representation is right for them.

          We need to allow workers to hear from their employers 
        as well as their union, so they can make an informed choice 
        without being subjected to a one-sided propaganda campaign from 
        union organizers.

          We need to make unionization a voluntary choice for 
        every worker, so that corrupt union bosses can be held 
        accountable, and workers' freedom of association is protected.

          And most of all, we need to ban forced union dues 
        across the country with a National Right to Work law.

    Thank you for your time. I look forward to answering any questions 
the Committee Members may have.
                                 ______
                                 
                    [summary statement of mark mix]
    For 20 years, Mark Mix has served as the President of the Right to 
Work Committee, which works to ensure that union dues are a voluntary 
choice for all Americans.

    Today, in the 23 non-Right to Work states, a worker can be fired 
for refusing to give a portion of his or her paycheck to union bosses, 
even if those union bosses are corrupt and ineffective.

    The announced subject of this hearing is ``Defending the Right of 
Workers to Organize Unions Free from Illegal Corporate Union-Busting.'' 
Workers' rights must be defended, but not in the way that the leaders 
of the union movement propose to do it through the so-called 
``Protecting the Right to Organize Act.''

    The ``PRO Act,'' if it's ``pro'' anything, favors increased 
coercive powers for union officials at the expense of rank-and-file 
workers. It outlaws Right to Work, subjecting workers in all 50 states 
to forced union dues. It subjects independent contractors to monopoly 
union bargaining and forced dues, depriving them of the one thing they 
like most about their work arrangements: Independence. It gives the 
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) the authority to unilaterally 
overturn a workplace election, handing union organizers a victory 
merely for having coerced or otherwise fraudulently obtained a majority 
of union ``cards,'' which cannot possibly be trusted to reflect the 
true level of worker support for the union.

    Illegal corporate actions should be condemned, but the title of 
this hearing wrongly assumes that labor litigation is an endless 
struggle between two groups, corporations and unions, when in fact 
there is a third group that often gets overlooked: workers themselves.

    Mr. Mix also serves as President of the National Right to Work 
Legal Defense Foundation and has seen first-hand the difficulty workers 
face when they try to bring legal challenges against the union 
officials who purport to represent them. The law favors union officials 
and is enforced by partisan NLRB bureaucrats who impose arbitrary 
``bars'' that make it difficult for workers to remove unwanted unions 
from their workplaces.

    The difficulties faced by the Foundation's clients demonstrate that 
the reforms needed to protect workers are not those in the ``PRO Act.'' 
Instead, we must end monopoly bargaining, allow workers to hear all 
sides during a unionization campaign, make unionization a voluntary 
choice for every individual worker, and, most of all, end forced union 
dues across the country.

    That final goal can be accomplished by passing the National Right 
to Work Act (S. 532), introduced by Senators Paul and Cassidy. It would 
extend Right to Work protections to workers in all 50 states and would 
address the most immediate threat to Americans' workplace rights: 
forced union dues.
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chair. Mr. Mix, thank you very much. In America today 
we are seeing large corporations and their consultants spend 
hundreds of billions of dollars trying to prevent workers from, 
in fact, joining unions.

    Let me ask Ms. Shuler, Ms. Henry, or Mr. O'Brien, why do 
you think these large corporations, often with CEOs like 
Schultz who are billionaires, are spending so much money trying 
to make it impossible for workers to join a union? Sean, do you 
want to respond to that?

    Mr. O'Brien. [Technical problems]--it is a $350 million per 
year business. Look, I think it is clear, especially when you 
are dealing with the CEO of Amazon and Starbucks, that these 
CEOs and these corporations, all they care about is the bottom 
line of a balance sheet.

    If there is any threat to their bottom line of a balance 
sheet or accountability, meaning that workers are being 
represented, workers are being compensated and represented 
clearly by unions, that is why they are such a big threat.

    You know, my colleague on the end, Mr. Ring, makes a point 
saying everybody has got a right to choose whether they want to 
belong to a union. Let's look at Starbucks. You have 300 
locations that voted to join a union. And yet you have these 
union busting firms for a $350 million a year.

    Look, we did exactly what you fight for, right. We voted. 
Those workers voted to join a union. The companies should be 
held accountable and sat down and made to negotiate an 
agreement.

    The Chair. Why--let me just jump in and ask Ms. Shuler or 
Ms. Henry, why would workers want to join a union? I mean, do 
they do better? Give me some statistics here about how union 
workers are doing compared to nonunion workers.

    Ms. Shuler. It relates to your last question, too, that 
workers fundamentally want a voice. They want a seat at the 
table. I think that someone like Howard Schultz misunderstands 
what unions are.

    There is this idea of, oh, this is going to hurt my 
business and, oh, this is going to restrain me from making 
decisions that I want to make. It is absolutely not the case. 
What it does do is increase productivity.

    It increases longevity and predictability for your 
business, because when workers are satisfied and they feel like 
they have a seat at the table, they are heard, they make better 
wages and have health care benefits, they are going to be more 
productive employees and make your business do better.

    We all want to win here, right. I think there is a 
misunderstanding that unions want to see businesses fail. That 
is absolutely not the case, because when businesses fail, we 
don't have jobs, right.

    But yes, the statistics are very clear, Senator, that 
working people have I think it is almost 15 percent more wages 
when you join a union, particularly for women and people of 
color. That adds up over to a lifetime, not to mention that 
using health care, having health care benefits, retirement 
security.

    The Chair. Let me ask this, Ms. Henry, SEIU, I know, has 
been very active in trying to organize low wage workers in the 
fast-food industry, the service industry. What does it mean to 
a worker who is making starvation wages when they were able to 
join a union?

    Ms. Henry. It means a shot at a better life for themselves 
and their children. It means that I don't have to be subjected 
to sexual harassment or race discrimination on the job because 
I need this job in order to pay my rent or pay my groceries.

    It means that I might be able to dream that it is possible 
for my child to do better than I have done, if I am able to 
join together in a union and end the starvation wages that you 
talked about at the beginning of this hearing, and get on a 
path to living wages with benefits that create some stability 
in people's lives where they can make plans for the future.

    The Chair. Let me ask, go back to Sean. Your members, 
workers all over this country see billionaires becoming much 
richer. While they often want cutbacks in health care or wages, 
wage increases are not keeping up with inflation. How do 
workers feel about this huge increase in income and wealth 
inequality, and the greed that we are seeing on the part of 
corporate America?

    Mr. O'Brien. Well, I can tell you, my members, 1.3 million 
members nationwide, they provided goods and services to this 
country probably in the toughest times through the pandemic, 
with total disregard for their safety and the safety of their 
families.

    They were going home, they were going out, providing parcel 
delivery, providing food distribution, providing rubbish 
pickup, providing every essential service that we may take for 
granted at times.

    All the while, all these big corporations like UPS, 
Republic Waste Kroger's grocery warehouses, they were making 
record profits while our members in some cases were losing 
their jobs and losing their lives, and not gaining in some of 
these profits that these businesses and these corporations--
which my members feel today, that they were taking advantage 
of.

    I think there is a lot of workers, not only the unionized 
workers, but nonunionized workers that feel the same way. You 
know, especially in light of what we just came out of.

    The Chair. Let me--I have gone over my time and I will give 
Senator Cassidy equal time. But my last question, do we have 
any statistics about how many thousands of workers died during 
the pandemic, keeping the economy going while the billionaire 
class became richer? Do we have any numbers on that?

    Ms. Henry. I can tell you that in the health care sector in 
this country, we are still trying to get the data, Senator, but 
it is criminal what happened in our Nation's nursing homes and 
hospitals in the beginning of the pandemic when we were not 
getting personal protective equipment that we needed in our 
Nation's nursing homes for both the caregivers and for the 
residents.

    The Chair. It is fair to say thousands of workers died.

    Ms. Henry. Oh, yes.

    The Chair. Many thousands.

    Ms. Henry. Yes.

    The Chair. Okay. I have gone over my time.

    Senator Cassidy.

    Senator Cassidy. I am going to defer to Senator Markwayne 
Mullin.

    Senator Mullin. Thank you, Ranking Member. Thank you, 
everybody, for being here. I want to make it very clear, I am 
not against unions. I am not at all. Some of my very good 
friends work for unions. They work hard and they do a good job.

    My statements, please don't make assumption that I am anti-
union. But I also want to set the record straight. All three of 
you guys have talked about employers being intimidated, 
intimidating their employees. But you guys have been ever spoke 
about when the unions try to unionize, the intimidation they 
have to other people that aren't wanting to unionize.

    You guys don't mention that. Because see, I started with 
nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, I started below nothing. 
I started growing this little plumbing company with six 
employees to now we have over 300 employees. And back in 2009, 
you guys tried to unionize me.

    My guys were making money. They were being paid more than 
the union halls were paying their plumbers. Our benefits were 
better. But because we started bidding jobs that were union 
jobs and winning those, the union of pipefitters decided they 
were going to come after us. They would show up at my house. 
They would be leaning up against my trucks. I am not afraid of 
a physical confrontation.

    In fact, sometimes I look forward to it. And that is not my 
problem. But when you are doing that to my employees, and then 
when they--when that didn't work, they started picketing our 
job site, saying, shame on Mullin. Shame on Mullin.

    For what? For what? Because we are paying higher wages? 
Because we had better benefits and we weren't requiring them to 
pay your guys as absorbent salaries? You talk about CEOs that 
are making all this money. And what do you make, Mr. O'Brien?

    Mr. O'Brien. Well, I am glad you asked that question----

    Senator Mullin. Yes, I know what you make because in 2019, 
your salary was, what is this, $193,000? I am sure you got some 
pay raises since then.

    Mr. O'Brien. Yes, when I was----

    Senator Mullin. An average UPS driver, the feeder driver 
makes $35,000 a year. And what do you bring to the table?

    Mr. O'Brien. That is inaccurate.

    Senator Mullin. Hold on a second.

    Mr. O'Brien. That is inaccurate.

    Senator Mullin. No, I just read it right here.

    Mr. O'Brien. State facts. That is inaccurate.

    Senator Mullin. The average UPS feeder driver makes 
$35,000. If you don't know your facts, the maybe you----

    Mr. O'Brien. I know because I negotiate the contract.

    Senator Mullin. I say one thing to you, what do you bring 
for that salary?

    Mr. O'Brien. What do I bring?

    Senator Mullin. Yes, what job have you committed or have 
you started--what job have you created, one job, other than 
sucking the paycheck out of somebody else that would you want 
to say that you are trying to provide because you are forcing 
them to pay dues----

    Mr. O'Brien. No, we don't force----

    The Chair. Senator, you have asked the question.

    Mr. O'Brien. You are out of line----

    The Chair. Let him answer the question.

    Senator Mullin. Actually, I haven't. Don't tell me I am----

    Mr. O'Brien. You are out of line.

    Senator Mullin. Don't tell me I am out of line.

    Mr. O'Brien. Well, you frame----

    Senator Mullin. Yes, don't tell me----

    Mr. O'Brien. You frame----

    Senator Mullin. You need to shut your mouth, because you 
don't know----

    Mr. O'Brien. Oh, tough guy--yes--are you going to tell me 
to shut my mouth?

    Senator Mullin. Yes, I did----

    [Chairman gavel.]

    Mr. O'Brien. Oh, very tough guy. I am not afraid of 
physical----

    Senator Mullin [continuing]. but don't sit there and tell 
me I am out of line.

    [Chairman gavel.]

    The Chair. Senator, you made a statement, you asked the 
question.

    Senator Mullin. I didn't ask a question.

    The Chair. You did.

    Senator Mullin. I answered the question.

    The Chair. You asked the question. Let him answer.

    Senator Mullin. It was a rhetorical question.

    The Chair. Well, you may think it is rhetorical. Sounded to 
me like a question. Let him answer the question.

    Senator Mullin. I am not yielding my time to him. So, if 
you are going to let me keep my time, that is fine.

    The Chair. You will have your time. Let him--you asked a 
question. He has a right to answer that.

    Mr. O'Brien. As far as my salary goes, my salary, if you 
follow me around, I walk--I actually look at this building. I 
bet you I work more hours than you do. Twice as many hours.

    Senator Mullin. That is impossible, but I will----

    Mr. O'Brien. That is true.

    Senator Mullin. Sir, you don't know what hard work is. You 
want to follow my schedule----

    Mr. O'Brien. Second--second--I will do in a minute. Second, 
UPS feeder drivers, and you can quote Carol Tome, who quoted 
this. They make $93,000 on the lower end. Some of them making 
$150,000.

    Senator Mullin. I said feeder drivers.

    Mr. O'Brien. Feeder drivers, tractor trailer drivers. Some 
of them making $150,000 per year.

    Senator Mullin. Some of them do. I don't disagree with 
that----

    Mr. O'Brien. Most of them make----

    Senator Mullin [continuing]. actually, been there for 
years.

    Mr. O'Brien. Most of them make over a $100,000 a year.

    Senator Mullin. Okay. I will reclaim my time. I go back to 
the whole fact that, sir, you haven't created a job.

    Mr. O'Brien. We haven't?

    Senator Mullin. You haven't been there. You haven't.

    Mr. O'Brien. Sure, we have.

    Senator Mullin. You haven't.

    Mr. O'Brien. Sure, we have.

    Senator Mullin. Tell me one job that you have created.

    Mr. O'Brien. What are you talking--be specific----

    Senator Mullin. You are an employer?

    Mr. O'Brien. No, not employer.

    Senator Mullin. You employee people?

    Mr. O'Brien. No, but it is funny, we----

    Senator Mullin. No, hold on a second--that is not creating 
jobs.

    Mr. O'Brien. We create opportunity.

    Senator Mullin. That is not creating jobs.

    Mr. O'Brien. We create opportunity because we hold----

    Senator Mullin. That is not----

    Mr. O'Brien. We hold greedy CEOs like yourself accountable.

    Senator Mullin. You call me a greedy CEO?

    Mr. O'Brien. Oh, yes, you are. You want to attack my 
salary? I will attack yours. What did you make? What did you 
make when you owned your company?

    Senator Mullin. When I made my company? I kept my salary 
down at about $50,000 a year because I invested every penny 
into it.

    Mr. O'Brien. Okay, all right. You mean you hid money?

    Senator Mullin. No, I didn't hide--oh, hold on a second. 
Okay, he said that is out of line.

    Mr. O'Brien. We are even. We are even.

    Senator Mullin. We are not even. We are not even close to 
being even. Do you think it is smart? Do you think you are 
funny?

    Mr. O'Brien. No----

    Senator Mullin. You are not.

    Mr. O'Brien. You think you are funny.

    Senator Mullin. No, I never said--did I smile?

    Senator Mullin. You said in your opening--you framed your 
statements----

    [Chairman gavel.].

    The Chair. Senator continue--Senator, please continue your 
statement.

    Senator Mullin. Sir, this is--I think it is great that you 
are doing this because----

    Mr. O'Brien. Me too.

    Senator Mullin [continuing]. this shows their behavior on 
how they try to come in and unionize a shop. And they say about 
intimidation, and it is not about intimidation----

    The Chair [continuing]. show your behavior here. Stay on 
the issue, please.

    Senator Mullin. The issue is, if you are really for the 
employee, then why are you against right to work? Why are you 
against private ballots? If you are really about the employee, 
let the employee make the choice. I am not anti-union, but when 
you don't want to have a private ballot, that is not 
intimidating. That is not intimidating? Why wouldn't you want a 
private ballot?

    That is intimidating the employee. If you don't want a 
right to work state, don't force somebody to make for pay dues 
to an organization they may not agree with. Don't force 
somebody to do something they don't want to do. That is called 
employee choice.

    If you want to be part of a union, God bless you, be part 
of a union. I have no issue with that. But don't sit up here 
and say that an employee is the one that intimidates--or the 
employers are intimidating their employees by not becoming a 
union. That is not accurate.

    The Chair. Thank you very much. Senator Murray.

    Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
actually would like to start by recognizing how much progress 
that we have made as a country in recovering from the pandemic 
and building a stronger and fairer economy. But there is still 
a lot of work left to do to make our economy work for everyone.

    Which is why I was proud to introduce the Richard Trumka 
Protecting the Right to Organize Act again this year, along 
with Chair Sanders, because this bill will really help hold 
employers accountable when they violate labor law.

    I wanted to ask President Shuler, President Henry, 
President O'Brien, can each of you give me an example of how 
the PRO Act would help workers organize? President Shuler, I 
will start with you.

    Ms. Shuler. Thank you, Senator Murray. And thank you for 
the question, because I think what we are talking about, if we 
can all refocus, is, yes, the ability for workers to freely 
choose to form a union in their workplace, and when they do, to 
have the law on their side.

    The PRO Act actually would create real penalties for 
employers who violate the law, because I think that is what we 
are seeing now, is once workers stand up and take the risk, and 
there is a lot of risk involved--takes an act of courage to 
form a union these days because of the retaliation, the 
harassment, and the firing.

    But when they do and they form a union successfully, if 
employers break the law along the way, they should be penalized 
with real financial penalties instead of just a slap on the 
wrist. Because right now companies are just, it is a cost of 
doing business.

    You know, they hire the union busting consultants and they 
just bake it into their business model, you know. So, there is 
no deterrent for them to break the law. So, the PRO Act would 
change that.

    The PRO Act also would have--give workers access to the 
backpay, the reinstatement of the notice, and posting 
requirements to show other workers that taking the risk is 
worth it, that they are not going to be penalized in a way that 
is going to hurt their livelihoods, which is what is happening 
right now.

    Right now, you actually get a bigger fine for violating 
fishing laws in many states than you do for busting unions, so.

    Senator Murray. President Henry.

    Ms. Henry. Thank you so much, Senator Murray. In the case 
of Starbucks, if you take what President Schuler just outlined, 
the hundreds of unfair labor practices that have been filed 
against Starbucks for closing stores, firing workers, changing 
schedules, targeting union leaders, and pulling them into the 
trash alley behind the store and raking him over the coals 
about why they are public.

    For the union, there would be penalties for all of those 
behaviors that we wouldn't have to wait over 14 months to have 
a ruling on. And even as Starbucks had the most egregious 
violations issued from the NLRB just last week, the next 
morning, CEO Howard Schultz was on CNN saying the judge got it 
wrong and they intend to appeal.

    The PRO Act will help speed up the process, as we heard 
from Mr. Ring, is needing a quicker process. And then the other 
thing the PRO Act does is for Crystal Orozco, the fast-food 
worker who I told the story about it, holds the joint employer 
accountable, which is a huge step forward for the 4 million 
fast food workers in this country.

    That McDonald's, Wendy's and Burger King would be held 
accountable for what happens to workers just like they are for 
meat and potatoes and ketchup and napkins of the franchisees.

    Senator Murray. Thank you. President O'Brien.

    Mr. O'Brien. I think my colleagues in labor makes some 
great points, but the one most important thing regarding 
organizing in the PRO Act, that it would mandate that a 
collective bargaining agreement would happen sooner than later.

    I think right now it takes about 406 days from the initial 
start of the election to conclusion to get a first contract. 
And a lot of times the stall tactics that are utilized at the 
NLRB, the egregious violations, along with some fines. But 
having teeth in a bill that would allow the workers who made 
the choice to be unionized to get a collective bargaining 
agreement, I think that is just as equally as important as 
well.

    Senator Murray. Thank you very much. I just have a few 
seconds left. I just want to say that despite enacting the 
Equal Pay Act more than five decades ago, on average, women, 
including those who are working part time or part of the year, 
earn only $0.77 for every $1 paid to men, resulting in a pay 
gap of $11,782 a year.

    Mr. Chairman, I just want to say for the record, I will be 
introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act again soon, because I 
think as unions have been really helping lift women, this is 
something that is really important for all of us. Thank you 
very much, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair. Thank you.

    Senator Cassidy.

    Senator Cassidy. I am going to defer to Senator Murkowski, 
and she--I am going to go vote as she asks her questions.

    Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, thank you. 
Interesting conversation here this morning. I just wish that--I 
wish that we could have conversations about union versus 
nonunion in a way and a manner that is not so acrimonious, not 
so hard, not so charged. I absolutely believe that it is 
important that we have unions.

    Alaska is a very strong union state, great workers, great 
contributors to our economy and bringing good paying jobs. We 
are in a tough place right now as a state. We have had 10 years 
of net outmigration. We are at the bottom of the stack when it 
comes to recovering from the pandemic.

    We are lowest or almost at the very bottom of GDP among 
states. And so, we are looking to make sure that we have an 
economy that is attractive to workers right now. I think we 
know that private sector unions thrive when the economy is 
growing, when the labor market is strong.

    I look at it and say, unions exist because there are jobs 
to do. And for there to be jobs, we need industry to be 
building things, producing things, providing services all 
across the country. I want to recognize that not all union jobs 
are shaped by the private sector.

    At times some of these jobs come down to decisions that are 
made back here, particularly in a state like Alaska, where 
thousands of really good paying jobs are hanging in the balance 
as we are waiting for a Federal decision that could come later 
this week on the Willow Project.

    It is not something that I am going to ask those of you on 
the panel here to opine about, but just note for the record 
that every single union in the State of Alaska is supportive of 
this Willow project and what it will provide.

    Recognizing that some of what we are talking about here is 
enforcement, but also just how do we find the workers with the 
skill sets necessary to be doing the jobs that we are talking 
about.

    I would ask in an open-ended question here, what the unions 
are doing to respond to the challenges of workforce shortages 
like we are having here. Are there specific Federal programs? 
And then I am going to use my time to move to a second 
question.

    This is just to note, we have got good strong 
representation in the state from AFL-CIO, from Teamsters. I 
have always said, we have got a role for union, we have got a 
role for nonunion workforce across our state.

    Workers should have the right to choose if they want to, to 
join a union. Alaska is not a right to work state. But I would 
note that the PRO Act, which you all have mentioned frequently, 
would provide Federal preemption for the 28 states with these 
laws.

    How do we reframe this discussion so that it is not an us 
versus them dynamic between union and nonunion? That is truly 
open in its statement or question there, and I am not going to 
pick anybody to start, but I have given you two important 
things, I think, and you have 1 minute, 20 seconds.

    Ms. Shuler. Well, I will take a stab at it. Liz Shuler, 
AFL-CIO. And you are right. I, too, wish it didn't have to be 
so acrimonious. And it doesn't have to be. You know, you think 
back to the National Labor Relations Act when it was passed in 
the 30's and the conditions, there were wildcat strikes.

    There were workers up in arms. Business actually wanted the 
National Labor Relations Act. They wanted unions back in the 
30's to sort of calm things down, to provide predictability and 
certainty in a process where we could talk to each other and 
work things out. Fast forward to today. Things are very much 
out of whack.

    In terms of your first question, I would say we too are 
very interested in figuring out how all of this, all these new 
jobs that are going to be coming in the clean energy economy, 
and in chips, and science, and manufacturing can be good high 
wage jobs with dignity and respect. And we are used to dealing 
with this, right, in the labor movement.

    We have been training workers for over 100 years in 
partnership with our employers to provide predictability and 
certainty and a talent pipeline, no pun intended, with Alaska. 
But it is essentially the labor movement can be the bridge and 
the center of gravity for making sure we have that workforce 
that we need to tackle the projects of the future.

    Senator Murkowski, we are working with you in trying to 
transform home care jobs all throughout the State of Alaska. 
These are poverty wage jobs done primarily by women of color in 
every zip code in Alaska.

    Joining together in unions have allowed those jobs to 
become living wage jobs, that an $18 an hour wage with health 
care and the beginning of a retirement for the first time, and 
just across in Washington State.

    Tat is a very concrete way, I think, that we can come 
together as working people and Government together with 
employers to raise wages and create good jobs all across the 
economy.

    The Chair. Thank you.

    Senator Baldwin.

    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Chairman Sanders, and thank you 
for holding this hearing. This topic is so important to me and 
people that I represent in the State of Wisconsin.

    As President Biden implements programs authorized by the 
infrastructure law, the Chips and Science Act, the Inflation 
Reduction Act, I have been pleased that he is following the 
will of Congress and ensuring that the money spent on those 
programs will support high quality American jobs.

    President Biden is delivering the message that we intend to 
make things in America again. In Wisconsin, we have prided 
ourselves not just on the quality of the products we make, like 
ships, engines, beer, and batteries, but also the quality of 
the jobs themselves, which often pay good wages and offer 
generous benefits, and that were hard won through collective 
bargaining.

    However, I am disturbed by a trend that I am seeing. This 
trend is illustrated by two battery production facilities in 
Fennimore and Portage, Wisconsin. The facilities are now owned 
by Energizer after the company acquired them in 2018 merger 
with Spectrum that consolidated the battery market.

    The 600 workers at these facilities are Teamsters. They are 
President O'Brien's Teamster members. In October, Energizer 
requested that the Department of Energy use funding from the 
infrastructure law to support R&D into micro batteries so that 
American companies like Energizer can maintain a leadership 
position in battery manufacturing against foreign rivals in 
China.

    Just a few weeks later, Energizer notified the Teamsters at 
the two Wisconsin facilities of its plans to move these jobs to 
nonunion facilities in the U.S. and foreign facilities in Asia. 
It seems to me that when seeking support from the Government, 
these billion-dollar corporations talk up their American 
facilities and workers, all the while some of these 
corporations like Energizer, are making plans to move a union 
facility to a nonunion state or a foreign country.

    I often hear from executives that these decisions are--they 
are just business, right, and that the company, or perhaps its 
well-compensated consultants, have calculated that closing a 
union facility will add value over the long term.

    After seeing the impact during the pandemic of our long 
supply chains and the costs associated with moving work to low 
wage foreign countries, I am certain that these consultants 
have their math wrong. We need to change these corporate 
calculations, and it begins with increasing oversight of our 
Federal labor and antitrust laws and our Federal contracts.

    I hope that Chairman Sanders will join me in that 
oversight, because the greatest value that a company generates 
comes from the labor and the ingenuity of its workers. And 
unions provide the job security and wages necessary for workers 
to develop the skills and the institutional knowledge that are 
the bedrock of innovation.

    The American people should not have to subsidize billion-
dollar corporations that ship jobs overseas or close union 
facilities just to add pennies to next quarter's earnings per 
share. President O'Brien, I know that this issue is very 
important to you and your Members, and I would like to ask you 
to share a bit about the impact that these closures would have 
on your members, and what we can do to prevent companies from 
making such devastating miscalculations.

    Mr. O'Brien. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that. And it 
is not just 600 members losing their job. It is 600 members 
with families losing their jobs, which is important. And you 
mentioned longevity, right.

    Some of these folks, and we have had the opportunity to 
talk to them, and we are trying to find solutions, working with 
the employer and their attorneys from the other side to say, 
what can we do to keep these middle-class jobs here? So, some 
of the horror stories are people are going to lose their health 
care.

    They have been there so long, they don't have any other 
skills, and their pension. You know, there is a lot of jobs out 
there that don't provide pensions. You will hear a lot of 
people say, well, we have a retirement program, a 401k.

    I think if we looked for one case over the last 6 months, I 
think 33 percent of your net worth was lost due to the market. 
So that is not an attainable goal when you are 50 years old or 
60 years old and you can't get your pension anymore. What can 
we do?

    I think we have to revamp some of these laws, especially 
where companies like Energizer are closing down a union 
facility seeking lower wages, lower conditions in nonunion 
facilities in the United States, but also sending some of that 
spending that work to India, where we could actually do and 
reinvest in these workers in this country.

    I think there has got to be some sort of checks and 
balances that don't allow corporations to do such things. I 
don't have the answer to that. You know, unfortunately, I don't 
pay attention to the bottom line of balance sheets at this 
point with Energizer.

    I am more concerned what is going to happen to those 600 
workers and their families moving forward. I think we have got 
to collectively work together to try and find a solution to 
keep those jobs here.

    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.

    Senator Marshall.

    Senator Marshall. Well, thank you, Chairman, and I am 
honored to be here today. Welcome to all of our panel. Believe 
it or not, I grew up in a union town. I remember the local 
union sponsoring a baseball team.

    By the time I was old enough, probably 17, I was working 
out at the oil refinery, a high school college student, beside 
those union workers and have nothing but good things to say 
about them. I was making $6 an hour, a great wage for a 17-
year-old. The union workers were probably making $30. I was 
doing the same job they were.

    I got some of the dirtier jobs. Certainly, I understand the 
health needs. I mean, I figured out I understood why they 
needed that union. My hometown, El Dorado, was in the suburbs, 
basically, of Wichita, where two-thirds of the small airplanes 
are built in this country, built with union labor.

    I didn't know any different. I just thought unions were--
that they were figuring it out. That it was it was all working 
out just fine. Yesterday met with the firefighters union. My 
dad was a firefighter. These folks are--firefighters are 
getting cancer at a young age. I understand that role, the 
union out there fighting to help them get proper compensation 
for that.

    I totally get it. I was proud to stand up and fight for my 
unions when there was the irresponsible vaccine mandates and my 
union workers--that is the only time the union workers ever 
complained to me was over this vaccine mandate.

    Otherwise, the process in Kansas seems to have a good 
relationship between management and unions. At the same time, 
franchises are home to Wichita as well. Wichita, Kansas, home 
of Pizza Hut, home of Freddy's, two very successful franchises 
as well. I can think of no other model that has helped 
minorities, women, and veterans have an opportunity to become 
small businesspeople.

    It is this balance that we are trying to find. I think of 
my model as a position, above all, do no harm. And my question 
about the PRO Act is, does it do harm? Does it hurt one more 
than the other? I am going to turn to Mr. Ring and ask that, 
look, franchises are a huge part of our Kansas economy and have 
a very different employer model than other businesses.

    Can you elaborate exactly what would happen to the 
franchise or franchisees, franchisee relationship if the PRO 
Act were enacted? Same with franchises and their workers.

    Mr. Ring. Sure, Senator. The issue raised really comes to 
this question of the joint employer standard, something that 
has been debated in labor law for a long time. The standard was 
in place for decades.

    In most of the United States, the franchise, franchiser 
model grew up under that standard. Before the Obama era Board 
changed that standard and made it much easier to hold two 
employers responsible for the same workforce. The--when we 
were--when I was chairman, we issued a rule through rulemaking 
to return the standard to what it had been.

    We thought that was the right way to do it through a rule, 
we were able to solicit comments and get input from all facets 
of all industries. And currently, the current NLRB is now 
looking at changing that back again.

    The PRO Act would do even more harm as far as I am 
concerned, in terms of the joint employer standard. It would 
essentially remove any impediments to joint employer 
relationship and simply say that if you do business with 
another employer, and you have any kind of reserve or 
contractual interest and control over that other business, you 
are a joint employer.

    Senator Marshall. Okay. I need to move on, I am sorry. Mr. 
Mix, I wanted you to answer the question, or I am going to run 
out time. Very briefly, would this harm the franchise model?

    Mr. Mix. Well, I think so. But more importantly, it would 
harm the status of the right to work status of Kansas. I mean, 
I was briefed before the hearing today to say that the PRO Act 
doesn't repeal right to work laws, it just allows for 
negotiation over union security agreements, which are basically 
the compulsion to pay dues or fees or lose your job. So, it 
would make a radical difference.

    Then the idea of the joint employer, I mean, let's say that 
you have, you are a company that uses a landscaping company to 
mow your yard and you have control over when they show up. How 
do we determine whether or not they are now a joint employer as 
it relates to unionization?

    Lots of questions about that. And to your franchise model, 
you are absolutely right about that. That has created more 
millionaires in America than anything else, probably.

    Senator Marshall. Well, I appreciate the testimony. And, 
Mr. Chairman, again, I would just conclude by saying in Kansas, 
we have a pretty good relationship going on that allows the 
franchise model. It allows the unions. I am concerned when the 
Federal Government gets too involved, if it ain't broke, don't 
fix it.

    I don't think it has to be one way or the other. I think my 
union workers, what they are most concerned about today is 
inflation and the safety and security of their families. And 
that is what my focus is going to be to help the union workers 
in America. So, thank you.

    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Marshall. Senator Hassan.

    Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Cassidy, for having this hearing. Thank you to our witnesses 
for joining us today. It is really great to have the presidents 
of three of the Nation's largest unions together to discuss the 
important role that unions play in our economy.

    I am looking forward to working in this Committee to 
advance priorities for working families in New Hampshire, and 
this hearing is a really important part of that effort. One big 
step we could take to help workers would be to pass the 
Protecting the Right to Organize Act, and I look forward to 
working with you and your members to get that done.

    I want to start with a question to you, Ms. Shuler. 
According to a recent report from the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office, women earn about $0.82 for every $1.00 
that men earn. The Paycheck Fairness Act, led by Senator 
Murray, aims to eliminate this gender pay gap. Your written 
testimony highlights the fact that wages for women who are 
represented by a union are higher than their nonunion 
counterparts. How have unions been successful in narrowing the 
gender pay gap?

    Ms. Shuler. I always say if you want equal pay, join a 
union because it is. The data shows women do better with 
collective bargaining. Pay is transparent because that is one 
of the biggest issues, right, is that often we don't know. We 
make less.

    With a collective bargaining agreement, everyone knows what 
everybody makes. And you make the same for depending on your 
skills and experience. We also know that women have health care 
and retirement security, which is such a big deal for women 
particularly.

    We know they live longer, right. And so, we know that when 
women come together with collective bargaining, they also have 
a mechanism to face down harassment and discrimination, and to 
fight back without fear, because you can stand up and have your 
voice heard and not fear that you will be fired because you 
have your union there to protect you.

    I think overall, we can fairly say that women do better 
when they are in unions.

    Senator Hassan. Well, I appreciate that. I still remember 
talking with a constituent in a union hall. She had just 
finished her training to become, I think it was an electrician. 
And she was talking about how being supported by the union, 
trained by the union enabled her to actually support her family 
on 40 hours a week and how proud she was of that.

    Thank you for the work you do. Mr. O'Brien, in New 
Hampshire, I frequently hear from small businesses that they 
struggle with workforce shortages and that they need more 
skilled workers.

    Last year, following advocacy from me and my colleagues, 
the Administration announced additional funding for programs 
that give high school students real work experience and help 
them make progress toward industry credentials. So, can you 
discuss the impact of programs like these and the important 
role that unions play in them?

    Mr. O'Brien. Well, I think it is important that--not 
everybody gets an opportunity to go to a 4-year college. I 
think what we have been promoting, and I think collectively 
with yourself and many other legislators like yourself around 
the country is promoting in-school trainings for apprenticeship 
programs, going to the high schools, talking to these folks, 
because I think we all have a concern that there is going to be 
a worker shortage with all this work coming up.

    But more importantly, when we get into these schools and 
create these programs, we are able to educate the prospective 
union members on what it is to be in a union, what it means, so 
they are getting a perspective on why they have the wages, why 
they have the conditions, why they are going to be able to have 
a career and a middle class lifestyle. But not only are we 
doing that on a high school level.

    Last week alone, and I wish Senator Mullin didn't run out 
of here, we created 1,000 jobs partnering up with United 
Airlines, where we are taking low wage earners that are entry 
level, giving them an opportunity through an apprenticeship 
program to better their wages, their benefits, but also to give 
them a career path to a higher middle class living.

    It is not just focusing on the apprenticeship programs out 
of high school, but it is also partnering up with the employers 
to facilitate their needs, their employees to create these 
programs, to give our members that much more opportunity at a 
better life.

    Senator Hassan. Well, thank you for that. I want to follow-
up with Ms. Shuler on a theme you just hit, and it is a theme 
that you discussed with Chair Sanders, too, as I understand it, 
Ms. Shuler. Companies can work collaboratively with unions to 
be more responsive to employer needs and spur innovation and 
workforce operations.

    In your written testimony, you say that there are employers 
who recognize that workers having a voice through a union is an 
asset, not a liability. What positive outcomes have these 
companies seen because of this collaboration? Positive 
outcomes, just like the ones Mr. O'Brien talked about.

    Ms. Shuler. Absolutely. It is stability, predictability, 
and having labor relations that are stable, make perfect 
business sense. And we have seen it over and over again. When a 
company brings a union into the workplace, that they have a 
mechanism to resolve disputes, they have less disruptions in 
the flow of work, and workers feel confident to raise issues 
and not feel intimidated.

    You think about the pandemic. When nurses were in hospitals 
without PPE, they walked into the hospital with garbage bags, 
and through their union and their voice, walked out with PPE, 
right. I think there is example after example that we have 
predictable schedules, we have better wages and benefits, when 
workers have a seat at the table and they can actually bargain 
for their fair share.

    Senator Hassan. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Hassan.

    Senator Cassidy.

    Senator Cassidy. Thank you both. Thank you, Senator--I am 
sorry. Chairman Ring, I am concerned that NLRB seems to be 
putting their thumb on the side of the scale that is headed 
toward employees seeking to unionize, not all employees, just 
those seeking to unionize, as opposed to being a neutral 
arbiter, if you will. I would refer to this as a weaponization 
of their skills. Any comment upon that?

    Mr. Ring. Well, I would just say the NLRB should be a 
neutral arbiter of labor disputes. We currently have, I think, 
a Board that is very pro-union and a General Counsel that is 
unabashedly pro-union and is pursuing a number of initiatives 
that I think are putting the thumb, yes----

    Senator Cassidy. Despite their legal--no one should be 
above the law, despite their mandate under the law to be a 
neutral arbiter, you are describing a Board and a General 
Counsel who are not neutral arbiters. Is that a correct 
characterization?

    Mr. Ring. Well, I wouldn't say that they are being 
impartial to their particular facts, but I think they have a 
very, very strong view of and a leaning toward unions, yes.

    Senator Cassidy. Scripture says, out of the overflow of the 
heart, the mouth does speak. Is their heart overflowing so that 
it is speaking in a certain fashion?

    Mr. Ring. I think so, yes.

    Senator Cassidy. Okay. Thank you. You also, in your 
testimony, mentioned, or in your written testimony, speak about 
the impact of the PRO Act upon independent contractors. The guy 
who is working for me and he has got a Lyft and an Uber, and 
whichever one gives him the best fee, he is going to be on a 
Lyft or an Uber from 15 minutes to 15 minutes.

    The guy tells me he is clearing $500 a day. I say like, you 
are clearing it. He goes, yes, I am clearing it after expenses. 
The guy is doing fantastic. But theoretically, this would have 
a negative impact upon that. Is that too much of a statement?

    Mr. Ring. It would have--yes, it would have an impact on 
that, negative impact.

    Senator Cassidy. The guy making $500 bucks a day doing what 
he wishes would now be under a more stringent set of guidelines 
because of the PRO Act.

    Mr. Ring. Correct.

    Senator Cassidy. Mr. Mix.

    Mr. Mix. Yes, absolutely. I think if you eliminate the 
designation of independent contractors--you see under the 
National Labor Relations Act, independent contractors can't be 
unionized, but employees can.

    If you force everyone to be an employee, whether it be a 
truck driver at the Port of Los Angeles or Long Beach, or 
whether it is an Uber driver or a Lyft driver, you make them, 
``employees,'' then there is a revenue side of that, which is 
you force union dues.

    Senator Cassidy. Mr. Ring, in your testimony, you also 
speak that current law precedent establishes that you can't do 
intermittent stoppages or secondary strikes, but the PRO Act 
allows that to occur once more. Why were these originally 
outlawed, if you will?

    Mr. Ring. Well, they were part of the, I think, 
congressional debate about where the balance of labor power 
should be between employers and unions. I think that the 
balance was that those types of job actions are really 
destructive to businesses.

    Our law in this country has always been that if you are 
going to strike, you are going to strike once, and you have to 
stay out and strike, and not have the intermittent types of 
strikes.

    Senator Cassidy. But it strikes me that doing intermittent 
and a secondary would be a very a highly effective tool to 
bring a company to its knees. But if there is going to be 
collateral benefits, from as being described, clearly, that 
would be collateral damages, right. That could affect the whole 
ripple effect. Mr. Mix, comments on that?

    Mr. Mix. Yes, absolutely. That would open up a whole new 
avenue of labor protests and strikes, potential strike where 
you go--you don't target the original target of the operation, 
you target their customers, and you go to their place and shut 
them down. And the obligation ?

    Senator Cassidy. The employees of those companies would be 
adversely affected and their businesses could be brought to 
their knees even though they had nothing to do with the 
primary.

    Mr. Mix. Absolutely. That was the intention of outlawing a 
secondary boycott. That is pretty clear.

    Mr. Ring. I would just say, in this economy with this 
supply chain issues, that could be devastating.

    Senator Cassidy. Ms. Henry, let me ask you, there is a 
picket line, Amazon, where somebody was using a bullhorn to 
harass workers going in. Would you condemn that?

    Ms. Henry. Senator, are you speaking of an imaginary 
example or do things that you know about?

    Senator Cassidy. No, real example where a person picketing 
outside an Amazon facility used a bullhorn to harass a woman as 
she walked in. And we have spoken about the consequences, we 
don't want employers harassing employees, period, end of story. 
But nor should it go the other way. Good for Goose, Good for 
Gander. Would you agree with that?

    Ms. Henry. Well, I need to know specifics----

    Senator Cassidy. He was using a bullhorn to scream at her.

    Ms. Henry. Yes. And there is--I have been on many picket 
line Senators and we use bullhorns in order to communicate with 
the picketer.

    Senator Cassidy. But if you are screaming at a particular 
person, I mean, that is a fairly straightforward and it is a 
real-life example. Do you condemn that?

    Ms. Henry. But what if the----

    Senator Cassidy. I think you are going to dodge until we 
get there, so I will let that go. Okay. Last, Mr. Ring, and my 
Chair will like this question, one of the things being raised 
is that it can take up to 400 days for a new union to be 
certified.

    You speak about NRLB could be improved just by having them 
focus more and streamlining processes. Is that an issue that 
can be addressed by streamlining it? Doesn't bother me. What 
would--how would you comment on that?

    Mr. Ring. Yes, no I think that was a point my testimony. I 
think while the board is off chasing various shiny objects that 
have nothing to do with collective bargaining or unionization, 
a lot of the nuts and bolts of what the NLRB should be doing, 
like processing election petitions, languish, and the employees 
that are seeking to unionize are adversely affected by that.

    Senator Cassidy. They vote for a union and it takes 400 
days, but because the board is chasing a shiny object and not 
enforcing this order, that 400 days is allowed to occur, which 
is not, if you will, an indictment of the employer per se, as 
much as an indictment of the NLRB's enforcement of that. Again, 
is that a correct characterization?

    Mr. Ring. Yes, it is.

    Senator Cassidy. Thank you.

    The Chair. Senator Smith.

    Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. Let 
me just, before I get to my questions, I just want to, maybe I 
will turn to Ms. Schuler. Is there anything in that back and 
forth that we just had about some of the impacts of the PRO 
Act, especially around independent contractors. I am curious if 
you would like to add to that, particularly with regard to how 
employers use this independent contractor situation to get out 
of their obligations and responsibilities to their employees.

    Ms. Shuler. Exactly. I think it is a scare tactic. The PRO 
Act would do nothing to inhibit independent contracting when 
they are in it--when it is legitimate independent contracting, 
right. We are talking more about when workers are 
misclassified, right.

    Employers want to abscond responsibility and treat a worker 
as a contractor when really, they are an employee. And this PRO 
Act only applies to the NLRB. So, we are talking about labor 
law.

    We are not talking about any other kinds of protections and 
laws that are--so it doesn't affect those. And 
misclassification is running rampant in our economy, and 
especially as we are looking toward the future of work where 
people have to work two and three jobs now to make a living 
because they are piecing together independent kind of 
contracting gig work.

    Senator Smith. Thank you very much. Mr. O'Brien, I want to 
ask you about job site safety.

    Union members understand that their union makes their job 
site safer, and knowing that they are safe at work, that their 
workplace is following best practices and has high standards, 
give people a sense of security that they are going to be safe 
on the job. So, let's take the situation of Amazon warehouses.

    A few years ago, the National Employment Law Project and 
the Atwood Center in Minnesota, this is a community 
organization that works to build economic power amongst workers 
in the East African community in Minnesota, they put together a 
joint report on the human costs at Amazon warehouses in 
Minnesota, and they found that employees at the Amazon 
Minnesota warehouses stand a one in nine chance of being 
injured in a year and are more than twice as likely to get 
injured than those at non-Amazon warehouses.

    Mr. O'Brien, could you describe what you have seen as the 
differences in worker safety and unionized versus non-unionized 
warehouses, and what the effect of unions are in terms of 
improving workplace safety?

    Mr. O'Brien. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, 
Senator. So we represent UPS, which is 360,000 Teamster members 
nationwide, and they do the same exact job as the Amazon 
workers do every single day, with the exception that Amazon 
drivers are independent contractors, UPS drivers are direct 
employees.

    But we have mechanisms within the collective bargaining 
agreement that mandate both the union and the company to work 
together on safety committees within those facilities to 
address safety concerns on a daily basis on each and every 
shift.

    If there is no resolution, there is a grievance procedure 
that will allow these workers and the company to solve any 
worker safety issues or any issues that may occur that could be 
a threat to our members getting home safe to their families at 
night.

    Conversely, when you go to Amazon, you do not have a 
mechanism, you do not have a safety committee, you do not have 
a grievance procedure, you do not have any platform to air your 
concerns on.

    In some instances--and there are many charges at the NLRB 
where people have voiced their concerns in their safety, they 
have been terminated and let go. So not only the unionized 
workforce--there are checks and balances on both sides, but we 
are a pure example that in many, many situations we work 
collectively with the employers to ensure that their investment 
of their employee and our health and safety of our member are 
running parallel with the same goals and objectives.

    Senator Smith. Part of what is happening is that you have 
got. I mean, who is going to know better than the employees 
that are there in the warehouse how to keep themselves safe? 
They are going to be able to make suggestions to the 
management, and management and workers together come up with a 
solution that makes that workplace safer. That is what you are 
describing.

    Mr. O'Brien. Exactly.

    Senator Smith. Did you happen to know the data about what 
you see in terms of safety record in UPS warehouses or----

    Mr. O'Brien. Yes, I know UPS has a very clean record. I 
mean, look, like every workplace that is productivity driven, 
there is going to be issues, there is going to be injuries. But 
as long as those issues and injuries are dealt with and fixed. 
I know that Amazon has the highest rate of violations in OSHA. 
I don't have the exact number, but they are in first place, so 
to speak, in a bad situation.

    Senator Smith. As we found in Minnesota, I mean, one in 
nine people being injured in a year I mean that is a lot. And 
it goes to show, I think, that when you have good--when you 
have workers represented, you are going to have that good back 
and forth that allows people to be safer. And that is good for 
business and that is good for the employees.

    Mr. O'Brien. Well, I think it is important to notice that 
when you are training collectively, training workers to work 
safe, that is a benefit for the company as well, because there 
is longevity that is associated with working safe and showing 
up every day. So that is an added plus as well.

    Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Smith.

    Senator Braun.

    Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Enjoyed our 
conversation from the other day, Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. O'Brien. Same here, sir.

    Senator Braun. Yes. I have been clear that when it comes to 
large corporations and the ability to effectively bargain with 
them, there is no replacement for a union. It is important.

    We also had the conversation knowing that I built my 
business up from a very grassroots level, and I think I made 
the statement, I never could tell the difference between blue 
collar and white collar because we worked together that well. 
That is why I have never had trouble hiring people into the 
business that three of my four kids now run along, with the 
good young executive team.

    These issues, this tug of war, especially as many 
industries have gotten very concentrated even to the issue that 
was the biggest deal to me was the high cost of health care. 
And Senator Sanders and I have talked about that. It is a 
broken industry. Larger and larger companies control it.

    Even the practitioners, nurses and doctors are having 
second thoughts about whether they want to invest all that 
time, especially doctors where your post-undergrad, you are 
spending a minimum of 4 to 5 years, especially up to 9.

    Many think that they should still have their own business 
and increasingly are having to work for corporations that keep 
depressing their fees. I understand that dynamic, but I don't 
know that we talked about, and I would like anyone to weigh in 
on, would be that other end of the economy, the gig economy, 
the independent contractor.

    I know that gets to be a more difficult discussion. Most 
small businesses, my wife has had one for nearly over 40 years 
and she has been an entrepreneur longer than I have, they make 
their living out of it, so that is their wage.

    I would just like you to weigh in on where I am at when it 
comes to collective bargaining with large corporations. But 
then when you try to maybe collectively put individuals 
together and take that same philosophy, I don't know that need 
is there. I also would like your opinion of when it comes to 
that individual earning a living, that is about like the blue-
collar worker in the sense that they are both trying to 
accomplish the same thing, pay the bills, not necessarily 
return on investment. Mr. O'Brien, do you want to start with 
that?

    Mr. O'Brien. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I appreciate 
you taking the time on the schedule last week to meet.

    I just want to note for the record that you were very 
supportive of our teams, the rail workers and their plight to 
get sick time. I believe because of people like yourself, we 
were able to achieve some of that stuff.

    Look, your--I know your history pretty well and you are an 
employer that does right by his people from what I have heard, 
and that is commendable. Unfortunately, there are a lot of more 
employers that don't take that same philosophy.

    The one good thing that I have learned from you and you 
just stated here that it is going to be a generational 
business, right, and it is going to provide opportunity and you 
are going to provide those core values and direction, too, to 
the next generation, which is great.

    Look, I don't think anybody is trying to impede on 
anybody's right to be an entrepreneur or to have their own 
business. You know that Lyft, Uber model that Senator Cassidy 
described, the $500 a day, $500 day does seem like a lot of 
money. But when you factor in expenses, no health care and no 
benefits--these workers are coming to us, we are not soliciting 
them.

    But as far as the entrepreneurial stuff goes, I don't think 
we are looking at to impede anybody's ability to be an 
entrepreneur or to have a small business. Most of the people 
that come to our organizations come to us for a reason or a 
violation or a grievance that they can't deal with their 
employer one on one.

    We are not out there seeking to destroy anybody's business. 
Look, I work with billion-dollar corporations like UPS and many 
others, the airline industry, and we collectively work 
together. Why? To create jobs, but also to make their business 
as successful as possible.

    Because if their business is successful, our members are 
going to be successful. I don't want anybody to think that we 
are targeting a certain individual. Senator Mullin and I got 
into it pretty hard today.

    I don't condone going to someone's personal home. If you 
have got an issue in the workplace, we don't condone that. We 
won't do it, okay. But on the same hand, if members--if people 
come to us and want to be members of our union because their 
employers are not providing the health care, or stealing wages 
from them, not allowing them to have a voice in the workplace 
and not protecting their safety, then we are extremely relevant 
in that process.

    Senator Braun. Thank you. About out of time. Does anyone 
else want to briefly weigh in on that topic?

    Ms. Shuler. I would just say for small business, I think it 
is just like doctors come together in a medical association. 
You know, independent entrepreneurs coming together to get 
access to benefits at scale. That is what we are talking about 
here is collectively improving our lot.

    Whether you are in a union, working in a hospital or if you 
are a small businessperson, but the PRO Act would not, as Sean 
said, discourage independent contractors who are truly 
independent. I think what we are trying to get at is employers 
who are misclassifying their workers.

    Senator Braun. Thank you.

    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Braun.

    Senator Casey.

    Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much. President 
Shuler, President Henry, President O'Brien, and Mr. Ring and 
Mr. Mix, thank you all for testifying today. I hope I could get 
to this today, but I may not.

    If I am not able to, I wanted to thank President Henry for 
her great work on home and community-based services for people 
with disabilities and seniors, and lifting up that workforce, 
many of whom are trapped in low wage work doing the most 
important work that we could ask anyone to do.

    I wanted to state that for the record. I am a strong 
supporter of the PRO Act for a lot of reasons, but I was 
thinking as you all were testifying and taking questions and 
some references to our history.

    President Shuler, you made reference to the National Labor 
Relations Act and what the understanding was then. And as you 
know, as well as I do, most everybody in this room knows that 
the findings spoke directly to the free flow of commerce. That 
a determination was made by the U.S. Congress that if you have 
organizing, organizing and strengthened, you are going to 
enhance the free flow of commerce.

    Better for workers, obviously, but better for business, 
too. We have gotten away from that. But it is still the law. It 
hasn't been repealed yet, despite efforts, I think, to do that. 
I also think it is important to point out for the record that a 
lot of your unions, all of your unions on a regular basis 
advocate for all workers.

    When you stand up for the minimum wage, you are workers 
don't need an increase in the minimum wage directly for them 
because you have already bargained and negotiated for that. But 
you are standing up for other workers who don't have raised the 
minimum wage.

    When you advocated to protect health care, the Affordable 
Care Act and other health care fights, you have that because 
you bargained for it. A lot of people didn't have it and you 
stood up for that. I think unions do a hell of a lot more than 
just stand up for their own workers, as important as that is.

    I wanted to address an issue which hasn't been raised. I 
was glad that Chairman Sanders raised this question of the tax 
treatment of activities by employers against unions to, in my 
judgment, union bust and then get a tax break for it, which is 
the state of American tax law right now.

    In the same country where you can get a tax break for that, 
you can't--a corporation can't get a tax break for giving a 
campaign contribution, nor should they. But they can get a tax 
break if they hire a consultant to bust a union.

    That is perverse and wrong. But I wanted to move to another 
issue which is employers using invasive technology and other 
practices to monitor what their workers are doing. Here are 
some the examples of that.

    Employers are using these kinds of technologies to violate, 
monitor, and preempt workers' right to organize. Amazon workers 
are being fired by bots, not by people, fired by bots. And 
those same workers are left with few options to dispute 
employment decisions and to speak to a human manager to 
understand how that decision was reached.

    Here is administrative law judge in Buffalo with regard to 
Starbucks. This a judge. These aren't my words, these are the 
words of an administrative law judge. Starbucks use headsets 
to, ``closely supervise, monitor, and create the impression 
that employees' union activities are under surveillance''.

    Not just what workers are doing on the job, but even their 
union activities become the subject of that invasive and 
exploitive surveillance. I have a bill to do that. It is the 
Stop Spying Bosses Act and I can walk through the provisions of 
it, but I think it is more important to ask either President 
Shuler, President O'Brien, or both,' do employers invasive 
workplace surveillance tactics, some which itemize there, does 
that impact do those efforts impact workers' rights to 
organize?

    Mr. O'Brien. I would say absolutely it impacts the right to 
organize because like in the Starbucks example--look most 
American workers' right now due to technology, especially the 
UPS, Amazons of the world, they are basically held hostage by 
what they call a device like a dyad or a scanner which monitors 
everything they do, not just scanning the products, but also 
keeping track of what they are doing, conversations, everything 
else.

    It is a very, very invasive process and it is intrusive to 
say the least. And knowing that someone is listening to your 
conversation, knowing that someone is watching everything you 
do, especially in a non-unionized, I mean, a nonunion facility.

    You know, that is impeding your right to talk to your 
coworkers who also, you know--and then they can utilize 
whatever lingo that you say and make their own determination 
and say, look, they are they are trying to form a union here we 
are going to get rid of them. So, it is very invasive. It is 
intrusive.

    Even in the unionized workforce which is important, like 
UPS for instance, we are going into bargaining one of our 
biggest issues, and we know that technology plays a factor in 
those jobs where they are monitored, told where to deliver a 
package, and everything else. Now they want inward facing 
cameras.

    It is not just being evasive in an organizing drive. It is 
what we do to protect all workers from intrusion of their 
employer.

    Senator Casey. President Shuler, I know we are out of time, 
but anything quickly?

    Ms. Shuler. Yes, and just that this is a bipartisan issue. 
The surveillance of people in the workplace and privacy is a 
bipartisan issue. And we should be all afraid of predictive 
analytics and how the data is going to be used for all things.

    Senator Casey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair. Thank you.

    Senator Markey.

    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. This 
hearing is personal for me today. Workers across the country, 
across my home State of Massachusetts, are standing up for 
their rights as workers.

    My father, John Markey, was a union leader. He served as 
Vice President of the United Electrical Radio and Machine 
Workers of America, Local 272 in South Boston, Massachusetts. 
He worked hard. He used to tell me, Eddie, you can't beg for 
your rights, you have to fight for them.

    Which is why I am so proud today because I recognize my 
staff's efforts to organize a union in my office. We are the 
first office in the U.S. Senate to do so. I applaud these 
passionate, dedicated workers who are exercising their rights 
to organize through this fundamental critical exercise in 
democracy.

    I am proud of my staff for embodying the commitment not to 
agonize, but to organize, and to set an example. I recognize 
their effort to unionize, and I look forward to engaging with 
them and with the Congressional Workers Union.

    Ms. Henry, airport workers, they are unsung heroes. They 
are overworked, they are underpaid. They are the hidden figures 
in our aviation history. They don't get to wear glamorous 
uniforms walking through the airport.

    They're concession workers, they're wheelchair attendants, 
they're ramp agents, they're baggage handlers, they do their 
job. And if they didn't, the airport would just have to shut 
down. They are essential. So could you talk about them and the 
need to have greater protections for them, more rights, better 
wages, and better health care?

    Ms. Henry. Yes, Senator Markey, thank you so much. There is 
a million of those workers. They clean cabins, too, and they 
have 7 minutes to get into the airplane and clean the cabin for 
the turnaround before they have to get out.

    Workers all across this country are trying to join together 
in unions in order to have a voice on the job, to protect 
themselves, and to raise wages. Because in the 70's, every 
major airline contracted out these service jobs to contractors 
who employ them at minimum wage, no guaranteed hours, no health 
care benefits.

    We have slowly but surely started to organize in the 
Midwest, along the two coasts, East and West, but we need every 
airport in this country for workers to be able to join 
together. And that is why the Good Jobs for Good Airports Act 
is so essential, and is why we were fighting in the FAA 
reauthorization to establish a service contract act standard 
for wages and conditions for all these workers, because they--
it should not be that contracted out jobs can't have the same 
wages and benefits with airlines that are earning record 
profits after having received Federal tax dollars to invest in 
their getting through the pandemic. I appreciate you leading on 
that legislation.

    Senator Markey. I appreciate the SEIU and the work that you 
are doing. We just have to repay their sacrifices, you know. So 
many of just Zoomed to work----

    Ms. Henry. Yes.

    Senator Markey [continuing]. for years. They were 
considered essential workers. Had to show up every single day 
so that the system worked for the people who did go to 
airports. And they took that COVID home to their families. They 
saw it in disproportionate percentages. And they were 
increasingly Black, brown, immigrant, female. We know who they 
are.

    Ms. Henry. That's right.

    Senator Markey. They took the risk for all the rest of our 
families, and they just don't get rewarded in the system. I am 
looking forward to working with you. Mr. O'Brien, the problem 
of companies skirting their pension obligations through 
bankruptcy is an important trend occurring in our Nation right 
now.

    I would be interested to hear your perspective, any 
personal experiences you may know of, of how workers just are 
ultimately left behind when the bankruptcy is used as an exit 
route for a corporation.

    Mr. O'Brien. So many people don't know that when these 
corporations claim bankruptcy and they have a collective 
bargaining, they get an obligation on the pension funds to pay, 
withdraw, or liability. Pension funds are the last line in the 
creditors to capture any money.

    If there is any left at the end of the day--and the most 
recent one was the Boston Herald. I think you are familiar with 
that, where you had three private equity companies coming in to 
bid on the bankruptcy of the Herald. And at the end of the day, 
the pension fund ended up with like $0.03 on the dollar.

    We are still obligated as a pension fund to make our 
payments regardless of the contributions. I think we need to 
reform bankruptcy laws. I think under the American Recovery Act 
of the Biden Administration, we fixed a lot of those wrongs, 
bad behavior by corporations who claimed bankruptcy and then 
pointed the fingers at union pension funds saying they were 
mismanaged.

    They weren't mismanaged. They were just last in line to get 
anything, if anything. I think we need to work collectively to 
make sure that we have--everybody gets their fair share, 
unfortunately, when a company goes in bankruptcy.

    Senator Markey. Okay. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.

    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Markey. I believe Senator 
Lujan is on his way. But in the meantime, Senator Cassidy, you 
had some additional question?

    Senator Cassidy. Yes. So really quickly, by the way, there 
is common ground here. Ms. Shuler, I totally agree with you on 
the issue of privacy, totally. Ms. Henry, I didn't--wasn't able 
to give you detail regarding that which I asked you if you had 
problems with it.

    But there is a video of an April 2020 episode in which 
those striking outside of an Amazon warehouse were using a 
bullhorn, and a gentleman who was, ``arguing with a female 
employee called her a gutter bitch, crackhead, and stupid.'' Do 
you condemn those remarks?

    Ms. Shuler. You know, Senator, I would like to see the 
video and comment on this specific----

    Senator Cassidy. Sure. Mr. O'Brien, do you condemn those 
remarks?

    Mr. O'Brien. If someone is speaking out of turn, it doesn't 
represent the organization as a whole. Would I call a woman 
those names personally? No, I would not.

    Senator Cassidy. Is it appropriate for someone--we are 
concerned about harassment of employees seeking to unionize. 
This suggests that there should be--it is valid to be concerned 
about harassment of employees who seek not to unionize.

    I think I heard from you that it is inappropriate. That is 
more than I have heard, inappropriate and that it represents 
the union effort poorly. I would agree with that.

    Mr. O'Brien. I have organized many companies, been on many 
picket lines myself, and there has been hostile situations, and 
they work both ways. So, to----

    Senator Cassidy. We can condemn it both ways.

    Mr. O'Brien. You can condemn it both ways, yes.

    Senator Cassidy. Thank you. I agree with that. And, Ms. 
Shuler, would you find that offensive and should be condemned?

    Ms. Shuler. I think what we are talking about is workers 
frustration and workers are looking for a voice----

    Senator Cassidy. No, we are talking about somebody calling 
someone a gutter bitch, crackhead, and stupid.

    Ms. Shuler. I don't use that language. I wouldn't encourage 
anyone else to.

    Senator Cassidy. It is wrong.

    Ms. Shuler. I think name calling is not what we are about 
in the labor movement. We are about giving workers a voice.

    Senator Cassidy. Is it wrong?

    Ms. Shuler. To call people names? Of course.

    Senator Cassidy. Thank you. I yield. Now, by the way, I am 
sorry. My staff will shoot me if I don't get this right. I ask 
unanimous consent to enter into the record letters from 
stakeholders opposing the PRO Act, and to insert a Reuters 
article which references the video regarding the striker's 
harassment of those continuing to work, of which I just 
referred to.

    The Chair. Without objection.

    [The following information can be found on pages 72-95 and 
page 96 in Additional Material:]

    The Chair. Let me just say a few words. First of all, thank 
all of our panelists for what I thought was a good discussion. 
Senator Cassidy talks about an incident that took place where 
profane words were used.

    I think most of us would think that's unacceptable. But I 
would hope at the same time, we would also consider it to be 
unacceptable that heads of corporations go up to workers and 
say, you vote for this union, we are going to take your job to 
China or to Mexico, or we are going to shut down.

    I would hope that Senator Cassidy and others would 
understand that is not only unacceptable behavior, but illegal 
behavior. I think at the end of the day, what are we talking 
about really?

    We are talking about an America today where there is more 
income and wealth inequality than any time in history, where a 
few people on top have extraordinary power, while so many 
millions of people are struggling to put food on the table, 
struggling to keep their families alive economically.

    What common sense suggests, you don't have to be the 
president of a union or the former head of the NLRB to 
understand this, is that if a worker alone is in trouble, he or 
she does not have a lot of power to ask for better wages.

    If a worker, and this goes on all over America, has a 
terrible schedule and the employer says you have got to come in 
on Sunday, that is my daughter's birthday. Sorry, that is what 
you got to do. What power does an individual worker say, no, 
you destroying my family life?

    All that unions are about is not complicated. It is people 
coming together to fight for a contract which guarantees them 
certain basic rights. Mr. Employer, you can't have me come in 
on Sunday. That is not in the contract. Mr. Employer, you will 
have to pay me the wage that we agreed to. Mr. Employer, you 
can't fire me arbitrarily because your cousin wants to take the 
job.

    That is all that unions do. They bring working people 
together in an extremely difficult moment in our history to 
fight for decent wages, and union wages are higher than 
nonunion wages, fight for better benefits.

    No question about it, union benefits far better than 
nonunion worker benefits. Fight for things like pensions, which 
are almost unheard of now in nonunion companies. So, we got a 
struggle. There is a class war going on, whether we want to 
recognize it or not.

    People on top have the money. They have the power. They are 
spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try to prevent 
ordinary workers from coming together to fight for dignity.

    I want to applaud, thank all of our panelists for being 
here. Applaud our trade union leaders for fighting for American 
workers.

    With that, let me state that this is the end of our hearing 
today. And for any Senators who wish to ask additional 
questions, questions for the record will be due in 10 business 
days, March 22d at 5.00 p.m.

    Finally, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
statement from the National Education Association. So, ordered.

    [The following information can be found on page 72 in 
Additional Material:]

    The Chair. The Committee stands adjourned.

    Thank you all very much.

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

              National Education Association (NEA),
                                      Washington, DC 20510,
                                                     March 7, 2023.
Senator Bernard Sanders, Chairman,
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Senator:

    On behalf of the 3 million members of the National Education 
Association--educators who know that their working conditions impact 
students' learning conditions--thank you for holding the Committee's 
March 8 hearing on defending the right of workers to organize unions, 
free from illegal union-busting by employers. We submit these comments 
for the record.

    NEA members are fiercely protective of their right to come together 
to organize and advocate for the resources and support they need to do 
their jobs well. This right acknowledges that they are trusted 
professionals with the expertise to make decisions leading to student 
success. Because NEA members appreciate what having a voice in the 
workplace means for them, they believe that this right, fundamental to 
the liberties we treasure as Americans, must be afforded to all working 
people.

    Unfortunately, workers who attempt to exercise the right to 
organize often face retaliation from their employers merely for wanting 
a say in their pay, benefits, and working conditions. Employers harass, 
ostracize, demote, and even fire them for seeking respect on the job. 
The goal is not only to punish the targeted employee; it is to quash 
any hope employees may have of ever organizing. Employers and their law 
firms euphemistically refer to their efforts as ``union avoidance 
strategies.'' These so-called strategies are aimed at suppressing 
workers' freedoms of speech and association, and, worst of all, 
breaking their spirit. Organizing a union is a legally protected 
activity, and union-busting employers must face appropriate penalties 
and repercussions for breaking the law.

    Supporting workers' right to organize, free from union-busting, is 
not only the morally and ethically sound choice; it has practical 
benefits for employers. The right to collectively bargain may reduce 
employee turnover and improve retention of employees who feel invested 
in an organization's success. Furthermore, unionized workers tend to 
earn more than workers who are not represented by unions, and are 
better able to invest in their communities by purchasing homes, goods, 
and services. A 2021 study by the Economic Policy Institute found that 
in the 17 states where unionization is highest, state minimum wages 
are, on average, 19 percent higher than the national average--and 40 
percent higher than the state minimum wage in states with low union 
density.

    The right to stand together in unions means working people can do 
the things that matter to us all: advocate for what they need to do 
their jobs efficiently and safely, and take care of their families. 
Congress must affirm that union-busting is illegal and take the steps 
necessary to ensure that working people can freely exercise their right 
to organize and collectively bargain.

            Sincerely,
                                                 Marc Egan,
                                  Director of Government Relations,
                                    National Education Association.
                                 ______
                                 
               Associated Builders and Contractors,
                                                     March 7, 2023.
Senator Bernie Sanders, Chairman,
Senator Bill Cassidy, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy and Members of the 
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:

    On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, a national trade 
association with 68 chapters representing more than 22,000 members, I 
am writing to express our opposition to the Protecting the Right to 
Organize Act. Before the Committee considers testimony at the hearing 
titled ``Defending the Right of Workers to Organize Unions Free from 
Illegal Corporate Union-Busting,'' ABC would like to underscore the 
most dangerous provisions of the bill and the negative effects they 
would have on the construction industry and the economy.

    While for years proponents of this bill have claimed it will simply 
protect the ability of workers to join a union if they so choose, the 
PRO Act would instead strip workers of their privacy, freedom and 
choice. Additionally, the PRO Act would impose undue costs on our 
Nation's small businesses at a time when they are faced with 
inflationary prices, supply chain delays, workforce shortages and an 
increasingly hostile regulatory agenda.

   Tipping the scales against workers and small businesses in union 
                               elections
    The PRO Act would fundamentally change the process and rules of a 
union election, enacting a ``card check'' system where votes are made 
public. This provision removes a critical requirement for employees on 
both sides of the election to have their say on whether to join a 
union. It would make employees fear retribution for voting their 
conscience, exposing them to harassment and intimidation unless they 
back unionization efforts.

    The bill would also mandate that employers provide employees' 
personal contact information, such as cell phone numbers, home 
addresses and even assigned shifts, to union organizers, all without 
prior approval from the employees themselves. Employees would not have 
a say in which information was provided, exposing them to potential 
harassment and intimidation. These provisions violate basic employee 
privacy rights, forcing employers to turn over employees' information 
to union organizers without consent and exposing them to harassment and 
intimidation unless they back unionization efforts.

    The PRO Act would allow secondary boycotting, which could bring 
commerce to a halt and make neutral businesses and private citizens 
vulnerable to threats and intimidation. This provision would rescind 
all National Labor Relations Act restrictions that currently make it 
unlawful for unions to impose economic injury on neutral third parties 
that are not involved in an underlying labor dispute, including 
consumers, companies or other unions that do business with the company 
involved in the dispute.

    The elimination of neutral status will expose all consumers, unions 
and businesses to coercion, picketing and boycotts, as well as 
excessive and abusive tactics used decades ago. With the effect of 
harming the economic interests of as many businesses as can possibly be 
linked to the primary target, this tactic would be used to essentially 
blackmail businesses into recognizing a labor union or face severe 
costs and harm to their daily operations. This would have a devastating 
impact on the construction industry and would result in stoppage or 
delays of critical construction projects throughout the country. This 
is at a time when the Federal Government seeks to fully implement the 
bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and other legislation 
with significant funds for construction, including the CHIPS and 
Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.

    The bill would also interfere with attorney-client confidentiality, 
making it harder for businesses, particularly small businesses, to 
secure legal advice on complex labor law matters. Like the Obama-era 
Persuader Rule, the PRO Act would force a breach of attorney-client 
confidentiality and make it more difficult for employers to access 
legal counsel or other expert advice on complex labor and employee 
relations issues during union-organizing drives.

                Eliminating Employee Rights and Freedoms
    Since 1943, a total of 27 states have passed right-to-work laws 
prohibiting employers from requiring employees to join unions as a 
condition of employment, incentivizing competition and producing a 
better work environment for businesses and workers. The PRO Act would 
completely reject this choice by eliminating these independent, state-
passed laws, forcing individuals to join a specific union and forfeit a 
portion of their hard-earned paychecks to support the activities and 
influence of unions if they want a job at a unionized factory, jobsite, 
school or company.

    The PRO Act would also curb opportunities for individuals to work 
independently through gig economy platforms or more traditional 
independent contractors. The provision would codify the ``ABC test,'' 
the standard adopted by California's disastrous Assembly Bill 5 to 
forcibly reclassify many independent contractors as employees. A 
national version of AB 5 could put up to 8.5 percent of gross domestic 
product at risk, while diminishing the freedoms of countless potential 
entrepreneurs.

    The PRO Act demotes front-line leaders, who would no longer be part 
of management, by restricting the definition of ``supervisor.'' This 
legislation redefines ``supervisor'' as only those individuals who 
perform such ``supervisory'' duties ``for a majority of the 
individual's worktime.'' This would prevent employers from treating 
many front-line leaders as members of their management team. Moreover, 
the PRO Act deletes the supervisory status of ``assigning'' work and 
having the ``responsibility to direct'' work of employees, thus 
eliminating the two factors that most commonly confer supervisory 
status on traditional front-line leaders.

    The PRO Act imposes government control over private contracts by 
mandating compulsory binding arbitration on employers and employees if 
they cannot reach a collective bargaining agreement within the first 
120 days of negotiations. This intrusion into private sector labor 
relations would strip both employers and workers of their rights and 
ability to negotiate a fair agreement.

    Imposing Ubearable Brdens on Small Businesses and Job Creators:
    The PRO Act would codify the National Labor Relations Board's 
controversial Browning-Ferris Industries joint-employer standard that 
threatens our Country's small and local businesses. If implemented, the 
standard would affect 44 percent of private sector employees and 
profoundly damage many business-to-business contracts and arrangements, 
causing particular harm to small businesses in the construction 
industry.

    The PRO Act greatly expands small businesses liability for ``unfair 
labor practices'' by expanding both the scope of remedies and the 
avenues to challenge allegedly impermissible conduct under the law. 
This legislation adds significant monetary obligations, including back 
pay without reduction for interim earnings (e.g., unemployment or 
earnings from a new job), front pay and liquidated damages equal to 
twice the amount of other damages awarded.

    The PRO Act would also expand the types of available remedies, to 
include civil penalties for noncompliance with NLRB orders, enforceable 
by civil action in Federal district court. These penalties begin at 
$50,000 for each failure to comply with a Board order and could be 
doubled when the employer committed a similar unfair labor practice in 
the prior 5 years. It could apply to individual directors and officers 
of the employer.

    The harmful provisions included in the PRO Act would have a 
devastating impact on construction in the United States and cause 
significant harm to our Nation's economy at this critical junction. We 
urge the Committee to reject this legislation and enact commonsense 
policies that strengthen our economy and support well-paying jobs for 
all of America's workers.
            Sincerely,
                                        Kristen Swearingen,
                                                    Vice President,
                                 Legislative and Political Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
        Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW),
                                                     March 7, 2023.
Senator Bernie Sanders, Chairman,
Senator Bill Cassidy, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy and Members of the 
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:

    In light of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee's upcoming hearing, ``Defending the Right of Workers to 
Organize Unions Free from Illegal Corporate Union-Busting,'' the 
Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (``CDW'') would like to draw to 
your attention several letters we sent to the Committee in the 117th 
Session of Congress opposing the Protecting the Right to Organize 
(``PRO'') Act, which was recently reintroduced.

    CDW is a broad-based coalition of hundreds of organizations 
representing hundreds of thousands of employers and millions of 
employees in various industries across the country focused on 
legislative and regulatory changes that impact national labor policy. 
This includes possible legislative changes to the National Labor 
Relations Act (``NLRA''), regulatory actions by the National Labor 
Relations Board (``NLRB''), and Federal court decisions implementing 
the NLRA.

    The PRO Act is a radical bill that includes numerous provisions 
that would violate workers' rights to free choice and privacy, infringe 
on employers' due process and free speech rights, cost millions of 
American jobs, and threaten American small businesses and vital supply 
chains. The PRO Act would drastically restructure America's labor laws 
in an attempt to increase union density and union leverage at the 
bargaining table and does so without regard for the negative impacts 
the legislation would have on workers, businesses, and the economy.

    CDW has repeatedly raised our concerns with the PRO Act to the 
Committee. On two separate occasions--March 4, 2021 \1\, and July 21, 
2021 \2\--hundreds of employer organizations joined CDW in pointing out 
the most dangerous provisions of the bill, demonstrating their 
potential consequences, and highlighting the public's broad disapproval 
of the proposed changes. These organizations represent nearly every 
industry in the economy and are based in nearly every congressional 
district.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  Letter available at https://myprivateballot.com/wp-content/
uploads/2021/03/CDW-PRO-Act-Opposition-Letter--March-4--Update-1.pdf.
    \2\  Letter available at https://myprivateballot.com/wp-content/
uploads/2021/07/CDW-PRO-Act-Senate-Hearing-Letter-July-2021.pdf.

    As we explain in our letters, some of the more dangerous provisions 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the bill would threaten fundamental rights, including:

          limiting the right of employees to vote for or 
        against union representation via secret ballots and instead 
        forcing them to vote in front of union organizers or 
        colleagues, needlessly exposing them to harassment, 
        intimidation, or coercion;

          limiting employers' free speech rights, which 
        effectively silences debate on the pros and cons of union 
        representation generally or a particular union at issue, 
        despite the Supreme Court, circuit courts, and the NLRB itself 
        protecting this fundamental right;

          allowing unions to choose a bargaining unit that 
        maximizes its chances of winning a representation election 
        rather than having the NLRB choose a unit that would promote a 
        functional and stable bargaining relationship, effectively 
        allowing unions to gerrymander the bargaining unit and 
        disenfranchise other workers of their right to vote;

          requiring employers to give union organizers 
        employees' personal information without approval from the 
        employees themselves, including home addresses, phone numbers, 
        email addresses, work shifts and locations, and job 
        classifications, violating workers' privacy;

          drastically shortening representation election 
        timeframes, ensuring workers do not have an opportunity to hear 
        from all sides on unionization and potentially forcing them to 
        vote on union representation without knowing all the facts; and

          eliminating right-to-work protections across the 
        country, including in the twenty-seven states whose populations 
        and representatives voted for and implemented such laws. 
        (Right-to-work laws allow workers to choose not to pay union 
        dues to a labor organization whose policies and advocacy 
        efforts do not align with their own beliefs and ensure workers 
        can continue to work without being forced to join a union.)

    The bill also jeopardizes business models and entrepreneurial 
opportunities by:

          drastically limiting who can work as an independent 
        contractor by imposing California's failed ABC test nationwide;

          codifying the controversial Browning-Ferris 
        Industries joint-employer standard into law, despite that 
        standard having devastating consequences on nearly all 
        contractual relationships, from the franchise model to those 
        between contractors and subcontractors and suppliers and 
        vendors, and hampering businesses' efforts to implement 
        ``corporate responsibility'' throughout their supply chains and 
        operations; and

          reversing bans on intermittent strikes and secondary 
        boycotts on neutral third parties, allowing unions to disrupt 
        the economy and critical supply chains with constant threats of 
        work stoppages against unionized and nonunionized businesses 
        alike.

    The PRO Act attempts to implement policies that have been rejected 
on a bipartisan basis in Congress, overturned by the judicial system, 
and withdrawn by the Federal agencies this and previous administrations 
have attempted to use to implement the policies unilaterally.

    If passed, this bill would have devastating consequences for the 
entire economy, every worker, and every business and entrepreneur. The 
Committee should reject this bill, protect the rights of workers, and 
safeguard the economy from such disastrous policies.
            Sincerely,
                                        Kristen Swearingen,
                                                             Chair,
                               Coalition for a Democratic Workplace
                                 ______
                                 
         Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW)
                                                      March 4, 2021

    Dear Chairman Sanders

    On behalf of the millions of American businesses concerned with the 
rights of their employees, the current economic situation, and the need 
for balance in Federal regulation, the following 248 organizations 
write to express our opposition to the Protecting the Right to Organize 
(PRO) Act (H.R. 842/S. 420).

    The PRO Act would drastically restructure America's labor laws 
resulting in economic upheaval that would cost millions of American 
jobs, threaten vital supply chains, and greatly diminish opportunities 
for entrepreneurs and small businesses. The bill's attempts to achieve 
its primary objectives of increasing union density and union leverage 
at the bargaining table without regard for the negative impacts the 
legislation would have on workers, businesses, and the economy. As a 
result, the bill threatens fundamental rights and vital aspects of our 
economy, including but not limited to:

          workers' right to choose whether or not to be 
        represented by a union through secret ballot elections;

          workers' right to remove a union that has failed to 
        adequately represent them;

          businesses and individuals' ability to contract with 
        independent contractors and other businesses;

          workers' right to choose not to contribute to a union 
        they do not support;

          Americans' opportunity to own a franchise business or 
        work independently; and

          the government's ability to prevent unions from 
        expanding a labor dispute with one employer to other businesses 
        and consumers--a change that threatens to disrupt supply chains 
        and/or projects that are vital to our national pandemic 
        response.

    Many of the bill's provisions would implement policies that have 
previously been rejected on a bipartisan basis in Congress, overturned 
by the judicial system, and withdrawn by the Federal agencies.

    The undersigned organizations remain committed to creating and 
supplying all Americans with the jobs, goods and services that are 
critical to our health and economic recovery from COVID-19. This 
legislation will only hinder our ability to meet that commitment.

    For these reasons, we urge Congress to reject the PRO Act.
            Sincerely,
                   The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace
                                               AGC Colorado
                             AGC Florida East Coast Chapter
                                            AGC Mississippi
                                              AGC of Alaska
                                          AGC of California
                                              AGC of Kansas
                                                AGC of Ohio
                                 AGC of SD Building Chapter
         AGC of South Dakota, Highway-Heavy-Utility Chapter
                                               AGC of Texas
                                            AGC of Virginia
                                    AGC of Western Kentucky
                                             AGC of Wyoming
                                AGC Oregon-Columbia Chapter
                                              AGC San Diego
                    Air Conditioning Contractors of America
                     Alabama Associated General Contractors
                                American Bakers Association
                                   American Foundry Society
                         American Home Furnishings Alliance
                       American Hotel & Lodging Association
                              American Lighting Association
                         American Mold Builders Association
                  American Pipeline Contractors Association
                                American Rental Association
                       American Seniors Housing Association
                              American Society of Employers
                              American Staffing Association
                                American Supply Association
                             American Trucking Associations
                                   Americans for Tax Reform
                                                   Argentum
                                  Arizona Builders Alliance
Arizona Chapter, Associated General Contractors of America, 
                                                       Inc.
                  Arkansas Ready Mixed Concrete Association
                         Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce
                        Associated Builders and Contractors
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Alabama Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors. Arkansas Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors Carolinas Chapter
    Associated Builders and Contractors Central California 
                                                    Chapter
   Associated Builders and Contractors Central Ohio Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors Central Pennsylvania 
                                                    Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors Central Texas Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors Chesapeake Shores 
                                                    Chapter
    Associated Builders and Contractors Connecticut Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors Eastern Pennsylvania 
                                                    Chapter
   Associated Builders and Contractors Empire State Chapter
    Associated Builders and Contractors Florida East Coast 
                                                    Chapter
   Associated Builders and Contractors Florida First Coast 
                                                    Chapter
    Associated Builders and Contractors Florida Gulf Coast 
                                                    Chapter
        Associated Builders and Contractors Georgia Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors Greater Baltimore 
                                                    Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors Greater Houston Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors Greater Tennessee 
                                                    Chapter
         Associated Builders and Contractors Hawaii Chapter
       Associated Builders and Contractors Illinois Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors Indiana/Kentucky 
                                                    Chapter
 Associated Builders and Contractors Inland Pacific Chapter
           Associated Builders and Contractors Iowa Chapter
       Associated Builders and Contractors Keystone Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors Massachusetts Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors Metro Washington 
                                                    Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors Minnesota/North Dakota 
                                                    Chapter
         Associated Builders and Contractors Nevada Chapter
 Associated Builders and Contractors New Hampshire/Vermont 
                                                    Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors New Mexico Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors New Orleans/Bayou 
                                                    Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors North Alabama Chapter
   Associated Builders and Contractors Northern California 
                                                    Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors Northern Ohio Chapter
            Associated Builders and Contractors of Michigan
                Associated Builders and Contractors of Ohio
        Associated Builders and Contractors of Pennsylvania
    Associated Builders and Contractors Ohio Valley Chapter
       Associated Builders and Contractors Oklahoma Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors Pacific Northwest 
                                                    Chapter
        Associated Builders and Contractors Pelican Chapter
   Associated Builders and Contractors Rhode Island Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors San Diego Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors Southeast Texas Chapter
   Associated Builders and Contractors Southern California 
                                                    Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors Texas Gulf Coast 
                                                    Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors Texas Mid Coast Chapter
           Associated Builders and Contractors TEXO Chapter
           Associated Builders and Contractors Utah Chapter
       Associated Builders and Contractors Virginia Chapter
 Associated Builders and Contractors West Tennessee Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors Western Michigan 
                                                    Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors Western Pennsylvania 
                                                    Chapter
    Associated Builders and Contractors Western Washington 
                                                    Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors Wisconsin Chapter
                       Associated Contractors of New Mexico
                          Associated Equipment Distributors
                             Associated General Contractors
                  Associated General Contractors of Georgia
                 Associated General Contractors of Kentucky
                 Associated General Contractors of Michigan
                Associated General Contractors of Minnesota
           Associated General Contractors of New York State
            Associated General Contractors of New Hampshire
             Associated General Contractors of North Dakota
                     Associated General Contractors of Utah
                  Associated General Contractors of Vermont
                                      Auto Care Association
                                 Brick Industry Association
                            Business & Industry Association
                 California Business Properties Association
                            California Delivery Association
                                              Carolinas AGC
      Carolinas Ready Mixed Concrete Association Catapult--
                                         Formerly CAI & TEA
           CAWA--Representing the Automotive Parts Industry
                       Coalition of Franchisee Associations
                           Colorado Contractors Association
                  Colorado Ready Mixed Concrete Association
                          Construction Industry Round Table
                            Consumer Technology Association
              Customized Logistics and Delivery Association
                   Farm Equipment Manufacturers Association
                               Financial Services Institute
      Florida Independent Concrete and Associated Products 
                                                Association
                         FMI--The Food Industry Association
                                Franchise Business Services
                  General Contractors Association of Hawaii
                                 Global Cold Chain Alliance
   Heating, Air-conditioning, & Refrigeration Distributors 
                                              International
                                              Hensel Phelps
                                      HR Policy Association
                      Illinois Retail Merchants Association
                         Independent Electrical Contractors
         Independent Electrical Contractors Atlanta Chapter
          Independent Electrical Contractors CenTex Chapter
Independent Electrical Contractors Central Missouri Chapter
   Independent Electrical Contractors Central Pennsylvania 
                                                    Chapter
      Independent Electrical Contractors Chesapeake Chapter
     Independent Electrical Contractors Florida East Coast 
                                                    Chapter
     Independent Electrical Contractors Florida West Coast 
                                                    Chapter
     Independent Electrical Contractors Fort Worth/Tarrant 
                                             County Chapter
         Independent Electrical Contractors Georgia Chapter
     Independent Electrical Contractors Greater Cincinnati 
                                                    Chapter
  Independent Electrical Contractors Greater Oregon Chapter
     Independent Electrical Contractors Greater Rio Grande 
                                             Valley Chapter
         Independent Electrical Contractors Midwest Chapter
      Independent Electrical Contractors New Jersey Chapter
    Independent Electrical Contractors Northern New Mexico 
                                                    Chapter
   Independent Electrical Contractors Northern Ohio Chapter
 Independent Electrical Contractors Northwest Pennsylvania 
                                                    Chapter
          Independent Electrical Contractors of New England
                Independent Electrical Contractors of Texas
     Independent Electrical Contractors San Antonio Chapter
     Independent Electrical Contractors Southeast Missouri 
                                                    Chapter
    Independent Electrical Contractors Southern New Mexico 
                                                    Chapter
Independent Electrical Contractors Texas Gulf Coast Chapter
 Independent Electrical Contractors Texas Panhandle Chapter
Independent Electrical Contractors Western Colorado Chapter
          Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America
                             Industrial Fasteners Institute
                   Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute
                  International Council of Shopping Centers
         International Foodservice Distributors Association
                        International Franchise Association
              International Warehouse Logistics Association
                  Iowa Association of Business and Industry
               IPSE--The Association of Independent Workers
                              Kentucky Concrete Association
                                Leading Builders of America
                         Littler Workplace Policy Institute
               Louisiana Retailers Association Maryland AGC
                  Maryland Association of Chain Drug Stores
                    Maryland Ready Mix Concrete Association
                             Maryland Retailers Association
                                    Master Builders of Iowa
                            Metals Service Center Institute
                                     Mississippi Valley AGC
                             Missouri Retailers Association
                            Montana Contractors Association
                Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association
            National Association of Electrical Distributors
National Association of Home Builders National Association 
                                           of Manufacturers
         National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
            National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
                                  National Club Association
                      National Council of Chain Restaurants
                            National Franchisee Association
                               National Grocers Association
    National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association
                   National Marine Distributors Association
                       National Multifamily Housing Council
                  National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
                            National Restaurant Association
                                 National Retail Federation
                   National Roofing Contractors Association
                        National Small Business Association
                National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association
                 National Tooling and Machining Association
                   National Utility Contractors Association
                                         Nevada Chapter AGC
                             Nevada Contractors Association
                         New Jersey Motor Truck Association
                    New Jersey Retail Merchants Association
                                                       NFIB
                     North American Die Casting Association
                              North Dakota Concrete Council
               North Dakota Petroleum Marketers Association
                       North Dakota Propane Gas Association
                            North Dakota Retail Association
                                              Ohio Concrete
                               Ohio Contractors Association
                 Oklahoma Municipal Contractors Association
                  Oklahoma Ready Mixed Concrete Association
                                    Open Competition Center
     Outdoor Power Equipment and Engine Service Association
                        Pennsylvania Retailers' Association
                                   Pincus Elevator Co. Inc.
                              Plastics Industry Association
            Power and Communication Contractors Association
                    Precision Machined Products Association
                         Precision Metalforming Association
                                   PRINTING United Alliance
             Promotional Products Association International
                                           R&O Construction
                                Retail Association of Maine
                        Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                         SNAC International
                                          South Florida AGC
                     Southern Illinois Builders Association
                             Tennessee Concrete Association
                         The Maryland Food Industry Council
                             Tile Roofing Industry Alliance
                             Tri State Jewelers Association
                      Truck Renting and Leasing Association
                                       Tucson Metro Chamber
                                   U.S. Chamber of Commerce
                      Utah Ready-Mixed Concrete Association
                  Virginia Ready Mixed Concrete Association
                                 Virginia Retail Federation
                              Virginia Trucking Association
             Washington Aggregates and Concrete Association
                              Washington Retail Association
                                                  WCI, inc.
                                     West Texas AGC Chapter
                        West Virginia Retailers Association
                 Western Electrical Contractors Association
                               Workforce Fairness Institute
                                    World Millwork Alliance
         Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW)
                                                      July 21, 2021

    Dear Chair Murray and Ranking Member Burr and Members of the U.S. 
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

    The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW), a broad-based 
coalition of hundreds of organizations representing hundreds of 
thousands of employers and millions of employees in various industries 
across the country, and the 280 undersigned organizations write in 
opposition to the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, S. 420.

    This radical legislation would violate workers' free choice and 
privacy rights, jeopardize industrial stability, cost millions of 
American jobs, threaten vital supply chains, and greatly hinder our 
economic recovery from COVID-19. The PRO Act includes dozens of 
provisions that would boost union membership and dues revenue streams 
at the expense of the rights of workers, employers, and consumers 
alike. Forbes Tate Partners (FTP) conducted a survey of over 1,000 
registered voters and found that respondents overwhelmingly were 
concerned with the various policies of the bill, some of which are 
explained below. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  Survey results can be viewed at http://myprivateballot.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/06/PRO--Act-National-Survey-Summary-6.28.21.pdf.

    The PRO Act would infringe on worker privacy and freedom of choice. 
The bill requires employers to give union organizers employees' 
personal information without prior approval from the employees 
themselves. This includes home addresses, phone numbers, email 
addresses, work shifts and locations, and job classifications. 
Employees couldn't opt out of this requirement or choose which 
information is shared, exposing them to potential harassment, 
intimidation tactics, stalking, and online bullying. FTP's survey found 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that 75 percent of respondents were concerned with this policy.

    The PRO Act would also destabilize U.S. industrial operations and 
the economy and threaten supply chains by reversing current bans on 
intermittent strikes and secondary boycotts. Under the PRO Act, unions 
would be able to conduct a series of short intermittent strikes to 
disrupt business operations if an employer doesn't concede to their 
demands, potentially disrupting the economy and critical supply chains, 
including those fundamental to our COVID-19 response. One of the 
fundamental goals of the National Labor Relations Act is to help ensure 
industrial peace. Intermittent strikes, however, would leave unionized 
and nonunionized employers alike in constant fear of work stoppages--
further threatening the already fragile stability of our economy.

    The PRO Act would also rescind all restrictions against ``secondary 
boycotts,'' or activity used by unions to impose economic injury on 
neutral third parties, including consumers, companies, or other unions, 
that do business with a company involved in a labor dispute with the 
union. These activities were banned in the 1940's and 1950's after 
unions engaged in excessive and abusive tactics. Allowing secondary 
boycotts will once again expose all consumers, unions, and businesses 
to coercion, picketing, boycotts, and similar tactics.

    Additionally, the bill drastically shortens the timeframe between 
union organizers petitioning for a union representation election and 
the holding of that election, ensuring employees do not have adequate 
time to hear both sides of the debate over whether union representation 
is right for them. The PRO Act would greatly expand the National Labor 
Relations Board's power to force union representation on employers and 
employees without an election, depriving workers of their right to a 
vote.

    The PRO Act would also eliminate right-to-work protections across 
the country, including in the twenty-seven states whose populations and 
representatives voted for and implemented such laws. Right-to-work laws 
allow workers to choose not to pay union dues to a labor organization 
whose policies and advocacy efforts do not align with their own 
beliefs. These laws ensure workers can continue to work without being 
forced to join a union. According to the FTP survey, 57 percent of 
registered voters believe workers should not be forced to join a union 
as a condition of employment, while 67 percent were concerned with the 
bill's efforts to eliminate right-to-work protections and force workers 
to choose between paying union dues or losing their jobs.

    Furthermore, the PRO Act would impose nationwide California's 
recently adopted and failed ``ABC test'' to determine whether a worker 
is an employee or independent contractor. The ABC test makes it very 
difficult to qualify as an independent contractor, so nationwide 
application would result in many workers losing their independent 
contractor status. This is at odds with what independent contractors 
actually want. Time and again, these workers explain that they choose 
independent work for the flexibility and autonomy it offers. 
Additionally, the ABC test will force businesses that contract with 
such workers to no longer use them for various services out of fear of 
the liability such contracts could trigger. This would threaten small 
businesses that rely on those contracts. This policy was concerning to 
70 percent of FTP's survey respondents.

    Finally, the PRO Act would codify into law the NLRB's controversial 
2015 Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) decision that expanded and 
muddled the standard for determining when two separate entities are 
``joint-employers'' under Federal labor law. Joint-employers are 
mutually responsible for labor violations committed against the jointly 
employed workers as well as bargaining obligations with respect to 
those workers, so the liability associated with joint-employer status 
is immense. The BFI decision overturned decades of established labor 
law and undermined nearly every contractual relationship, from the 
franchise model to those between contractors and subcontractors and 
suppliers and vendors. The BFI standard also hampered businesses' 
efforts to encourage ``corporate responsibility'' throughout their 
supply chains and business partners. In FTP's survey, 65 percent of 
voters were concerned about the bill upending the franchise business 
model, a business ownership structure that attracts first time small 
business owners from a diverse range of backgrounds and experiences.

    These are only a few of the dangerous policies included in the PRO 
Act. CDW and the 280 undersigned organizations urge the Committee to 
reject this radical legislation and protect the rights of America's 
workers, small businesses, and consumers.
            Sincerely,
                   The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace
                                     AGC Florida East Coast
                                                  AGC Maine
                                          AGC of California
                                              AGC of Kansas
                                            AGC of Kentucky
                          AGC of Metropolitan Washington DC
                                           AGC of Minnesota
                                                AGC of Ohio
         AGC of South Dakota, Highway-Heavy-Utility Chapter
                                             AGC of Wyoming
                    Air Conditioning Contractors of America
                                                Alabama AGC
               Alabama Restaurant & Hospitality Association
  Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant & Retailers Association
                                American Bakers Association
                                   American Foundry Society
                         American Home Furnishings Alliance
                       American Hotel & Lodging Association
                         American Mold Builders Association
                  American Pipeline Contractors Association
                                American Rental Association
                       American Seniors Housing Association
                              American Society of Employers
                              American Staffing Association
                                American Supply Association
                              American Trucking Association
                                   Americans for Tax Reform
                                  Arizona Builders Alliance
                             Arizona Restaurant Association
                          Arizona Rock Products Association
                           Arkansas Hospitality Association
                  Arkansas Ready Mixed Concrete Association
                         Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce
                    Asian American Hotel Owners Association
                        Associated Builders and Contractors
        Associated Builders and Contractors Alabama Chapter
         Associated Builders and Contractors Alaska Chapter
       Associated Builders and Contractors Arkansas Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors Carolinas Chapter
    Associated Builders and Contractors Central California 
                                                    Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors Central Florida Chapter
   Associated Builders and Contractors Central Ohio Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors Central Pennsylvania 
                                                    Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors Central Texas Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors Chesapeake Shores 
                                                    Chapter
    Associated Builders and Contractors Connecticut Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors Cornhusker Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors Cumberland Valley 
                                                    Chapter
       Associated Builders and Contractors Delaware Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors Eastern Pennsylvania 
                                                    Chapter
   Associated Builders and Contractors Empire State Chapter
    Associated Builders and Contractors Florida East Coast 
                                                    Chapter
   Associated Builders and Contractors Florida First Coast 
                                                    Chapter
    Associated Builders and Contractors Florida Gulf Coast 
                                                    Chapter
        Associated Builders and Contractors Georgia Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors Greater Baltimore 
                                                    Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors Greater Houston Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors Greater Michigan 
                                                    Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors Greater Tennessee 
                                                    Chapter
         Associated Builders and Contractors Hawaii Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors Heart of America 
                                                    Chapter
       Associated Builders and Contractors Illinois Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors Indiana/Kentucky 
                                                    Chapter
 Associated Builders and Contractors Inland Pacific Chapter
           Associated Builders and Contractors Iowa Chapter
       Associated Builders and Contractors Keystone Chapter
          Associated Builders and Contractors Maine Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors Massachusetts Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors Metro Washington 
                                                    Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors Minnesota/North Dakota 
                                                    Chapter
    Associated Builders and Contractors Mississippi Chapter
         Associated Builders and Contractors Nevada Chapter
 Associated Builders and Contractors New Hampshire/Vermont 
                                                    Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors New Jersey Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors New Mexico Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors New Orleans/Bayou 
                                                    Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors North Alabama Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors North Florida Chapter
   Associated Builders and Contractors Northern California 
                                                    Chapter
           Associated Builders and Contractors of Louisiana
            Associated Builders and Contractors of Michigan
  Associated Builders and Contractors Northern Ohio Chapter
    Associated Builders and Contractors Ohio Valley Chapter
       Associated Builders and Contractors Oklahoma Chapter
     Associated Builders and Contractors Pacific Northwest 
                                                    Chapter
        Associated Builders and Contractors Pelican Chapter
   Associated Builders and Contractors Rhode Island Chapter
 Associated Builders and Contractors Rocky Mountain Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors San Diego Chapter
    Associated Builders and Contractors South Texas Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors Southeast Texas Chapter
 Associated Builders and Contractors Southeastern Michigan 
                                                    Chapter
   Associated Builders and Contractors Southern California 
                                                    Chapter
    Associated Builders and Contractors Texas Coastal Bend 
                                                    Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors Texas Gulf Coast 
                                                    Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors Texas Mid-Coast Chapter
           Associated Builders and Contractors Utah Chapter
       Associated Builders and Contractors Virginia Chapter
 Associated Builders and Contractors West Tennessee Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors West Virginia Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors Western Michigan 
                                                    Chapter
  Associated Builders and Contractors Western Pennsylvania 
                                                    Chapter
    Associated Builders and Contractors Western Washington 
                                                    Chapter
      Associated Builders and Contractors Wisconsin Chapter
                          Associated Equipment Distributors
                  Associated General Contractors of America
Associated General Contractors of America, Nebraska Chapter
                 Associated General Contractors of Michigan
                       Associated General Contractors of NH
                 Associated General Contractors of Virginia
                Associated General Contractors of Wisconsin
         Associated General Contractors South Texas Chapter
                    Associated Industries of Arkansas, Inc.
                                           Bidgesource, LLC
                                 Brick Industry Association
            California Restaurant Association Carolinas AGC
                 Carolinas Ready Mixed Concrete Association
                               Catapult, Formerly CAI & TEA
           CAWA--Representing the Automotive Parts Industry
                  Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
                       Coalition of Franchisee Associations
                            Colorado Restaurant Association
                         Connecticut Restaurant Association
                            Consumer Technology Association
                            Delaware Restaurant Association
                               Education Market Association
                   Florida Restaurant & Lodging Association
                         FMI--The Food Industry Association
             Foodservice Equipment Distributors Association
                                Franchise Business Services
                 Gases and Welding Distributors Association
                             Georgia Restaurant Association
                                 Global Cold Chain Alliance
                           Global Market Development Center
                              Hawaii Restaurant Association
   Heating, Air-conditioning, & Refrigeration Distributors 
                                              International
                                          Hospitality Maine
                                      Hospitality Minnesota
                                      Hospitality Tennessee
                                    H.R. Policy Association
 IAAPA, the Global Association for the Attractions Industry
              ICSC--Innovating Commerce Serving Communities
                     Idaho Lodging & Restaurant Association
                            Illinois Restaurant Association
                         Independent Electrical Contractors
         Independent Electrical Contractors Atlanta Chapter
          Independent Electrical Contractors CenTex Chapter
    Independent Electrical Contractors Central Ohio Chapter
   Independent Electrical Contractors Central Pennsylvania 
                                                    Chapter
      Independent Electrical Contractors Chesapeake Chapter
      Independent Electrical Contractors East Texas Chapter
     Independent Electrical Contractors Florida West Coast 
                                                    Chapter
 Independent Electrical Contractors Fort Worth/Tarrant Co. 
                                                    Chapter
         Independent Electrical Contractors Georgia Chapter
     Independent Electrical Contractors Greater Cincinnati 
                                                    Chapter
            Independent Electrical Contractors Indy Chapter
 Independent Electrical Contractors Kentucky & So. Indiana 
                                                    Chapter
         Independent Electrical Contractors Lubbock Chapter
     Independent Electrical Contractors Midwest IEC Chapter
         Independent Electrical Contractors Montana Chapter
     Independent Electrical Contractors New England Chapter
      Independent Electrical Contractors New Jersey Chapter
    Independent Electrical Contractors Northern New Mexico 
                                                    Chapter
 Independent Electrical Contractors Northwest Pennsylvania 
                                                    Chapter
          Independent Electrical Contractors Oregon Chapter
Independent Electrical Contractors Texas Gulf Coast Chapter
         Independent Electrical Contractors Wichita Chapter
    Independent Professionals and Self Employed Association
                   Indiana Restaurant & Lodging Association
                             Industrial Fasteners Institute
                   Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute
         International Foodservice Distributors Association
                        International Franchise Association
              International Warehouse Logistics Association
                  Iowa Association of Business and Industry
                                Iowa Restaurant Association
                                 Kansas Chamber of Commerce
                Kansas Restaurant & Hospitality Association
                              Kentucky Concrete Association
                            Kentucky Restaurant Association
                                Leading Builders of America
                         Littler Workplace Policy Institute
                                              Louisiana AGC
                           Louisiana Restaurant Association
                             Manufactured Housing Institute
                    Maryland Ready Mix Concrete Association
                       Massachusetts Restaurant Association
                            Metals Service Center Institute
                              Michigan Concrete Association
                  Michigan Restaurant & Lodging Association
               Mid-South Independent Electrical Contractors
           Mississippi Hospitality & Restaurant Association
                            Missouri Restaurant Association
                                 Modular Building Institute
                            Montana Contractors Association
                             Montana Restaurant Association
                Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association
                             National Apartment Association
                  National Association of Chain Drug Stores
              National Association of Chemical Distributors
                      National Association of Home Builders
                      National Association of Manufacturers
         National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
         National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers
            National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
                                  National Club Association
                      National Council of Chain Restaurants
                National Federation of Independent Business
                            National Franchisee Association
                               National Grocers Association
    National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association
                   National Marine Distributors Association
                       National Multifamily Housing Council
                  National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
                            National Restaurant Association
                                 National Retail Federation
                   National Roofing Contractors Association
                        National Small Business Association
                  National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association
                 National Tooling and Machining Association
                   National Utility Contractors Association
NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas and Truck Stops
                            Nebraska Restaurant Association
                                         Nevada Chapter AGC
                              Nevada Restaurant Association
                         New Jersey Motor Truck Association
            New Jersey Restaurant & Hospitality Association
                          New Mexico Restaurant Association
                      New York State Restaurant Association
                     North American Die Casting Association
            North Carolina Restaurant & Lodging Association
                       North Dakota Hospitality Association
                           Ohio Hotel & Lodging Association
                                Ohio Restaurant Association
                            Oklahoma Aggregates Association
                            Oklahoma Restaurant Association
                                    Open Competition Center
                    Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association
                                    Outdoor Power Equipment
              Pennsylvania Restaurant & Lodging Association
                      Pet Industry Distributors Association
                              Petroleum Equipment Institute
                              Plastics Industry Association
                                Portland Cement Association
              Power & Communication Contractors Association
                    Precision Machined Products Association
                         Precision Metalforming Association
                                   PRINTING United Alliance
             Promotional Products Association International
                         Puerto Rico Restaurant Association
                         Restaurant Association of Maryland
          Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington
                        Retail Industry Leaders Association
                       Rhode Island Hospitality Association
                                         SNAC International
            South Carolina Restaurant & Lodging Association
                         South Dakota Retailers Association
                     Southern Illinois Builders Association
                               Texas Restaurant Association
                         TEXO, The Construction Association
                The Associated General Contractors of Texas
                   The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace
                             Tile Roofing Industry Alliance
                      Truck Renting and Leasing Association
                                   U.S. Chamber of Commerce
                              United Motorcoach Association
                                Utah Restaurant Association
                         Virginia Manufacturers Association
                  Virginia Ready Mixed Concrete Association
          Virginia Restaurant, Lodging & Travel Association
                              Virginia Trucking Association
             West Virginia Hospitality & Travel Association
                                Western Carolina Industries
                 Western Electrical Contractors Association
                                            Western Growers
                 Wisconsin Ready Mixed Concrete Association
                           Wisconsin Restaurant Association
                               Workforce Fairness Institute
                   Wyoming Lodging & Restaurant Association
                                 ______
                                 
                        Direct Selling Association,
                                                     March 1, 2023.
Senator Bernie Sanders, Chairman,
Senator Bill Cassidy, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy and Members of the 
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:

    On behalf of more than 7.3 million active direct sellers who sell 
to 44.6 million preferred customers, discount buyers and many other 
consumers, we oppose re-introduction of the current version of the 
Protecting the Right to Organize (``PRO'') Act. Direct sellers 
contributed $42.7 billion in estimated retail sales to the American 
economy in 2021. Sales increased 6.4 percent from 2020-2021 and have 
grown almost 22 percent since 2019.

    The Direct Selling Association (DSA), the national trade 
association for companies that market products and services directly to 
consumers through independent sellers, appreciates the intent of the 
PRO Act to bolster the middle class and champion the rights of workers 
by expanding the right to organize under the National Labor Relations 
Act (NLRA).

    However, DSA respectfully opposes the current bill because it 
contains damaging changes to current law that could undermine the 
flexibility afforded the millions of individual direct sellers across 
the country who don't want the NLRA to apply to them.

    Through the more than 100 years direct sellers have been active 
contributors to the American economy, the individuals engaged in the 
business have always been considered independent contractors. Most 
importantly, these individuals want to work independently. It is their 
primary motivation for joining and staying with direct selling 
companies.

    The 2019 DSA National Salesforce Survey showed that fifty-nine 
percent of direct sellers cite flexibility as a reason for joining, and 
61 percent cite flexibility as a reason they're staying in direct 
selling. A 2020 DSA/IPSOS Consumer Attitudes and Entrepreneurship study 
found that 77 percent of Americans said they are interested in 
flexible, entrepreneurial income-earning opportunities and 79 percent 
see direct selling as an attractive option for entrepreneurial 
opportunities.

    It is also why direct sellers have had special statutory non-
employee status under the Internal Revenue Code (see 26 U.S.C. 3508) 
since 1983. Additionally, 43 states have recognized this status through 
statute, and all states treat direct sellers as independent contractors 
under the common law test.

    Unfortunately, the proposed definition of employee could 
dramatically narrow the attractiveness of direct selling for millions 
of Americans who wish to sell on their own schedules, come in and out 
of the business, and make a bit of extra pocket money.

    Specifically, the bill would universally impose the ``ABC'' test of 
employment on all businesses and individuals, even those, like direct 
selling, which are based on the flexibility of independent status. The 
``ABC'' test is often misconstrued, and its provisions frequently are 
not easily applied to the direct selling relationship.

    Passage of the PRO Act would create the possibility of inconsistent 
treatment of direct sellers between various aspects of Federal law, 
impose unnecessary and inappropriate requirements on the direct selling 
relationship, and most importantly, discourage individuals from 
entering or continuing their direct selling. Additionally, imposing the 
``ABC'' test on direct sellers into the NLRA could throw direct 
sellers' treatment under other laws such as the Fair Labor Standards 
Act into disarray.

    We commend your efforts to revitalize the U.S. economy and support 
all stakeholders but also urge you to oppose the PRO Act and its 
current approach to independent work.
            Sincerely,
                                         Joseph. N Mariano,
                                                         President,
                                        Direct Selling Association.
                                 ______
                                 
                Independent Electrical Contractors,
                                                     March 8, 2023.
Senator Bernie Sanders, Chairman,
Senator Bill Cassidy, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy and Members of the 
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:

    The Independent Electrical Contractors (IEC) writes to express its 
strong opposition to the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, 
which presumably will be the focus of today's hearing. The express 
purpose of the PRO Act is to increase union membership through drastic 
changes to well-established labor law at the expense of the rights of 
employees and employers, like those of the merit shop electrical 
contracting industry.

    Established in 1957, Independent Electrical Contractors is a trade 
association representing 3,600 members with more than 50 chapters and 
training centers nationwide. Headquartered in Arlington, VA., IEC is 
the Nation's premier trade association representing America's 
independent electrical and systems contractors. IEC National 
aggressively works with the industry to establish a competitive 
environment for the merit shop--a philosophy that promotes the concept 
of free enterprise, open competition, and economic opportunity for all.

    The PRO Act contains many radical proposals. One of the most 
damaging would limit employees' ability to choose or reject union 
representation through secret ballots. Secret ballots are a vital 
component of a functioning democracy, but the PRO Act vastly increases 
the circumstances under which the government could impose union 
representation despite employees voting against such representation in 
a secret ballot election. The bill attempts to justify disregarding the 
election results by making the government-imposed union representation 
contingent on the fact that at some point in the past a majority of 
employees signed ``authorization cards.'' This is known as ``card 
check,'' a concept that was rightly rejected by Congress over 10 years 
ago during the debate on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). As 
Members of Congress understood then, card check is no substitution for 
a secret ballot election. The process of collecting cards is a public 
one that is innately susceptible to coercion--where union organizers 
present employees with cards to sign in front of coworkers. Organizers 
are then free to share with employees who has or has not signed cards, 
needlessly exposing workers to intimidation and possibly harassment.

    The bill would also codify into law an expansive joint-employer 
standard, exposing merit shop electrical contractors to liability in 
nearly every contractual relationship for unlawful behavior committed 
by another contractor with which they do business. Such a standard 
would insert unnecessary and additional risks into the traditional 
contractor-subcontractor relationship, which could eventually lead to 
the larger contractor imposing far more control over the smaller 
subcontractor, or possibly refusing to do business with a small 
contractor altogether and choosing to bring the function in-house. 
Ultimately, the small contractors seeking to grow and expand would feel 
the negative repercussions of this policy change.

    In addition, the PRO Act contains policies that would infringe on 
employees' rights to privacy and association. The bill mandates 
employers to provide to union organizers the contact information for 
all employees without prior approval from the employees themselves. 
Employees would not be able to opt out of this requirement and would 
not have a say in which contact information is provided, again exposing 
workers to potential harassment. The bill also rejects the rights of 
states to implement Right-to-Work laws by eliminating Right-to-Work 
protections nationwide. This legislation would go against the twenty-
seven states with Right-to-Work laws in place, which give employees the 
option not to fund union activities they do not support.

    Finally, there are additional provisions in the PRO Act that 
completely disregard employers' due process rights, which include:

          The inability for employers to challenge union 
        misconduct during union elections.

          Fundamentally eliminating an employer's right to 
        outside counsel on complex labor laws.

          Allowing for secondary boycotts, which would permit 
        unions to target neutral third parties and cause them economic 
        injury even if those entities have no underlying labor dispute 
        with the union.

    While this statement does not outline every provision of the PRO 
Act, it does outline many of its radical proposals that would amend the 
Nation's labor laws for the sole purpose of increasing union membership 
without regard to the rights of employees, employers, or the impact to 
the overall economy. For these reasons IEC urges the Members of the 
Senate HELP Committee to reject the PRO Act.
                                 ______
                                 
    Intermodal Association of North America (IANA),
                                                     April 5, 2023.
Senator Bernie Sanders, Chairman,
Senator Bill Cassidy, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy and Members of the 
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:

    On behalf of the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA), a 
leading transportation trade association representing the combined 
interests of the intermodal freight industry, I am writing to express 
our opposition to the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to 
Organize (PRO) Act, S. 567.

    As the only transportation trade association that represents the 
combined interests of intermodal freight providers and customers, IANA 
represents more than 1,000 corporate members, including railroads, 
ocean carriers, ports, intermodal truckers and over-the-road highway 
carriers, intermodal marketing and logistic companies, and suppliers to 
the industry. IANA's associate (non-voting) members include shippers 
(defined as the beneficial owners of the freight to be shipped), 
academic institutions, government entities, and non-profit trade 
associations. This diverse and broad-based group of stakeholders 
opposes the PRO Act for a number of reasons, which are outlined below.

    Motor carriers are crucial participants in the Nation's 
international and domestic intermodal network. For decades, the 
prevailing business model for intermodal trucking companies that 
transport freight, prior and subsequent to movements by water and rail, 
has involved the use of independent contractors. The independent 
contractor business model is indispensable to the intermodal industry, 
offering operational and financial flexibility to motor carriers, 
allowing them to adapt and respond to natural elasticity and volatility 
in the cargo transportation market. The PRO Act would adversely impact 
this business model and will have a negative effect not only on the 
intermodal industry, but the entire supply chain. Attached, as 
additional information, is a white paper which describes the 
relationship of Owner-Operators to the Intermodal Freight Industry.

    Second, the PRO Act wrongfully eliminates important liberties 
enjoyed by owner-operators, many of which are small, minority-owned 
businesses. As proud, independent business owners, independent 
contractors can express their freedom of choice by personally investing 
in, and operating, their own company. These small business owners earn 
a Commercial Driver's License, invest in a tractor, and bear the 
associated operating costs attributable to registration, licensing, 
insurance, and fuel. They also invest a significant amount of time 
developing their knowledge of and complying with Federal and state 
safety regulations. In many cases, independent contractors also operate 
under their own U.S. Department of Transportation-approved operating 
authority and develop a wide customer base.

    Owner-operators currently can determine the number of motor 
carriers they choose to work with and freely enter into multiple 
contractual arrangements. This permits the individual to make daily 
operating decisions based on his/her availability to perform drayage 
services. Each owner-operator makes a conscious choice to remain an 
independent contractor, but also has the ability to secure full-time 
employment in the trucking industry. The PRO Act eliminates this 
important freedom that so many individuals find personally fulfilling.

    Finally, Congress should carefully evaluate the real-world, 
economic consequences of California's analogous legislation, known as 
Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), before considering enacting similar provisions 
on a national level. Presently, AB 5 is the subject of ongoing Federal 
litigation. If the PRO Act proceeds without first consciously exploring 
whether exemptions should be included for motor carriers and owner-
operators and before reviewing the outcomes of current litigation, the 
legislation would likely face numerous legal challenges in courts 
across the Nation.

    In summary, IANA strongly opposes the PRO Act as it is currently 
drafted. The legislation essentially eliminates the independent 
contractor model for motor carriers involved in intermodal drayage. 
Disruption caused by this wholesale destruction of this existing 
business model will have an adverse effect upon the entire intermodal 
supply chain, injuring not only motor carriers, but also rail and ocean 
carriers, third-party logistics companies, and the customers they 
serve. Further, the legislation wrongfully eliminates the freedom of 
individuals to operate as small business owners, a pursuit that so many 
find fulfilling. Finally, valuable lessons can be learned by examining 
the effects of similar statewide legislation in California as well as 
the results of associated litigation. These impacts should be 
thoroughly assessed prior to implementing such significant changes at 
the Federal level.

    Thank you for allowing IANA to share its views on the PRO Act. 
Please let me know if you or your staff would like to discuss our 
position in further detail.
            Sincerely,
                                           Joanne F. Casey,
                                                 President and CEO,
                           Intermodal Association of North America.
                                 ______
                                 
        National Small Business Association (NSBA),
                                                     April 6, 2023.
Senator Bernie Sanders, Chairman,
Senator Bill Cassidy, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC 20510.
The Honorable Virginia Foxx, Chair,
The Honorable Bobby Scott, Ranking Member,
U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, DC 2051.

    Dear Chair Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy, Chair Foxx, and Ranking 
Member Scott:

    I write to you on behalf of the National Small Business Association 
(NSBA). The NSBA advocates for the needs of millions of small 
businesses nationally through its network of over 65,000 small 
companies. Representing companies of all sectors in every corner of the 
country, NSBA works on a proactive and bipartisan basis to improve the 
economic climate for small business growth and success.

    We write to you to express caution around the Protecting the Right 
to Organize PRO Act (H.R. 20, S. 567) which, if enacted will pose far-
reaching negative impacts on workers, small businesses, employers, 
contractors, and unions alike.
                    Impact on Small Business Owners
    The PRO Act would enable secondary picketing and protesting from 
unions at store fronts that happen to sell a brand or item affiliated 
with a union strike or altercation, enabling protestors to direct 
aggression toward small businesses on Main Street. Known as secondary 
boycotts, the PRO Act would make it legal for protestors to disrupt the 
flow of business and commerce by granting protections to protests at 
individual storefronts that have no legal affiliation to the boycott or 
union dispute at hand.

    The Act also implements a slew of new and daunting regulatory 
changes that businesses must comply with, increasing the amount of 
paperwork and red tape that is associated with keeping a small business 
in compliance with the law. At a time in which business owners are just 
beginning to step out of the economic turmoil faced during the 
pandemic, the Act would place more barriers on small business owners 
who are simply trying to keep their doors open and heads above water. 
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  https://nrf.com/blog/4-ways-pro-act-hurts-small-businesses
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Impact on Independent Contractor Status
    The PRO Act is especially concerning for our membership base, as 
many small business owners in our network utilize independent 
contractors or are independent contractors themselves. Coupled with the 
rulemaking at the NLRB on changing independent contractor 
classification, the PRO Act would change business as we know it today. 
To that end, the PRO Act would codify the strict "ABC" test for 
determining independent contractor status. \2\ The ABC test makes it 
very difficult for workers to qualify as independent contractors, 
resulting in many small business owners and employees losing their 
status as independent contractors. Therefore, the PRO Act would make it 
increasingly difficult for small businesses utilizing or operating as 
independent contractors to retain autonomy over their business model. 
Under this practice, employers that currently contract for leased or 
temporary workers may have to reassess or change their business 
practices to compensate, skewing calculated growth trajectories and 
strategies for small businesses in our network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\  https://myprivateballot.com/issues/pro-act/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Impact on Joint-Employer Standards and Franchise Ownership
    The NSBA is a supporter of the franchise model as a means to small 
business ownership. However, the PRO Act's provisions would relegate 
franchisees as employees of the national brand, thus discouraging 
entrepreneurial individuals from choosing to own and operate a 
franchise in the pursuit of entrepreneurship. If the law defines these 
franchisee owners as employees, it will discourage them from pursuing 
the American Dream through franchise opportunities. As a result of this 
legislation, in California, national franchise brands are already 
considering the option to run their fully-owned stores themselves, 
rather than empower local entrepreneurs.

    In the U.S., franchising currently accounts for more than 733,000 
businesses that employ over 7.6 million Americans. \3\ These franchises 
are overwhelmingly run on a small business scale, by determined local 
entrepreneurs. If enacted the legislation would increase the liability 
of franchise brands by shifting responsibility for labor violations 
incurred by a local owner to the national brand, which will decrease 
the availability of franchisee opportunities for entrepreneurs across 
the country for fear of litigation. Overall, the joint-employer 
standards created under the PRO Act are too vague, too far-reaching, 
and too binding. If passed, the legislation would significantly reduce 
the number of franchisees (and entrepreneurs) in the country as a 
result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\  https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbevis-2019-03-27--franchises-
drive-job-and-economic--growth
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Impact on the Freedom to Choose Unionization
    Not least of all, under the PRO Act, employees across the country 
would be required to contribute fees to a labor organization, 
eliminating the freedom to choose whether workers want to fund union 
activity despite existing state laws. \4\ Business owners with 
employees in unions would be required to submit personal employee 
information such as cell phone numbers, email addresses, and physical 
addresses to labor unions without an employee's consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\  https://myprivateballot.com/issues/pro-act/

    In removing employee input in union activity, the PRO Act also 
removes employer input in setting how the union employee election 
proceedings take place, granting the NLRB discretion to allow unions to 
determine the parameters of elections such as dates, mail-in versus in-
person, and location. Depriving employees of voting rights will 
encourage unions to file charges in order to gain representation 
without a majority consensus among said employees, effectively 
disenfranchising employees who do not support unionization. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\  https://www.natlawreview.com/article/labor-law-reform-horizon-
ten-things-to-watch-under-pro-act

    While the NSBA remains an advocate for labor policy that is 
conducive to better business operations, employee benefits (like 
healthcare and retirement options), and sound employee-employer 
relationship building, the PRO Act is not the way to achieve any of 
those goals. The PRO Act goes against the independence of small 
business owners and their ability to conduct business operations that 
are beneficial to their employees, customers, and business practices. 
We urge Congress to reconsider the negative impacts of the Act on our 
nation's smallest businesses and look forward to working with Members 
of Congress to put forth alternative recommendations to improve labor 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
policy for all.

    We thank you for your time and consideration of our priorities and 
we look forward to discussing this further with your office.

    If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to 
reach out to me directly at [email protected].
            Yours truly,
                                            Todd McCracken,
                                           President & CEO,
                        National Small Business Association (NSBA).
                                 ______
                                 
   Associated General Contractors of America (AGC),
                                                 February 27, 2023.
Senator Bernie Sanders, Chairman,
Senator Bill Cassidy, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy and Members of the 
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:

    Reintroduction of the PRO Act proves that bad ideas never die, as 
Members of Congress push a measure that will harm the economy measure 
will disrupt an economy already struggling with inflation and supply 
chain challenges, increasing the risk of a recession, and forces 
workers to become the victims of unrelated disputes.

    The Associated General Contractors of America's chief executive 
officer, Stephen E. Sandherr, issued the following statement in 
reaction to the reintroduction in Congress tomorrow of the so-called 
PRO Act:

    ``Bad ideas in DC are a lot like weeds: no matter what you do, they 
keep coming back. A prime example of that is the pending reintroduction 
of the PRO Act. This anti-worker, anti-privacy and anti-growth measure 
will harm our economy at a time when many employers are struggling to 
cope with inflation, supply chain disruptions and labor shortages.

    ``By allowing secondary boycotts and other actions against firms 
that are not directly involved in labor disputes, the measure will 
force many workers to remain idle because of disagreements where they 
do not stand to benefit. The measure also makes it extremely difficult 
for entrepreneurial workers to establish their own businesses by 
discriminating against independent contractors.

    ``More broadly, the PRO Act will unleash a new era of labor unrest 
and strikes that the country has not seen since President Truman had to 
Federalize the steel industry during the Korean War. Worse, the PRO Act 
undermines the collective bargaining process that has been the central 
pillar of union construction for the past half century.

    ``Despite the many flaws of this bill, some in Congress continue to 
push a policy that will harm the economy, hurt workers, and make a 
recession far more likely. While we assume Congress will not support 
this measure, we taken nothing for granted and will aggressively work 
to again protect the American worker and economy from this harmful 
measure.''
                                 ______
                                 
     American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA),
                                                    March 16, 2023.
Senator Bernie Sanders, Chairman,
Senator Bill Cassidy, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Cassidy.

    The lodging industry is proud to provide a pathway for fulfilling 
careers and the means for employees and entrepreneurs to achieve the 
American Dream. If enacted, this bill's drastic restructure of the 
Nation's labor laws would result in economic hardship for small 
businesses, infringe on employees' privacy rights, undermine workplace 
flexibility and upward mobility, and erode relations between employees 
and employers.

    While every worker has the right to freely join a union, the PRO 
Act would subvert secret ballot elections and manufacture joint 
employer liability in an effort to impose a union on businesses and 
workers. Additionally, the economic impact of the PRO Act would be 
catastrophic. An American Action Forum study \1\ found that the bill's 
independent worker reclassification provision alone could cost as much 
as $57 billion nationwide, while the joint-employer changes would cost 
franchises--which accounts for most hotels in the United States--up to 
$33.3 billion a year, lead to over 350,000 job losses, and increase 
lawsuits by 93 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  Study available at https://www.americanactionforum.org/
research/state-level-costs-of-the-protecting-the-right-to-organize-
act/.

    We strongly oppose this bill, which threatens to destroy jobs and 
assail businesses just as our economy is beginning to return to pre-
pandemic normalcy. Given the significant damage this bill would cause 
if enacted, AHLA urges Congress to reject this legislation and protect 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the rights of America's workers, small businesses, and consumers.

    AHLA is grateful for your leadership, and we look forward to 
working with you and your colleagues to support America's hotel 
industry.
            Sincerely,
                                               Chip Rogers,
                                         President and CEO,
                            American Hotel and Lodging Association.
                                 ______
                                 
        Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA),
                                                 February 28, 2023.
Senator Bernie Sanders, Chairman,
Senator Bill Cassidy, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Cassidy.

    The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) urges Members of the 
House to oppose the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act).In 
an attempt to rewrite the laws for organizing in the United States, the 
PRO Act would not only limit the rights of employers and workers but 
create substantial economic disruption by eliminating decades long 
checks on abusive activities by union leaders. RILA strongly opposes 
this legislation because it undermines the balanced relationship 
between workers and businesses in favor of organized labor.

    RILA is the U.S. trade association for leading retailers. We 
convene decisionmakers, advocate for the industry, and promote 
operational excellence and innovation. Our aim is to elevate a dynamic 
industry by transforming the environment in which retailers operate. 
RILA members include more than 200 retailers, product manufacturers, 
and service suppliers, which together account for more than $1.5 
trillion in annual sales, millions of American jobs, and more than 
100,000 stores, manufacturing facilities, and distribution centers 
domestically and abroad.

    Economic peace and prosperity are created by several factors--
strong consumer demand and confidence, robust investment by businesses 
in labor and capital as well as legal and regulatory certainty. Leading 
retailers are making record investments in their workforces through 
wage increases, new benefits, and workforce development. Consumer 
demand remains strong as well, but the PRO Act risks economic 
uncertainty by repealing decades worth of regulatory and legal 
precedent. Specifically, the PRO Act seeks to repeal prohibitions on 
certain disruptive, and at times violent, union activities that created 
interstate economic havoc in the 1930's and 1940's--namely strikes and 
secondary boycott activities. These activities are unduly burdensome 
not only to the neutral business but also to the broader interstate 
commerce of the United States. For this reason, Congress overwhelmingly 
passed the Taft-Hartley Act to rightly outlaw intimidation involving 
union ``threats,'' ``coercion,'' and ``restraints'' against neutral 
employers. Congress needs to keep these failed and outdated labor laws 
in the past because they impede innovation, disrupt communication 
between employers and employees, and stifle the flow of commerce.

    Leading retailers urge Members of Congress to reject the PRO Act 
and instead work on building a 21st Century Workforce that has forward-
thinking proposals that empower workers, promote innovation, and enable 
retailers to invest in their people and their communities. For more 
information, contact me at [email protected] or visit https://
www.rila.org/focus-areas/human-resources/protecting-the-right-to-
organize.act.
            Sincerely,
                                            Evan Armstrong,
                                            Vice President,
                                          Workforce Policy,
                        Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA).
                                 ______
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

  response by liz shuler to question of senator casey, senator lujan, 
              senator hickenlooper, and senator tuberville
                             Senator Casey
    Question 1. A recent report found that corporations spent $340 
million yearly just on union-busting consultants, plus untold millions 
more on advertising campaigns and ``captive audience'' meetings around 
union elections. They spend that money to try to convince workers not 
to exercise their labor rights or to try to sway votes ahead of union 
elections. To add insult to injury--corporations can write off these 
anti-unionization efforts as run-of-the-mill business expenses.

    Question 1(a). What kind of message does it send to workers that 
the Federal Government is subsidizing their bosses' union-busting 
expenses?

    Answer 1. Workers see that corporations are taking in billions in 
profit. They also see that the National Labor Relations Act is weak, 
the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is underfunded and organizing 
is incredibly difficult. For workers, organizing means risking 
everything, because employers violate the law with impunity. When 
workers see that the government is effectively subsidizing union-
busting activity, it suggests that the government is working for 
corporations and against working people. It is demoralizing and chills 
union activity.

    Hardworking taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize employers' 
efforts to silence workers and deny them the opportunity to engage in 
collective action.

    The recent wave of union organizing across the country highlights 
what we have known for some time: Millions of workers want a voice in 
the workplace. Unfortunately, employers have responded to this wave of 
worker organizing not by respecting their employees' right to form a 
union, but instead by spending millions of dollars on union-busting 
consultants dedicated to destroying the union organizing campaign at 
any cost.

    The existing policy of the United States is to encourage the 
practice and procedure of collective bargaining by protecting workers' 
designation of representatives of their own choosing (29 U.S.C. Sec.  
151). The United States should not, consistent with that existing 
policy, subsidize employer efforts to avoid collective bargaining by 
allowing the costs of such efforts to be deductible.

    To level the playing field and make sure workers truly have a fair 
shot when they seek to engage in collective action or form a union, 
Congress must eliminate all Federal incentives for interfering with 
organizing efforts. As President Biden has explained, the decision to 
join a union ``belongs to workers, not to their employers.''

    Question 2. I recently introduced the Stop Spying Bosses Act to 
protect and empower workers against the growing trend of invasive and 
exploitative surveillance technologies that allow their employers to 
treat them like pieces of equipment. Recent reports include cases of 
workers who use the bathroom or pump breast milk seeing lower 
productivity scores due to the constant monitoring during those short 
breaks. Employers are also using these technologies to violate, 
monitor, or preempt workers' right to organize. Amazon workers are 
being fired by bots and are left with few options to dispute employment 
decisions or speak to a human manager to understand how the decision 
was reached. As the recent decision from the Administrative Law Judge 
in Buffalo notes, Starbucks used headsets to closley supervise, monitor 
or create the impression that employees' union activities are under 
surveillance.'' There are countless examples, and the Spying Bosses Act 
is a first step to level the playing field for workers by holding their 
bosses accountable for using invasive technology against them. American 
workers are the backbone of our Country, and they deserve to be treated 
with basic dignity at work.

    Question 2(a). Do employers' invasive workplace surveillance 
tactics impact workers' organizing efforts?

    Answer 2. Employer surveillance, monitoring and other intrusive 
tactics can affect organizing on multiple fronts. It is inherently 
intimidating to know that your employer is tracking your every move and 
your productivity. But common tactics such as keycard tracking, email 
monitoring, social media surveillance and comprehensive worker 
profiling (often in the guise of safety and productivity) chill 
organizing activity and allow companies to circumvent labor law.

    Using these tactics, employers are profiling workers and gaining 
insights into employees' personal sentiments--including which workers 
support the union or are undecided. Information about workers' personal 
lives is inherently recorded as well. Consider the example of the 
mailbox at the Amazon plant in Bessemer, Alabama. By placing the 
mailbox in front of the plant and creating the impression of 
surveillance, Amazon made employees feel like their employer knew 
whether they were voting for the union. We need to regulate employer 
use of surveillance technologies and ensure workers have knowledge of 
and access to whatever information is being collected.
                             Senator Lujan
    Seventy-one percent of Americans now approve of labor unions--the 
highest Gallup has recorded on this measure since 1965--and this 
sentiment is expanding to new industries. Workers in the tech industry 
have increasingly shown an interest in unionizing. Unfortunately, many 
tech companies are using the same union-busting tactics that are all 
too common across the economy.

    For example, Kirsten Civick, an employee at Apple, said at an event 
last week about a successful organizing drive that she helped to lead 
with the Communications Workers of America that, ``At one point, we had 
14 managers in our store, which allowed our management more time to 
berate us in groups and individually about how bad the union was. Some 
of my coworkers were so upset that they cried after those meetings.''

    Question 1. President Shuler, given how hard companies work to 
prevent workers from organizing, do you believe that Congress needs to 
act to stop those companies from preventing workers who have 
successfully organized from securing a first contract?

    Answer 1. Too often, when workers choose to form a union, employers 
refuse to even sit down and bargain, or they drag out the bargaining 
process for as long as possible to avoid reaching a first collective 
bargaining agreement.

    Employers engage in this kind of behavior because the lack of 
progress in reaching a first contract undermines worker support for the 
union and because employers face no monetary penalties for such bad-
faith bargaining.

    As a result, more than half of all newly formed private sector 
unions still do not have a first contract after 1 year, and 37 percent 
lack a first contract after 2 years. Countless workers vote to form a 
union but never get to enjoy the benefits of a union contract because 
of employer resistance.

    Congress can fix this by passing the Protecting the Right to 
Organize (PRO) Act. The PRO Act creates a road map for workers and 
management to reach a first contract through mediation and arbitration. 
This way, workers will know that a contract is not far off after they 
win an election. Employers will no longer be able to stall for years to 
avoid an agreement.

    If Congress passes the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, 
workers everywhere also will not have to face the type of union-busting 
campaign that doctors in Gallup, New Mexico did. When they started 
organizing, their hospital hired outside consultants to lead captive 
audience meetings. One consultant at this hospital told employees he 
was paid $425 an hour to organize these meetings. It seems to me if 
companies can afford to fight union organizing, they may be able to 
give workers a raise, or make schedules more predictable.

    Despite an intense union-busting campaign, these New Mexico doctors 
successfully voted to create the first physicians' union in the state 
in October 2021. But if Congress passed the Protecting the Right to 
Organize Act, we would ban these anti-union scare tactics and require 
employers to reveal when they bring in anti-union consultants.

    Question 2. President Shuler, why is it so critical that workers 
know when their employer is using anti-union consultants to influence 
their fight for a union?

    Answer 2. I find it interesting that one of union busters' most 
prevalent and most misleading attacks is that a union is a ``third 
party'' and that the employer prefers ``direct communication'' with 
employees.

    First, unions are not a third party--unions are the workers 
themselves at the job who come together collectively for a stronger 
voice on the job. Workers on the job negotiate the contract and decide 
what to bargain for, and those same workers must ratify the collective 
bargaining agreement.

    Second, these union-busting consultants are an actual third party. 
These are highly paid operatives whom employers bring in to design the 
union-busting campaign, intimidate workers and develop anti-union 
propaganda. If the employer is paying more than $2,500 per day for 
union busters, it shows employees what the employer cares about. Why 
are they paying a third party when they can pay the people performing 
the actual work?

    Question 3. President Shuler, you explained that employers are not 
required to oppose union organizing efforts in their workplaces. You 
detailed numerous examples of unions and employers working together to 
improve outcomes for everyone involved. Can you talk a little about how 
unions and collective bargaining can add value and be a positive force 
for workers, businesses, and the customers they may serve?

    Answer 3. When workers act collectively in a union they feel heard, 
respected and protected, and they are able to bargain more effectively 
for better pay, benefits and access to health care. Corporate CEOs 
fight unions by any means necessary because they wrongly believe that 
collective bargaining and shared decisionmaking hurt business. But 
corporate bosses are missing the forest for the trees. Collective 
bargaining improves outcomes for everyone. When workers have a say in 
their workplace, turnover decreases, productivity increases and worker 
satisfaction improves.

    Workers don't form unions because they want their employers to do 
poorly. That doesn't make sense and is against their best interest. 
Workers form unions to ensure that their voice--the voice of the people 
performing the work--is heard, respected and incorporated. Corporations 
perceive worker organizing as a problem when in reality it is a great 
opportunity.

    I have seen the recent polling on worker support for unions. It 
seems there is a discrepancy between worker interest in unions and 
workers able to join a union. You mentioned that the AFL-CIO is working 
to meet worker demand for unions.

    Question 4. President Shuler, what steps is the AFL-CIO and its 
member union taking to address this uptick in interest?

    Answer 4. The AFL-CIO and our affiliated unions have invested in a 
new approach to multi-union organizing through our Center for 
Transformational Organizing (CTO). The CTO is a strategic hub for 
cross-union organizing that is focused on building worker power in 
emerging industries and sectors of the economy--especially in new 
manufacturing and clean energy. But simply creating new jobs in 
manufacturing, clean energy or elsewhere is not enough--we must make 
sure these jobs pay high wages and offer good benefits, which is not 
always the case. Most manufacturing jobs, for example, pay less than 
$20 per hour, and a quarter of the jobs pay less than $15 per hour. We 
continue to see increased use of staffing agencies with typically lower 
standards, and even child labor. Manufacturing jobs can be good jobs if 
workers have the opportunity to bargain collectively. Manufacturing in 
the United States is changing as we drive toward a more sustainable 
future.

    The labor movement is using new, innovative approaches to reach 
workers who are disconnected with unions. We are working with community 
partners on the ground to raise awareness about rights; we're 
increasing our use of online engagement tools to connect workers to one 
another so they can build shop floor power together; we're connecting 
them to their peers who have unions in similar industries so they can 
learn from one another; and we're increasing access to union 
apprenticeships and training as a pathway to better jobs for those 
historically excluded.

    Question 5. President Shuler, can you speak to the difference in 
organizing success under a neutrality agreement vs. an anti-union 
campaign?

    Answer 5. There are plenty of examples of employers who voluntarily 
choose to remain neutral during an organizing campaign, and the 
benefits are tangible. For workers, withstanding an anti-union campaign 
is harrowing. Every day, workers must be prepared for relentless 
employer meetings, intimidation and propaganda on the union. Consider 
Amazon, a company that went so far as to place anti-union posters 
inside bathroom stalls. There is no place within the workplace for 
employees to hide.

    Neutrality agreements allow the debate to take place between the 
workers themselves--the people who are making the decision on whether 
to bargain collectively. This leads to less conflict in the workplace, 
more secure and open discussions, and a stable environment where 
workplace democracy can play out.

    Companies under the law today have the ability to voluntarily 
recognize a union. If workers come together and ask for recognition 
from the company, the company can voluntarily recognize them, but most 
companies don't. We have some examples of employers who have taken the 
high road. The University of Vermont Medical Center remained neutral 
when 2,000 hospital staff organized just a few months ago.

    Similarly, the Rooted School, a charter school in New Orleans, 
decided to voluntarily recognize their employees' union after a 
majority requested representation. Now, they are building on that to 
engage in a collaborative bargaining process. There are employers like 
Microsoft that said: ``You know what? If our workers want to join a 
union, we should let that happen.'' So the company pledged neutrality 
with the Communications Workers of America (CWA). Microsoft recognized 
the trend of workers seeking to organize, and sought to work with the 
union because the company acknowledged the benefits of stable labor 
relations and collective bargaining.

    I understand that workers who want to form a union often cannot 
talk with or meet with union representatives at their jobs. However, 
employers can talk to employees about their views on union membership 
at any moment during the workday--including in captive, anti-union 
meetings.

    Question 6. President Shuler, how do the NLRB rules, which require 
that an employer share employee contact information with the union 
before an election, make the process fairer?

    Answer 6. For the past 55 years, when workers came together to form 
a union, employers were required to turn over a voter list with the 
names and addresses of employees to make sure workers had access to 
information both for and against unionization, and the Supreme Court 
upheld this requirement in 1969.

    Employers have nearly constant access to workers. Not only at work, 
but through email, text, phone, mail, etc. There is an inherent 
disadvantage for workers seeking to organize because they are 
prohibited from doing so during much of the time at work. In contrast, 
employers have carte blanche on their ability to bombard employees with 
anti-union propaganda wherever they are. Ensuring that workers who are 
organizing have access to their co-workers' contact information simply 
levels the playing field and ensures the free flow of information.

    Question 7. President Shuler, how can we ensure that employees get 
critical information regarding the organizing campaign in a timely 
fashion during the election process?

    Answer 7. In 2014, the NLRB issued a regulation to update the voter 
list requirement to include email addresses and cellphone numbers, and 
the PRO Act would codify the NLRB's 2014 regulation. Ensuring that 
workers have critical information regarding the organizing campaign in 
a timely fashion is just one way that the PRO Act would protect workers 
and strengthen the right to organize.
                          Senator Hickenlooper
    According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center, the 
share of adults who live in middle-class households fell by more than 
10 percent over the last 50 years. \1\ This comes at the same time that 
union membership has decreased amid intense pressure against efforts to 
organize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  Kochhar, R., & Sechopoulos, S. (2022, April 21). How the 
American Middle Class has changed in the past five decades. Pew 
Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/
2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-
decades/

    Question 1. How do your unions communicate with workers who are not 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
members to explain the benefits of union membership?

    Answer 1. The AFL-CIO works tirelessly to improve the lives of all 
working people--union and nonunion. We are the democratic, voluntary 
federation of 60 national and international labor unions that represent 
12.5 million working people. We strive to ensure that all working 
people are treated fairly, with decent paychecks and benefits, safe 
jobs, dignity and equal opportunities.

    We help people acquire valuable skills and job readiness for the 
21st-century economy. In fact, we operate the largest training network 
outside the U.S. military. Our work is anchored in making sure everyone 
who works for a living has family supporting wages and benefits and the 
ability to retire with dignity.

    We advance legislation to create good jobs by investing tax dollars 
in schools, roads, bridges, ports and airports, and improving workers' 
lives through education, job training and a livable minimum wage. We 
advocate for strengthening Social Security and private pensions, 
ensuring fair tax policies and making high-quality, affordable health 
care available to all. We fight for keeping good jobs at home by 
reforming trade rules, reindustrializing the U.S. economy and providing 
worker protections in the global economy.

    We stand firm in holding corporations accountable for their 
actions. We help make safe, equitable workplaces and give working 
people a collective voice to address workplace injustices without the 
fear of retaliation. We fight for social and economic justice and 
strive to vanquish oppression in all its forms.

    The AFL-CIO's state federations and central labor councils are the 
heart of the movement. These local organizations partner with state and 
community organizations and conduct local, state and national campaigns 
to improve the lives of working families--regardless of union 
membership. They stretch from Anchorage, AL, to Miami Springs, FL, from 
Brewer, ME, to Honolulu, HI, and everywhere in between. Our network 
represents the broadest, most diverse avenue for educating and engaging 
working people in America around the issues that can make their lives 
better.

    We conduct education programming, like our Common Sense Economics 
training, that is available to working people in every part of the 
country. Through our education programming we are able to connect 
working people across demographic and geographic lines around the 
common challenges they face, the solutions to those challenges, and 
concrete action steps they can take to make the country a better place 
for themselves and their families.

    We strive to make sure all workers understand and enjoy the 
benefits of collective action. Working people who come together in a 
union can bargain for higher wages, and union members also are more 
likely to have employer-provided health insurance, access to paid sick 
days, and retirement benefits and guaranteed pensions through private 
employers.

    Question 2. Please discuss the broader benefits of unionization to 
our economy as a whole and workers throughout the country?

    Answer 2. Workplaces with unions provide more predictable 
schedules, safer workplaces and better benefits. Not only do union 
members receive higher wages than workers without a union, but research 
shows that even nonunion workers benefit from the mere presence of 
unions in their community. Unions effectively set higher labor 
standards--including higher wages--that drive nonunion employers in the 
community to raise their standards in order to hire and retain workers. 
According to the Economic Policy Institute, had union density not 
declined over the past few decades, the typical worker today would earn 
$3,250 more per year.

    The union difference is even higher for women and workers of color. 
Wages for women represented by a union are 4.7 percent higher than 
their nonunion counterparts. Black union members earn 13.1 percent more 
than nonunion Black workers, and Latino union members earn 18.8 percent 
more than their nonunion Latino peers.

    Everyone wins when workers have a voice. The benefits of unions and 
collective bargaining extend far beyond the workplace. Communities do 
better when unions are present. Unions increase civic engagement, 
reduce racial resentment among White workers and increase legislative 
responsiveness toward the poor.

    The 17 U.S. states with the highest union densities have state 
minimum wages that are on average 19 percent higher than the national 
average and 40 percent higher than those in low-union-density states; 
have median annual incomes that are $6,000 higher than the national 
average; have a higher share of those who are unemployed who actually 
receive unemployment insurance; have an uninsured (without health 
insurance) population 4.5 percentage points lower, on average, than 
that of low-union-density states; have all elected to expand Medicaid, 
protecting their residents from falling into the ``coverage gap''; have 
significantly fewer restrictive voting laws; and are more likely to 
have passed paid sick leave laws and paid family and medical leave laws 
than states with lower union densities.

    As we work to advance the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to 
Organize (PRO) Act, I want to make sure that we are communicating 
clearly and often with those who will be impacted by it. We want to set 
small businesses up to success and follow the rules. Most small 
businesses care about their workers and want to take care of them, but 
are pulled in so many directions that they can't always keep track of 
all of the rules they are supposed to follow.

    Question 3. How can we better educate and equip small businesses to 
comply with the PRO Act and generally understand proper Federal labor 
law compliance?

    Answer 3. A significant deficiency in the National Labor Relations 
Act (NLRA) is that, unlike other workplace laws, employers are not 
required to inform employees of their rights under the NLRA. Pursuant 
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and other workplace laws, 
employers must post or inform workers of the rights that correspond 
with the law. These posting requirements inform employees but also 
serve as a fantastic resource for businesses to familiarize themselves 
with the law. Because the NLRA lacks a notice-posting requirement, many 
employers may be less familiar with the law or not know about it at 
all.

    The PRO Act would bring the NLRA into alignment with other 
workplace laws by requiring employers to post notices informing 
employees of their rights under the NLRA, giving the NLRA the same 
visibility as other laws. This would ensure that small businesses are 
familiar with the NLRA and have the contact information of the National 
Labor Relations Board.

    Question 4. How can we help small businesses help their workers?

    Answer 4. Workers are the best resource for information on what 
they need and what would improve their lives. Small businesses that sit 
at the bargaining table with their workers will learn exactly what 
aspects of the business are working and where new opportunities are. 
Bargaining allows small businesses and their workers to listen and 
solve problems together, because workers are the ones who know how to 
do their jobs the best and make the company more successful.
                            Senator Cassidy
    Question 1. At a recent press conference, you talked about the 
``fight,'' the ``incredible organizing effort going on in Bessemer, 
Alabama'' at the Amazon facility there. The only fight there is the 
union fighting the employees who have voted clearly twice in opposition 
of forming a union.

    Question 1(a). Do you know how much money the union has spent there 
over the last two-and-a-half years in order to lose two elections?

    Answer 1. The AFL-CIO is a federation of 60 national and 
international labor unions that represent 12.5 million working people. 
Our affiliates are self-sustaining, independent labor organizations, 
and thus the specific budgetary details of any single affiliate are not 
within my purview. I am aware, however, that Amazon spent nearly $4.3 
million in 2021 on union-busting consultants to stomp out its 
employees' organizing efforts. In fact, Amazon paid those consultants 
more than $3,000 per day, plus expenses--more than Amazon warehouse 
workers earn in a month.

    Question 2. You criticize employers and say employers delay the 
voting process and the collective bargaining negotiation process. That 
hasn't happened in Bessemer. It's the union that is refusing to let 
employee ballots be opened.

    Question 2(a). Shouldn't the union allow every ballot to be 
counted?

    Answer 2. All validly cast votes should be counted in every union 
election.

    Question 2(b). Does the union think the employees don't know what 
they voted against?

    Answer 2(b). I cannot speak to what any individual ``union 
thinks.'' Union elections, like all elections, should be free from 
harassment, intimidation, and fear tactics that often suppress worker 
voice and deter voter turnout. Both the employer and the union have 
filed objections to the most recent election at the Amazon facility in 
Bessemer. The National Labor Relations Board is currently investigating 
the parties' objections.

    Question 2(c). Why doesn't the union respect those two votes?

    Answer 2(c). I cannot speak to what any individual ``union 
thinks.'' Union elections, like all elections, should be free from 
harassment, intimidation, and fear tactics that often suppress worker 
voice and deter voter turnout. Both the employer and the union have 
filed objections to the most recent election at the Amazon facility in 
Bessemer. The National Labor Relations Board is currently investigating 
the parties' objections.

    Question 3. At the same press conference mentioned above, you 
mentioned an employee by name--who you say Amazon fired because he was 
a union supporter.

    Question 3(a). Are you aware that he filed a charge with the NLRB 
challenging his termination?

    Answer 3. As the president of the AFL-CIO, the largest federation 
of unions in the United States, representing over 12.5 million workers, 
I speak at press conferences to uplift workers' organizing efforts very 
often. I tell the stories of many workers across the country--including 
multiple union supporters at the Bessemer facility--who were terminated 
during an organizing campaign. Amazon has been charged with violating 
workers' right to organize dozens of times, in Bessemer and elsewhere. 
As of last month, there were more than 150 open unfair labor practice 
cases involving Amazon. I cannot speak to an unspecified unfair labor 
practice charge at Amazon due to the volume (there have been more than 
25 unfair labor practice charges filed at Amazon alone since February 
2021).

    Question 3(b). Are you aware that the NLRB concluded after an 
investigation that he falsified his time for work hours?

    Answer 3(b). I cannot speak to the details of the NLRB's findings 
in an unspecified case.

    Question 3(c). Are you aware that other employees were discharged 
for the same thing?

    Answer 3(c). Response: I cannot speak to the details of the NLRB's 
findings in an unspecified case.

    Question 3(d). Are you aware that the NLRB dismissed his charge?

    Answer 3(d). I cannot speak to the details of the NLRB's findings 
in an unspecified case.
                           Senator Tuberville
    Question 1. At a recent press conference, you talked about the 
``fight,'' the ``incredible organizing effort going on in Bessemer, 
Alabama'' at the Amazon facility there. The only fight there is the 
union fighting the employees who have voted clearly twice in opposition 
of forming a union.

    Question 1(a). Do you know how much money the union has spent there 
over the last two-and-a-half years in order to lose two elections?

    Answer 1. The AFL-CIO is a federation of 60 national and 
international labor unions that represent 12.5 million working people. 
Our affiliates are self-sustaining, independent labor organizations, 
and thus the specific budgetary details of any single affiliate are not 
within my purview. I am aware, however, that Amazon spent nearly $4.3 
million in 2021 on union-busting consultants to stomp out its 
employees' organizing efforts. In fact, Amazon paid those consultants 
more than $3,000 per day, plus expenses--more than Amazon warehouse 
workers earn in a month.

    Question 2. You criticize employers and say employers delay the 
voting process and the collective bargaining negotiation process. That 
hasn't happened in Bessemer. It's the union that is refusing to let 
employee ballots be opened.

    Question 2(a). Shouldn't the union allow every ballot to be 
counted?

    Answer 2. All validly cast votes should be counted in every union 
election.

    Question 2(b). Does the union think the employees don't know what 
they voted against?

    Answer 2(b). I cannot speak to what any individual ``union 
thinks.'' Union elections, like all elections, should be free from 
harassment, intimidation, and fear tactics that often suppress worker 
voice and deter voter turnout. Both the employer and the union have 
filed objections to the most recent election at the Amazon facility in 
Bessemer. The National Labor Relations Board is currently investigating 
the parties' objections.

    Question 2(c). Why doesn't the union respect those two votes?

    Answer 2(c). I cannot speak to what any individual ``union 
thinks.'' Union elections, like all elections, should be free from 
harassment, intimidation, and fear tactics that often suppress worker 
voice and deter voter turnout. Both the employer and the union have 
filed objections to the most recent election at the Amazon facility in 
Bessemer. The National Labor Relations Board is currently investigating 
the parties' objections.

    Question 3. At the same press conference mentioned above, you 
mentioned an employee by name--who you say Amazon fired because he was 
a union supporter.

    Question 3(a). Are you aware that he filed a charge with the NLRB 
challenging his termination?

    Answer 3. As the president of the AFL-CIO, the largest federation 
of unions in the United States, representing over 12.5 million workers, 
I speak at press conferences to uplift workers' organizing efforts very 
often. I tell the stories of many workers across the country--including 
multiple union supporters at the Bessemer facility--who were terminated 
during an organizing campaign. Amazon has been charged with violating 
workers' right to organize dozens of times, in Bessemer and elsewhere. 
As of last month, there were more than 150 open unfair labor practice 
cases involving Amazon. I cannot speak to an unspecified unfair labor 
practice charge at Amazon due to the volume (there have been more than 
25 unfair labor practice charges filed at Amazon alone since February 
2021).

    Question 3(b). Are you aware that the NLRB concluded after an 
investigation that he falsified his time for work hours?

    Answer 3(b). I cannot speak to the details of the NLRB's findings 
in an unspecified case.

    Question 3(c). Are you aware that other employees were discharged 
for the same thing?

    Answer 3(c). I cannot speak to the details of the NLRB's findings 
in an unspecified case.

    Question 3(d). Are you aware that the NLRB dismissed his charge?

    Answer 3(a). I cannot speak to the details of the NLRB's findings 
in an unspecified case.
                                 ______
                                 
   response by mary kay henry to questions of senator casey, senator 
                    lujan, and senator hickenlooper
                             Senator Casey
    Question 1. A recent report found that corporations spent $340 
million yearly just on union-busting consultants, plus untold millions 
more on advertising campaigns and ``captive audience'' meetings around 
union elections. They spend that money to try to convince workers not 
to exercise their labor rights or to try to sway votes ahead of union 
elections. To add insult to injury--corporations can write off these 
anti-unionization efforts as run-of-the-mill business expenses.

    Question 1(a). What kind of message does it send to workers that 
the Federal Government is subsidizing their bosses' union-busting 
expenses?

    Answer 1. This broken system sends the wrong message about our 
Country's values. When corporations like Starbucks and McDonald's are 
allowed to abuse their power and influence to silence the voices of 
working people, drive down wages, and maintain the status quo, it sends 
a message that it is acceptable to put profits over the lives of people 
in our society. That's why the growing movement of working people 
joining together all across the economy, going on strike in historic 
numbers, and demanding a voice on the job through a union is critical 
to putting our Country on the right track. Through these actions, we 
can build a better future for every family and community.

    Question 2. You have been a huge supporter of expanding and 
enhancing home and community-based services, services that help 
millions of Americans with disabilities and older adults. There is an 
enormous need for additional home care workers, but the pipeline is 
almost dry. A recent report indicated that vacancy rates for home care 
work are at least 20 percent and turn over can be as high as 60 percent 
annually.

    Question 2(a). How can organizing help address the lack of home 
care workers and the quality of home care provided to older adults and 
people with disabilities?

    Answer 2. When homecare workers come together in unions, we see 
industry improvements for workers and consumers. Unions have played an 
important role in helping address these issues by raising wages through 
the collective bargaining process and advocacy to increase Medicaid 
funding and payment rates, as well as providing opportunities for home 
care workers to share their experiences with each other, expand 
training opportunities and create a mechanism for participation in 
decisions that affect them. States with higher wages for home care 
workers have had more success in rebalancing their Long Term Services 
and Supports programs and increasing the availability of home and 
community-based services for consumers, and many of the states that 
score highest for measures of rebalancing and consumer direction are 
the same states--such as Washington, Oregon, California, 
Massachusetts--where individual provider home care workers have 
organized with SEIU. \2\2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\  Long Term Services & Supports State Scorecard, AARP, http://
www.longtermscorecard.org/.

    In states like Pennsylvania, SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania members 
like Jacinta Burgess successfully pushed Pennsylvania's Department of 
Human Services to increase reimbursement rates for home care by 8 
percent statewide, leading to a $1 an hour increase in all participant-
directed caregivers' wages. They also won funding for paid training 
programs--the first of their kind in Pennsylvania which rolled out 
earlier this year. Caregivers who had never received any substantive 
healthcare training are now getting certified in everything from CPR to 
dementia capable care and nonviolent crisis intervention. Jacinta 
recently said with her union, Pennsylvania's homecare workers are 
professionalizing their workforce to deliver higher quality care to 
their clients and demonstrate to decisionmakers that they can no longer 
deny real workers the wages and benefits they deserve.
                             Senator Lujan
    Despite historic worker organizing over the past 2 years and clear 
evidence that workers want to join unions, employers continue to put 
insurmountable obstacles in their way. Without the Protecting the Right 
to Organize Act, employers can continue to act as if violating workers' 
legal rights is just a part of doing business.

    Question 1. President Henry, I just want to make this point so 
every American can hear this. Is it true that when companies illegally 
fire workers or close workplaces to punish workers for unionizing, they 
face no fines or civil penalties under current law?

    Answer 1. That is true. Unlike many other Federal laws, the 
National Labor Relations Act imposes no civil penalties on corporations 
that violate the law, no matter how egregious the violation. Even a 
corporation that intentionally fires a worker to punish them for 
supporting a union or to punish them for cooperating with a government 
investigation will face zero penalties under current law. Congress must 
change the law to include penalties so that corporations think twice 
before violating workers' rights.

    Seventy-one percent of Americans now approve of labor unions--the 
highest Gallup has recorded on this measure since 1965--but January 
2023 BLS data revealed that the union membership rate was 10.1 percent 
in 2022, down from 10.3 percent in 2021--the lowest on record since 
comparable data began to be collected by BLS in 1983.

    Question 2. President Henry, how can this be? If so many working 
people would join a union if they had the chance, why is it so 
difficult to join a union?

    Answer 2. Union-busting is big business: Corporations are spending 
millions on consultants, lawyers and deceptive anti-union campaigns. It 
shouldn't be this hard to form a union, and when workers boldly win 
their unions, they should be able to negotiate a fair contract in a 
timely manner with employers. Right now, that's not the reality.

    Labor rules are broken in two key ways: 1) Corporations, with 
impunity, are able to exploit the inherent power differential they have 
with their employees by bullying and intimidating those who choose to 
organize; and 2) Workers who want to unionize are generally forced to 
organize and bargain worksite-by-worksite rather than across an 
industry or geography. Together, these two problematic features of 
existing law make forming a union slow, cumbersome, and highly risky, 
and puts employers that choose to treat their workers with respect and 
fairness at a competitive disadvantage.

    On top of this, as the third question below explicitly names, 
corporations too-often structure their businesses in such a way as to 
evade responsibilities to their employees and to prevent or undermine 
unionization efforts.

    One of the ways corporations often try to evade their 
responsibility to their employees under the law is by structuring their 
businesses to shield themselves from liability, prevent their employees 
from being able to form unions, and deny employees the benefits they 
deserve. This can take the form of intentionally misclassifying 
employees as independent contractors, hiring temporary workers or 
subcontractors when what businesses really need are more employees, 
fighting tooth and nail against the reality that a franchisor could be 
a joint employer of a franchisee--and more. This is an epidemic, 
really, of corporations using business structures to cut working people 
off from the protections of the law, including from being able to 
organize into unions. It is a huge part of why it is so difficult to 
organize wide swaths of workers across the economy.

    Question 3. President Henry, can you talk about the ways in which 
SEIU sees this problem, and some of the opportunities you see to fix 
it?

    Answer 3. SEIU believes that as a country we need to leapfrog 
beyond the current, broken system by writing new rules by which workers 
are able to organize and bargain collectively. The Protecting the Right 
to Organize (PRO) Act is a critical piece of this: it would make it 
possible for workers to freely join unions without being bullied and 
intimidated by their employers, and make it more difficult for 
corporations to use ``fissured'' business structures in order to evade 
responsibility and liability for working conditions.

    In addition, we must create ways for workers to negotiate wages, 
benefits, and other standards that apply to ALL workers and employers 
in an industry. This form of bargaining, often called sectoral 
bargaining or broad-based bargaining, has long been the norm in most of 
northern and western Europe; countries like New Zealand and Australia 
are in the process of re-establishing such systems. In the United 
States, innovative state-level breakthroughs are pointing the way 
toward reforms that allow for sector-wide standard setting. 
California's recently passed FAST Recovery Act, for example, creates an 
industry-wide council by which 500,000 fast food workers, largely women 
and people of color, will have a seat at the table with corporations 
and state government to set minimum wages and working conditions.

    While we often talk about the ways that the NLRA has been eroded 
over the years, we too-seldom raise the inequities that were baked in 
from the start. From the beginning, the NLRA excluded agricultural and 
domestic workers from its protections. Both at the time of original 
passage and now, these workforces are made up largely of Brown, Black 
and immigrant workers--and for domestic workers, the workforce is 
overwhelmingly women.

    Question 4. President Henry, as someone who represents a union that 
is majority women of color, many of whom are immigrants, can you talk 
about the importance of unions for all workers, and also specifically 
for workers of color, women workers, and immigrant workers?

    Answer 4. SEIU firmly believes that there can be no economic 
justice without racial justice. As we look for opportunities to make it 
easier for workers to exercise their right to organize and negotiate 
good wages and benefits, we must center these excluded workers and the 
industries they work in.

    Working people are stronger when all of us are empowered with a 
voice on the job and the ability to join together in unions to bargain 
for a better future. But too often, corporations and unscrupulous 
employers try to harass and intimidate the most vulnerable among us and 
try to divide us.

    Women who work in the domestic realm of home care were left out of 
our Nation's sexist and racist labor laws decades ago, and the majority 
still work for poverty wages and lack basic benefits such as paid time 
off. They have been mobilizing over the past 2 years for a major 
Federal investment in home care that would create hundreds of thousands 
of good-paying union jobs in home care. Such an investment would boost 
entire families and communities of color that have been left behind for 
too long.

    Airport service workers--including cabin cleaners, wheelchair 
attendants and baggage handlers--are overwhelmingly workers of color. 
Their wages have been near poverty level for the past 20 years, and 
they often lack benefits like paid time off or affordable healthcare. 
Major airlines receive billions in Federal dollars, but instead of 
using funds to shore up the air travel industry, they're raking in 
record profits off the backs of these lowest-paid workers who help make 
air travel safe, clean and accessible for all passengers. Workers are 
calling on Congress to pass the Good Jobs for Good Airports Act (S. 
4419/H.R. 8105) that was recently re-introduced by Senator Markey and 
Representative Jesus ``Chuy'' Garcia, which would establish minimum 
wage and benefit standards for all airport workers.

    Immigrants across the service and care economy can be particularly 
vulnerable to unscrupulous employers who misuse immigration laws to 
gain leverage over their workforces by, for example, illegally 
threatening to retaliate against immigrants who join together with 
others in their workplaces to form a union or make a workplace 
complaint about harassment or unsafe conditions. We are grateful to the 
U.S. Departments of Labor and Homeland Security for issuing new 
guidance that smooths the process for workers to obtain protection from 
immigration-related retaliation, and to Representative Judy Chu for 
introducing the POWER Act (H.R. 1828) which would go further, so that 
workers can feel free to enforce their legal rights--and those of their 
co-workers--without fear of immigration consequences.

                          Senator Hickenlooper
    According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center, the 
share of adults who live in middle-class households fell by more than 
10 percent over the last 50 years. This comes at the same time that 
union membership has decreased amid intense pressure against efforts to 
organize.

    Question 1. How do your unions communicate with workers who are not 
members to explain the benefits of union membership?

    Answer 1. The strongest advocates for the benefits of unions 
continue to be union members. Not-yet union workers have seen 
firsthand, especially during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, how 
having the support of a strong union made a difference in the lives of 
working people across every industry. They also are able to look at 
history and see how the labor movement helped to build a middle class 
and improved the lives of their parents, grandparents and other retired 
union members. That's why we're seeing union popularity is at a 50-year 
high--especially among younger people. Those workers are in many cases 
doing their research and initiating conversations with union members 
and organizers about how to form unions in their workplaces. Workers 
are also coming up with new, creative, bold ways to organize together 
across industries, sectors and geographies because they know the only 
way to counter corporate control is through collective worker power.

    Question 2. Please discuss the broader benefits of unionization to 
our economy as a whole and workers throughout the country?

    Answer 2. Unions are good for us, for our coworkers, workplaces and 
industries, for our families and communities, and for our Country. 
Working people build, and hold, economic and political power in our 
unions. We use our collective power to challenge the predatory 
corporations that feed off our communities and our labor, and to fuel 
an inclusive, multi-racial democracy to win for working people of every 
race.

    The opportunity to join a union, no matter where you work, is the 
best way to raise wages, improve working conditions, create family 
sustaining jobs, and build a just, resilient economy. Every working 
person, no matter our race or where we're from, must have the 
opportunity to join unions across industries and regions to improve 
working conditions.
                                 ______
                                 
    response by sean o'brien to questions of senator lujan, senator 
           hickenlooper, senator markey, and senator cassidy
                             Senator Lujan
    Question 1. President O'Brien, what share of organizing efforts see 
companies illegally violating workers' Federal labor rights?

    Answer 1. The National Labor Relations Board received up to 30,000 
unfair labor practice charges filed by workers or on behalf of workers 
by labor unions in 2022, according to the most recently available data 
provided from the bureau. With a more than 50 percent increase in union 
representation filings with the NLRB last year to an annual average of 
2,500 elections, median data suggests the average union organizing 
campaign results in at least 11 unfair labor practice charges being 
filed against companies seeking to suppress, combat, or disrupts 
workers' collective action to form or join a union. No worker at no 
company in no industry should have to suffer such an extreme scale of 
unfair labor practices committed by employers.

    Question 2. President O'Brien, would passing the Protecting the 
Right to Organize Act finally create fines and civil penalties for 
companies, and what impact would doing so have on American workers 
freedom to unionize?

    Answer 2. Yes, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, H.R. 20/S. 
567 (PRO Act) creates fines and civil penalties for companies who 
violate the NLRA. Under current law, employers who violate workers' 
rights under the NLRA face no civil penalties. Under the PRO Act, 
employers who commit violations under the NLRA face civil penalties, 
and corporate officials can be held personally liable for violation of 
the law. These are meaningful deterrents to violating the NLRA that 
will have significant positive impact on a workers' ability to exercise 
their rights at work.

    Despite clear evidence that workers support unions, need unions, 
and are taking action to form their unions--and despite having the most 
pro-union President of our time in office--the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) reported in January that the percent of workers who 
are union members had once again declined over the prior year. This is 
because, when workers take action to form their union, they often face 
insurmountable obstacles. The law is not on their side. Where the law 
is balanced or favorable to workers, there is a lack of resources to 
allow for impactful enforcement. And, at the first sign of worker 
collaboration, employers, armed with seemingly limitless funds, will 
immediately engage in a campaign of threats and intimidation tactics. 
In fact, these anti-union campaigns have become so formulaic and 
commonplace that employers spend $340 million per year on ``union 
avoidance'' consultants who teach them how to exploit weakness in 
Federal labor law to effectively scare workers out of exercising their 
legal right to collective bargaining. \3\ And when workers do win an 
election, employers use the same tactics to extend first contract 
negotiations for years. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\  https://www.epi.org/publication/fear-at-work-how-employers-
scare-workers-out-of-unionizing/
    \4\  https://files.epi.org/page/-/pdf/bp235.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A December 2019 EPI report concludes that in 2016--2017, employers 
were charged with illegally firing workers in at least one-fifth of 
elections. In nearly a third of all elections, employers were charged 
with illegally coercing, threatening, or retaliating against workers 
for union support. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\  https://www.epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer-opposition-
to-union-election-campaigns/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The PRO Act will address a number of weaknesses in current labor 
law that permit this imbalance between employers and workers and that 
give anti-union employers significant advantage to block union 
organizing efforts.

    The outcome of your upcoming negotiations with UPS will be life-
changing for hundreds of thousands of Teamster members, their families, 
and the communities they live in. I wonder if you could speak as well 
to the broader significance of these negotiations.

    Question 3. President O'Brien, what do these negotiations mean for 
workers throughout the warehousing and logistics industry, for the 
broader labor movement, and for working people across America?

    Answer 3. The Teamsters represent more than 360,000 workers at UPS, 
who are protected under a national master agreement. This contract is 
the largest private-sector collective bargaining agreement in North 
America. The achievements of the Teamsters during regional supplemental 
agreements and in the national contract will establish new and stronger 
standards for wages, benefits, workplace safety, retirement, and job 
security for millions of workers throughout the packaging, 
distribution, transportation, and logistics industries in the United 
States. At a time when more workers feel more empowered to pursue union 
representation than at any point in decades, the Teamsters' success at 
the negotiating table sends a reassuring signal to workers in every 
industry that the equitable and democratic process of collective 
bargaining can and does meaningfully improve workers' lives. Much needs 
to be achieved by the labor movement overall to regain lost wages that 
have funneled to the C-suites of giant and increasingly consolidated 
corporations. The Teamsters are in a unique position to negotiate with 
a corporation as large, successful, and culturally established as UPS 
and secure legally binding gains for the hundreds of thousands of 
workers who make it successful. The long-term benefits of an average 
worker seeing the working people who make up the Teamsters Union 
achieve true economic empowerment is impossible to quantify.

    We have seen sweeping attacks on labor rights in recent years by an 
increasingly activist court, including attacks on the constitutionally 
protected right to organize.

    Question 4. President O'Brien, in addition to better wages and 
safety conditions, in your experience, what does being in a union do 
for workers as a matter of self-respect and dignity on the job?

    Answer 4. Being in a union means you are no longer an at-will 
employee. It means you no longer have to fear going into work and 
losing your job because your supervisor is in a bad mood. Union 
membership, by and large, guarantees your wages, health care benefits, 
and retirement security. When workers are relieved of the stress of 
economic uncertainty at work, they are more empowered to perform 
better, return to work, engage with their co-workers, and make 
additional investments that benefit the whole. Union contracts help 
establish grievance procedures to fairly settle workplace issues, 
provide workers with representation during disciplinary proceedings, 
and afford workers the opportunity to participate in democratic 
processes in and out of the workplace. These guarantees, standards, 
safeguards, and benefits breed self-respect and empowerment and 
tangibly reassure workers in all classifications and industries that 
they are active participants and not bystanders in their jobs and 
careers.
                          Senator Hickenlooper
    According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center, the 
share of adults who live in middle-class households fell by more than 
10 percent over the last 50 years1. This comes at the same time that 
union membership has decreased amid intense pressure against efforts to 
organize.

    Question 1. How do your unions communicate with workers who are not 
members to explain the benefits of union membership?

    Answer 1. The Teamsters Union is home to more than 1.2 million 
people in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, creating an 
international network capable of reaching out to and communicating with 
as many workers as possible who do not yet have the protections of a 
union contract. The Teamsters' Organizing Department maintains a 
presence on the ground in all 50 U.S. states and works in partnership 
with our 360 local union affiliates and more than 30 Joint Councils to 
make information available to workers about the union difference. 
Organizing campaigns are actively run to expand union density in 
industries well-represented by the Teamsters, including but not limited 
to logistics and transportation, warehousing, foodservice distribution, 
waste removal, and public services. Internal organizing efforts are 
critical to bring more workplace protections to people fighting for 
good-paying jobs in states with harmful ``right to work'' legislation. 
And an army of Teamster organizers, representatives, and member 
volunteers are always available across North America to build, educate, 
and expand worker power at any employer where workers have self-
mobilized to secure a union contract. Dedicated Teamster organizers 
work in concert with an international team of legislative and legal 
professionals, strategic communicators, educators, historians, and 
external partners to provide resources to workers seeking to form a 
union, promote the benefits of collective bargaining, interact with the 
media, support labor-friendly laws, and make lasting progress in the 
labor movement.

    Question 2. Please discuss the broader benefits of unionization to 
our economy as a whole and workers throughout the country?

    Answer 2. The socioeconomic benefits of a union contract--in 
particular, a Teamster contract--cannot be overstated. Especially in 
2023, when the cost-of-living negatively impacts workers across the 
economic divide, the Federal minimum wage has flatlined, rising 
inflation persists, and corporate CEOs like Carol Tome of UPS 
disproportionately receive wages more than 300 times the average 
worker, a union contract remains a time-tested shield for workers to 
withstand punishing inequality, eroded benefits, and willful abuse. The 
security of unionization is just that--legal protection from being 
unlawfully terminated and a legally mandated opportunity for workers to 
come together and bargain for higher wages, stronger benefits like 
employer-paid health care and paid time off, and guaranteed income in 
retirement that is not at the mercy of unknown investors. Union halls 
stand as an increasingly rare institution for workers of all races, 
ethnicities, religions, and lifestyles to congregate, converse, share 
information, make democratic decisions, and receive the resources they 
need to improve their lives and their families. People going to work 
with the protections of a union contract are more incentivized to 
commit to longer careers with fewer employers, reducing turnover, 
stabilizing industry, strengthening local economies, and building trust 
and accountability within their communities. Labor unions like the 
Teamsters historically and actively offer workers supplemental benefits 
and resources to further their education and that of their dependents, 
learn new skills externally or participate in on-the-job training to 
advance within their careers, and participate in volunteer 
opportunities to expand the reach of organized labor, engage in local 
and national politics, and enjoy the myriad benefits of fraternity and 
camaraderie in and outside the workplace.
                             Senator Markey
    Question 1. Mr. O'Brien, can you please state for the official 
record what UPS Feeder Drivers make annually? Please feel free to 
expound on this with any additional information that might be helpful 
to set the record straight and inform Committee activity around this 
issue.

    Answer 1. UPS Feeder Drivers, who are paid hourly, currently make 
$41.59 per hour with most making time and a half, paid at over 8 hours 
per day. At 2080 hours (typical 40-hour work week x 52 weeks) that's 
$86,507 per year. When you add 10 hours of overtime per week (which is 
on the very low end) that puts the average Feeder Driver at around 
$119,000 per year. However, most Feeder Drivers work something closer 
to 18 to 20 hours of overtime per week, putting them at around $145,000 
per year. Mileage Drivers and Sleeper Teams make even more. On their 
own website, UPS asserts that Feeder Drivers make an average of 
$162,000 per year. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\  https://about.ups.com/sg/en/our-company/great-employer--
text=Our percent20local percent20tractor percent2Dtrailer percent20 
percentE2 percent80 percent9Cfeeder,sick percent20leave percent20and 
percent20option percent20days; See Article 53 and note addition of 
$1.15/hr COLA increase https://teamster.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/
ups18atlanticareasupp.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Senator Cassidy
    Question 1. I understand the Teamsters passed a motion to set up a 
specific focused Amazon Organizing project last year. Have you ever 
done that before? Set up a specific department aimed at just one 
employer? Why did you call Amazon an ``existential threat'' to your 
members? The resolution said ``the Union commits to fully fund and 
support the Amazon Project, to supply all resources necessary' How much 
money is budgeted for that project?

    Answer 1. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters was founded 
120 years ago. With just a few local affiliates in cities like Chicago, 
Detroit, and New York at its onset, the union has evolved into a 
dynamic, coordinated, and responsive international network that 
eternally adapts to meet the needs of workers in nearly every industry. 
Despite the size of our globalized economy and the diversity of 
employment that exists in the United States alone, Amazon has exploded 
to become the second largest employer in this country in less than 
three decades. Ending 2022 with more than 1.5 million American workers, 
Amazon is an existential threat not only to workers in industries 
predominantly represented by the Teamsters but to the very notion of 
gainful employment in America at all. While occupying the top of the 
list of domestic employers, Amazon recorded a shocking turnover rate 
last year of more than 150 percent--double the industry average. 
Without the guarantees of secure employment, safety from employer 
harassment, accountable wage growth, insured retirement benefits, and 
relief from workplace hazards, Amazon has negligently failed to 
establish a sustainable employment model, a reliable or respectful 
culture of work, or positive, long-term contributions to the success of 
the American economy. Moreover, Amazon's model erodes industry and area 
standards in cities and states home to its processing and distribution 
centers and offers no avenue for workers to cement meaningful and 
financially rewarding careers. For more than a century, the Teamsters 
Union has remained committed to improving workers' wages and benefits, 
safeguarding retirement security, setting higher standards for basic 
earnings, reasonable work hours, and safer working conditions, and 
demanding workers have the opportunity to share in the success of the 
companies they make profitable. Likewise, the Teamsters are committed 
to invest as many resources as possible to bring accountability to 
Amazon as an employer and support the empowerment of its workforce.
                                 ______
                                 
   response by john f. ring to questions of senator hickenlooper and 
                           senator tuberville
                          Senator Hickenlooper
    The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has seen a 15 percent 
increase in Unfair Labor Practice cases and a 9 percent increase in 
representation cases, all while its field staff has shrunk in half. 
These cuts have occurred because NLRB's budget has not grown adequately 
with inflation, even as it has seen their workload grow significantly.

    Question 1. In your experience at NLRB, what does the agency need 
to meet the demands and ensure that both workers and companies have 
fair and timely consideration of their labor complaints?

    Answer 1. While the NLRB's budget has been flat for a number of 
years until the increase in this fiscal year's budget, the decrease in 
the Agency's workload over the last decade more than makes up for any 
lack of additional funding. Based on publicly available data (NLRB's 
Annual Reports), the NLRB's overall case intake has declined 43 percent 
from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2022. And this decrease in the 
Agency's workload continues a trend in declining case intake that 
extends back several decades. As you note, the Agency claims that there 
has been a recent 15 percent increase in unfair labor practice cases 
and a 9 percent increase in representational cases. However, these 
figures are based on comparisons from fiscal year 2020 or fiscal year 
2021 statistics which were abnormally low because of the pandemic. In 
reality, again based on review of the NLRB's Annual Report, the number 
of unfair labor practice cases and representation matters filed in 
fiscal year 2022 was slightly down from pre-pandemic levels in fiscal 
year 2019 (20,514 in 2022; 20,647 in 2019).

    To ensure that the NLRB meets its statutory demands and ensure that 
both workers and companies have fair and timely consideration of their 
labor complaints, the NLRB should focus its available resources on 
matters that are core to the Agency's mission--unionization and 
collective bargaining--rather than pursuing novel legal theories many 
of which are beyond its statutory jurisdiction. Over the years, the 
Agency's attempts to expand its jurisdiction and application to areas 
outside its core mission have taken away necessary focus and resources 
from resolving matters core to the Agency's mission. The NLRB also 
should look for ways to reorganize and right-size the Agency's 
operations to focus on these core mission cases as well as implement 
process management changes to ensure that cases are decided on a timely 
basis.
                           Senator Tuberville
    Question 1. You've discussed the current actions and caseload of 
the NLRB. It's my understanding that once the NLRB launches an 
investigation into a complaint, it can take a long time for an ultimate 
decision to be made.

    Instead of focusing on open cases, the NLRB is opting to test the 
boundaries of its statutory authority.

    Question 1(a). How can the NLRB better focus its time and energy 
investigating real complaints instead of looking for new ones that may 
or may not be within its jurisdiction?

    Answer 1. There are two primary ways the NLRB can better focus its 
resources on investigating complaints that allege violations core to 
the Agency's mission--unionization and collective bargaining--rather 
than pursuing novel legal theories for charges that may or may not be 
within its statutory jurisdiction. First, the General Counsel should 
exercise better prosecutorial discretion in determining what cases to 
pursue. Focusing the Agency's investigatory and litigation resources on 
the charges that allege core violations of the Act would allow the 
Agency to better effectuate the purposes Congress intended for the Act. 
Second, the Board should adhere to decades-old precedent that focused 
on core violations rather than attempting to extend the reach and 
protections of the Act. For example, changing precedent to police all 
union and non-union employers' handbook provisions. outlawing ordinary 
severance agreement provision and mandatory arbitration agreements or 
restricting confidentiality in workplace investigation, in the absence 
of any other unfair labor conduct, fills the Board's docket with these 
extraneous matters and prevents the Board from addressing core 
violations in a reasonably timely fashion. The Board also could take 
steps to implement process improvements in the manner in which it 
decides cases to ensure their timely issuance, particularly 
representational matters involving organizing and charges involving 
core violations of the Act.

    Question 2. The subject of this hearing was focused on ``illegal 
corporate union-busting.'' It's my understanding that the PRO Act would 
supposedly stop this problem from happening if Congress passes it. If 
corporations preventing their employees from unionizing is an illegal 
action, what is the recourse?

    Question 2(a). Isn't the entire purpose of the NLRB to sort these 
disputes out?

    Question 2(b). What jurisdiction does Congress have here?

    Answer 2. It is not illegal--in fact it is expressly permitted in 
the National Labor Relations Act and supported by the First Amendment--
for an employer to express views opposing the unionization efforts of 
its employees. That is, so long as the employer does not engage in 
threats or other illegal conduct while doing so. In those cases where 
an employer does engage in illegal action during a union organizing 
campaign, the NLRA has a robust enforcement scheme to stop such 
activity, remedy the wrongdoing and ensure there is compliance with the 
Act. To ensure there is recourse in the event of a violation, the Act 
established the NLRB and a unique enforcement procedures and remedies 
that advance the public interests underlying the statute. Under the 
NLRA, parties can pursue a charge or petition for a union election 
without the need for an attorney or legal representation. As I 
explained in my written testimony, this is a rare system when compared 
to most other Federal and state employment statutes. Operated properly, 
this enforcement mechanism under the Act should provide recourse for 
any so-called ``illegal corporate union-busting.''

    With respect to specific disputes involving alleged violations of 
the NLRA in connection with an organizing campaign, Congress has 
entrusted enforcement of the Act to the NLRB. Congress does not have 
the authority to enforce the Act, such as seeking to adjudicate 
particular cases or impose specific remedies based on the facts of the 
case. Congress, of course, has the authority to engage in oversight of 
the NLRB and ensure that the Agency is carrying out its statutory 
mission. Congress also can change or replace existing law, as 
proponents of the PRO Act are urging Congress to do so now with the 
NLRA. As set forth in my written testimony, I would urge Congress to 
consider whether certain modifications to the Board's current 
enforcement of the Act could achieve many of the goals of the PRO Act. 
Through use of its oversight authority, Congress should do so before 
undertaking such a substantial overhaul of the NLRA, which has achieved 
the objectives Congress set almost 90 years ago: ensuring workplace 
democracy and industrial peace.
                                 ______
                                 
   response by mark mix to questions of senator cassidy and senator 
                               tuberville
                            Senator Cassidy
    Question 1. Union bosses claim they need to be able to force 
workers to pay union dues in exchange for their ``representation.'' Can 
you explain the flaws in that argument?

    Answer 1. Union officials may feel that their ``representation'' is 
worth workers' money, but it should be up to individual workers to 
decide whether they agree. No other private charity, political party, 
or civic organization has the power to compel people to financially 
support it. Forced union dues allow corrupt, ineffective union 
officials to continue getting paid, and give them the freedom to engage 
in political advocacy that workers disagree with.

    Question 2. Can unions spend money on politics that their members 
don't agree with?

    Answer 2. Forced union dues inevitably end up funding union 
politics. Union bosses are constitutionally prohibited from using dues 
money on politics without workers' consent, but a convoluted legal 
process ensures that right is rarely enforced. As just one example, 
National Right to Work Foundation client Jeanette Geary had to wage an 
eleven-year legal battle against union lawyers who argued that lobbying 
in state legislatures was not a ``political'' activity.

    Question 3. Union officials are telling us that we need to repeal 
Right to Work to protect workers' right to organize a union. Does Right 
to Work prevent or restrict union organizing?

    Answer 3. Right to Work does not restrict union organizing in any 
way. It simply ensures that union dues are voluntary, not forced. Union 
bosses feel threatened by Right to Work because it means they can be 
held accountable to rank-and-file workers and will lose access to a 
guaranteed forced-dues revenue stream.

    Question 4. We've heard testimony about employers who are accused 
of intimidating workers into voting against a union. How common is it 
for unions to behave similarly, intimidating workers who don't support 
unionization, and how easy is it for them to get away with it?

    Answer 4. Employers are under a microscope during a union drive, as 
everything they say and do could be the basis for unfair labor practice 
charges. Amazon had a mailbox installed outside their facility in 
Bessemer, Alabama, and that alone was used as a basis for accusing the 
company of intimidating workers in a union election that was ultimately 
overturned by the NLRB.

    Union officials, on the other hand, often solicit support via union 
``cards.'' One or more organizers will approach a worker and demand 
they sign a card. If they refuse, they may be asked over and over again 
or visited at their homes, and their refusal may be made known to their 
pro-union colleagues to apply additional pressure. Workers rarely come 
forward about ``Card Check'' abuse, as few even know their legal 
rights.

    Question 5. If I'm in a unionized workplace and a majority of my 
colleagues and I decide we don't want to be unionized anymore, can we 
simply vote out the union, or is it more complicated than that?

    Answer 5. Response: Removing, or ``decertifying'' a union is far 
more difficult than installing one. Decertification elections are 
subject to several NLRB ``bars,'' one of which is union ``blocking 
charges'' (see below). The process, though allegedly designed to be 
navigated by individual workers, is complicated and paperwork-
intensive. Workers must collect signatures from more than 30 percent of 
their colleagues on a decertification petition; that is particularly 
difficult where workers are in a large or widespread bargaining unit. 
After obtaining the necessary number of signatures, a worker must 
complete the following steps:

          (1) Fill out the extremely complicated NLRB form 
        502RD;

          (2) Send form 502RD to the employer and union 
        officials, along with ``Statement of Position'' and 
        ``Description of Procedures'' documents;

          (3) E-file a ``certificate of service'' proving the 
        above documents were sent;

          (4) Mail or deliver the original petition to the 
        appropriate NLRB regional office.

    And they have to do it in the narrow time window between all the 
various NLRB-created ``bars.''

    The clear intention is to make decertification prohibitively 
difficult for workers acting without outside legal help. Fortunately, 
such help is available through nonprofits like the National Right to 
Work Foundation, but it shouldn't be necessary in the first place.

    Question 6. It seems like unions don't want employers to ever 
express an opinion during an organizing drive. But it occurs to me that 
if I'm the only candidate allowed to talk to the voters in my next 
election, I'm pretty much guaranteed to win. If employers don't get to 
weigh in on the question, how will workers get enough information on 
both sides to make an informed choice?

    Answer 6. That's correct, and there are legitimate reasons why a 
union contract may not be right for many workers. They are often ``one-
size-fits-all,'' which means that the most productive workers tend to 
get paid less than they otherwise would, and workers' ability to create 
flexible arrangements is stifled. Workers should be able to hear both 
sides and make an informed choice about whether to unionize.

    Question 7. Some people have argued that Right to Work laws are 
good for unions and union organizing. What can you tell me about that?

    Answer 7. Despite union bosses' claims to the contrary, Right to 
Work laws don't diminish workers' ability to organize unions. They 
simply prevent union bosses from forcing workers to pay union dues 
without their consent. This ensures that unionization is voluntary, and 
ultimately voluntary organizations are better for everyone involved.

    That's why Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of 
Labor, said that ``The workers of America adhere to voluntary 
institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are held to be 
not only impractical but a menace to their rights, welfare and their 
liberty.'' If today's union bosses followed Gompers' advice and 
embraced voluntary dues and voluntary union representation, I think 
they'd be a lot more successful.

    Question 8. Union organizers would have us believe that the reason 
American workers are rejecting them so often is that their employers 
are so terrifying. Do you have any thoughts on why so few Americans 
seem to want to be in unions anymore?

    Answer 8. Right now, a unionized worker is more likely to be 
experiencing a decertification effort in their workplace than a non-
union worker is to be experiencing a union drive. Many of today's 
unions are radical political organizations that support politicians 
that workers vehemently oppose. Some, like the United Auto Workers, 
have been exposed for massive corruption. Other union officials have 
simply been asleep at the wheel, because for so long they've been 
coasting on their ability to force workers to pay dues and accept their 
so-called ``representation.'' They haven't been attracting worker 
support because their model is not based on voluntary support. Unions 
could be doing much better under a voluntary model, but they reject 
voluntarism because it conflicts with union bosses' goals of advancing 
radical politics and lining their own pockets without accountability.

    Question 9. Union leaders, and most of my colleagues in the other 
party, like to characterize labor relations as a struggle between 
unions and employers. But I know you have a different perspective on 
the nature of the struggle and its participants. Can you tell us more 
about that?

    Answer 1. When people assume that labor litigation is an endless 
struggle between corporations and unions, they overlook a third group: 
workers themselves. Not every conflict is between companies and unions. 
When workers are trapped in a corrupt, ineffective union that they 
don't want, their employer often can't do anything to help them. When 
workers are illegally fired by their employer, union officials who 
advocated the firing in the first place certainly won't do anything to 
help. Worker victimization at the hands of union bosses is a real 
problem, but workers don't have the armies of highly paid lawyers that 
corporations and union bosses have.

    So while we can be sure that any employer slip-up during a union 
drive will be pounced on by union lawyers, violations of workers' 
rights by their so-called union ``representatives'' are rarely exposed. 
Workers are pressured into silence, knowing that union militants take 
great pleasure in harassing union critics. They often don't know their 
rights, or how to bring legal action to enforce them, and even if they 
knew, they'd never be able to afford a prolonged court battle. Even if 
they retain free legal counsel from a group like the Right to Work 
Foundation, labor law is stacked against independent workers, and it is 
enforced by NLRB bureaucrats who are often former union activists 
themselves.

    Question 10. Why do you think unions so often lose secret ballot 
elections, even though they collect so-called ``union authorization 
cards'' from a majority of employees?

    Answer 10. ``Card Check'' signatures are obtained in such a 
coercive manner that they can't be relied upon to indicate true worker 
support. Workers have reported being misled about the true purpose of 
union cards. Some have been told they would be fired if they hadn't 
signed and their workplace ended up being unionized, and others have 
been threatened with outright violence. Even outside of these extreme 
situations, cards are solicited by professional union organizers who 
can pressure workers again and again into signing. Many will sign 
simply to get organizers off their backs.

    It is therefore no surprise that unions will often lose secret-
ballot elections after they've collected cards form a majority of 
workers. Union bosses often advocate replacing secret ballots with card 
check, and pressure employers to ``voluntarily'' bargain with a union 
whose support has been purportedly ``demonstrated'' by card check. But 
union cards do not conclusively demonstrate anything, and employers are 
right to protect their employees by rejecting the cards and asking that 
a secret-ballot election be held.
                           Senator Tuberville
    Question 1. As you know, Alabama is a Right to Work state--one of 
28 in the country. We are proud to be one, and proud to have workers 
and industries across the state that have both chosen to organize and 
chosen not to organize.

    Question 1(a). In general, could you speak to what job growth and 
cost-of-living adjusted income levels are like in Right to Work states 
vs. others?

    Answer 1. According to an analysis of the most recent data by the 
National Institute for Labor Relations Research, the cost of living 
adjusted per capita disposable income in Right to Work states was 
$3,500 higher than in forced-unionism states.

    In the decade since 2011, the percentage growth in the number of 
people employed was 13.2 in Right to Work states, and 5.7 in forced-
unionism states.

    Question 2. When discussing ``illegal'' business practices and 
workers' rights, I think it's important to focus on individual workers.

    Question 2(a). What steps can be taken at the Federal level to 
protect every single worker, not just the ones who choose to join a 
union?

    Answer 2. To reform Federal labor law, we need to end monopoly 
union bargaining, so that every worker can decide for themselves 
whether union representation is right for them. We need to allow 
workers to hear from their employers as well as their union, so they 
can make an informed choice without being subjected to a one-sided 
propaganda campaign from union organizers. We need to make unionization 
a voluntary choice for every worker, so that corrupt union bosses can 
be held accountable, and workers' freedom of association is protected. 
And most of all, we need to ban forced union dues across the country 
with a National Right to Work law.

    I strongly condemn illegal actions taken by businesses and union 
bosses. Workers need to be able to bring legal challenges when their 
rights are violated, but too often the National Labor Relations Board 
is biased against them. The NLRB needs to be seriously reformed, if not 
outright abolished in its current form.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                 [all]