    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      RESTORING BALANCE: ENSURING FAIRNESS
                          AND TRANSPARENCY AT THE NLRB
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   Before The

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH,
                        EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                                     OF THE

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

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                 HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 11, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-19

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    62-887                    WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                      COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE

                        TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman

    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
    VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina            Virginia,
    GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania           Ranking Member
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
    ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    JAMES COMER, Kentucky                MARK TAKANO, California
    BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
    LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan            MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
    JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    KEVIN KILEY, California              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio               ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
    JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       GREG CASAR, Texas
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania         SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      JOHN W. MANNION, New York
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          YASSAMIN ANSARI, Arizona
    MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
    RANDY FINE, Florida

                         R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director
                  Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                         RICK ALLEN, Georgia, Chairman

    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       MARK DeSAULNIER, California,
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina             Ranking Member
    VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina        JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
    JAMES COMER, Kentucky                DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
    BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan            JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio               GREG CASAR, Texas
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania         SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      JOHN W. MANNION, New York
    RANDY FINE, Florida                  MARK TAKANO, California

                            C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on June 11, 2025....................................     1

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

        Allen, Hon. Rick, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health,
          Employment, Labor, and Pensions............................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     4
        DeSaulnier, Hon. Mark, Ranking Member, Subcommittee Health,
          Employment, Labor, and Pensions............................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     9

                                   WITNESSES

        Solem, Aaron, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal
          Defense Foundation.........................................    12
            Prepared statement of....................................    14
        Vernuccio, F. Vincent, President, Institute for the American
          Worker.....................................................    32
            Prepared statement of....................................    34
        Abruzzo, Jennifer, Senior Advisor to the President,
          Communications Workers of America..........................    46
            Prepared statement of....................................    48
        King, Roger, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, H.R. Policy
          Association................................................    55
            Prepared statement of....................................    57

                             ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

        Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Connecticut:
            ICYMI: Rep. Courtney Pens New Piece dated June 6, 2025,
              titled ``Collective Bargaining Is Rebuilding America's
              Defense Industrial Base''..............................    96
        Onder, Hon. Robert F., Jr, a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Missouri:
            Report titled ``Misread--How Legal Authorities Allowed
              Tyranny of the Minority to Subvert Worker
              Enfranchisement''......................................   105

                            QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

        Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
            Mr. Aaron Solem..........................................   129
            Ms. Jennifer Abruzzo.....................................   134

                      RESTORING BALANCE: ENSURING FAIRNESS
                          AND TRANSPARENCY AT THE NLRB

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, June 11, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
        Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and
                                              Pensions,
                          Committee on Education and Workforce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
    Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick Allen
    (Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Allen, Onder, Wilson, Foxx,
    Baumgartner, Walberg, DeSaulnier, Courtney, McBath, Lee,
    Mannion, Takano, and Scott.
        Staff present: Vlad Cerga, Director of Information
    Technology; Libby Kearns, Press Assistant; Katerina Kerska,
    Legislative Assistant; Trey Kovacs, Director of Workforce
    Policy; Campbell Ladd, Clerk; R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director;
    Danny Marca, Director of Information Technology; Brad Mannion,
    Professional Staff Member; John Martin, Deputy Director of
    Workforce Policy/Counsel; Audra McGeorge, Communications
    Director; Alexis Morgan, Intern; Daniel Nadel, Legislative
    Assistant; Kevin O'Keefe, Professional Staff Member; Ethan
    Pann, Deputy Press Secretary and Digital Director; Ellison
    Powell, Intern; Kane Riddell, Staff Assistant; Carl Rifino,
    Intern; Sara Robertson, Press Secretary; Heidi Schneider,
    Professional Staff Member; Ann Vogel, Director of Operations;
    Ali Watson, Director of Member Services; Joe Wheeler,
    Professional Staff Member; James Whittaker, General Counsel;
    Samantha Wright, Intern; Ellie Berenson, Minority Press
    Assistant; Sayda Bir, Minority Intern; Ilana Brunner, Minority
    General Counsel; Ni'Aisha Banks, Minority Staff Assistant;
    Patrick Jo, Minority Intern; Alexandra Walker, Minority Intern;
    Vivian Wiggins, Minority Intern; Stephanie Lalle, Minority
    Communications Director; Dhrtvan Sherman, Minority Research
    Assistant; Raiyana Malone, Minority Press Secretary; Brian
    Marshall, Minority Legal Intern; Kevin McDermott, Minority
    Director of Labor Policy; Eleazer Padilla, Minority Staff
    Assistant; Mason Pesek, Minority Labor Policy Counsel;
    Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; Banyon Vassar,
    Minority Director of IT.
        Chairman Allen. The Subcommittee on Health, Employment,
    Labor and Pensions will now come to order. I note that a quorum
    is present. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to call
    a recess at any time.
        Today's hearing will examine the current State of labor law
    under the National Labor Relations Board, and explore solutions
    that promote worker choice, provide legal predictability, and
    stability for employers, and give workers better access to a
    fair representation in their elections.
        In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act
    to protect workers and to supervise union elections through the
    NLRB. Under the Biden-Harris administration, however, the NLRB
    engaged in gross mismanagement and acted as the litigation arm
    for big labor, protecting union bosses rather than elevating
    rank and file members.
        The Board spent 4 years under the Biden-Harris
    administration gutting the Democratic process by which unions
    become exclusive representatives of employees. One way in which
    the Board undermined this valued Democratic process was by
    attacking the use of secret ballots.
        Secret ballot elections are the gold standard in any
    Democratic system. That is why the NLRA, the Board, and the
    Courts have traditionally encouraged their use in union
    elections. However, the Biden-Harris NLRB gutted that
    historical preference for secret ballot elections in favor of
    the card check process. I have been committed to protecting the
    use of secret ballots, which is why I recently introduced the
    Secret Ballot Protection Act, which guarantees that every vote
    to unionize a workplace is cast with a secret ballot.
        In yet another blow to workforce democracy, the Biden-
    Harris NLRB gagged employers who wished to exercise their free
    speech rights during a union election campaign. The Board made
    it an unfair labor practice for an employer to require its
    employees to attend a meeting on work time and discuss its
    stance on unionization.
        A cornerstone of any campaign is robust debate about the
    pros and cons of the various candidates and options. The Biden-
    Harris Board was less interested in debate and democracy than
    it was in seeing that unions were entrenched in every
    workplace. One of the purposes of NLRA is to help resolve
    workplace conflict, and remedy unfair labor practices.
        Congress created the NLRB to right wrongs, not to punish
    wrongdoers, but the Biden-Harris Board was too interested in
    exceeding congressional authority, and both the General Counsel
    and the Board itself worked to expand ways to punish parties
    found to have committed unfair labor practices.
        The NLRB also raised barriers to holding elections at all,
    even when employees petitioned the Board for a vote. The
    biggest hurdle was the return of the controversial blocking
    charge policy, which allowed unions to file frivolous, unfair
    labor charges, and delay elections by months or years.
        Finally, the Biden-Harris Board spent 4 years engaging in
    government overreach to expand unions and their control over
    American workers. The Biden-Harris Board defined graduate
    students and student athletes as employees, simply so these
    groups can unionize.
        The NLRB also adopted an elastic standard to determine
    whether a worker is an employee covered by the Act, or an
    independent contractor, despite data showing that this will
    have a disastrous impact on the economy. Similarly, the Board
    published their final rule establishing a broader standard to
    determine the existence of a Joint Employer Relationship,
    threatening the franchise model and other business
    relationships.
        I will continue to fight for the rights of American
    workers, ad push back on LARB overreach. For many Congresses I
    have introduced the Employee Rights Act, which addresses these
    issues I have mentioned here today. As I work to reintroduce
    this bill this Congress, the well-being of the American worker
    will remain at the forefront.
        We are here today to discuss how to ensure the NLRB serves
    the interest of workers as Congress intended. It is time for
    the Board to champion the right of employees to pick the union,
    not the union to pick the employees. It is time for the Board
    to refocus on resolving workplace conflicts, instead of
    punishing business owners. I look forward to discussing how to
    adjust that with our expert witnesses today.
        I hope that together we can find a way to make NLRB a more
    balanced referee of American workplaces. With that, I yield to
    the Ranking Member for an opening statement.
        [The statement of Chairman Allen follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
    the witnesses here today to have this open debate of ideas. I
    just want to mention that unions are more popular right now
    than any time in American history. 71 percent, according to
    well, non-partisan, vetted polling, and that is because
    Americans know that they need a voice.
        They need a voice in the most concentrated economy in
    American history, worse than the Gilded Age of where the money
    is, that picture is a swearing in of the current President,
    where those three individuals have more wealth than 40 percent
    of the American population, so we need countervailing
    institutions. The American public gets it, Mr. Chairman. 71
    percent of the American people know that labor unions are their
    voice.
        It is about balance, but the idea, at least from my
    perspective, could not be more different than yours about the
    balance right now in the comments I just made. Today's hearing
    is an important one in that regard, as we will discuss the
    National Labor Relations Board, the only Federal agency that
    protects the rights of tens of millions of American workers to
    organize and have a voice.
        While I welcome the opportunity to discuss these important
    issues, the Committee Republicans are holding this hearing as
    if these are normal times, and it is simply business as usual.
    Let me start by acknowledging the obvious: these are not normal
    times, and they are not normal times for American workers as
    their disposable income continues to shrink as a promise by
    this President to do something about inflation, is actually not
    happening, it is getting worse.
        In fact, since returning to the White House, the Trump
    administration has unfortunately consistently undermined
    working Americans, particularly those who wish to exercise
    their right to organize and collectively bargain. In January,
    President Trump ordered the unprecedented firing of NLRB member
    Gwynne Wilcox, a highly experienced labor lawyer and champion
    for American workers.
        By firing Member Wilcox, the President stripped the NLRB of
    its quorum, preventing the NLRB from doing its vital work
    protecting American workers from harassment and coercion by
    union busting companies. Then in February, President Trump
    issued an executive order giving himself unprecedented control
    over the rulemaking and legal positions of independent
    agencies, including the NLRB.
        The repercussions of this executive order could prove to be
    disastrous, not only for the NLRB and the American workers they
    defend and their independence, but for workers as a whole.
    Since the NLRB's inception, workers have relied on the agency's
    expertise and independence in enforcing the National Labor
    Relations Act. Any loss of independence means that the NLRB,
    and other independent agencies, are vulnerable to direct
    political interference from President Trump and the
    administration.
        Even though the NLRB has not issued reductions in force as
    of now, we continue to pay close attention to any efforts by
    DOGE to cut the NLRB's already bare bones workforce. The
    Board's workforce is nearly 30 percent smaller than it was 15
    years ago, while its workload has grown.
        I also remain concerned that the President's budget fails
    to make the investments necessary to address the NLRB's
    staffing crisis, particularly at its regional offices. Today we
    have a unique opportunity to learn more about what the Trump
    administration's policy means for the NLRB as well as the
    American workforce.
        From true expert and committed public servant, we are very
    fortunate to have Ms. Jennifer Abruzzo, thank you for being
    here again, you're a great witness from my perspective, as one
    of the witnesses. She worked for decades at the NLRB, most
    recently as the General Counsel.
        Based on the title of today's hearing, Committee
    Republicans will have you believe that the scales have been
    tipped in favor of pro-union workers, or big labor bosses. That
    is far from the truth. By and large, the system remains rigged
    against American workers, in favor of corporations that do not
    play by the rules.
        Let me tell you this is not about all employers. Many
    employers who have union contracts and do not, play by the
    rules. The problem is that we are going down to the worst
    employers, employers who want to pay sub-minimum wage work
    wages, are okay with violating child labor laws, and reliable,
    consistently proven to defend and help the economy, labor laws
    that protect the American workforce.
        It is those employers that my hope would be that we would
    join in making sure that there is oversight and consequences
    when they violate not just the spirit of the law, but the
    letter of law, and allow for effective regulation. Simply look
    at the numbers. From 1979 to 23 annual wages for the bottom 90
    percent of American households has increased just 44 percent,
    while average incomes for the wealthiest 1 percent increased
    more that 180 percent.
        Let me repeat that again. 90 percent of American
    households, they got a 44 percent raise. It sounds like a lot,
    but the top 1 percent, people making over 10 million dollars a
    year made 180 percent. Again, it gets worse and worse at the
    expense of American workers who get up every day and go to work
    and perform well.
        70 percent, as I said in my beginning comments, approve of
    labor unions, and 60 million American workers say they would
    unionize if given the opportunity. Even for those who do not
    unionize, we know from the research that union activity raises
    the bar for everyone, union and non-union. It makes the country
    a better place and more productive, makes it more like the
    Eisenhower administration, when we grew the American middle
    class, and a GDP of 6 percent over a decade.
        Meanwhile, workers organizing has skyrocketed over the last
    few years, yet union membership has hit a new record low. Why
    is this the case?
        It is because for too long unscrupulous employers, not all
    employers, have weaponized captive audience meetings, faced no
    real penalties for illegal firings, and exploited procedural
    tricks in NLRB's proceedings to crush workers' unions efforts
    and their ability to have a voice
        I come to this hearing with what I believe is a unique
    perspective. As many of you know, I owned small businesses. I
    made many payrolls in a very difficult business, the restaurant
    business, and I take pride in the relationships I formed with
    my employees during that time.
        They made me successful. I learned that the success of a
    business lies in the relationship between the employer and the
    employees, union or non-union. Treating workers with respect
    that they deserve is not only a right, it is a savvy business
    practice, and it is the essence of America.
        As de Tocqueville said in the 1800's, ``The simple genius
    to America is to expect exceptional things from ordinary
    people.'' That works in employer/employee, in the business
    sector. I am also a former union member, having been a Teamster
    and a member of the AFL-CIO. I know firsthand the benefits of
    union membership and the power unions have in bridging the gap
    between workers and their employers, helping all workers.
        Not just those, as I have said, who are union members, earn
    higher pay, better benefits, safer workplaces, and have
    respect. Forming a union must be a right and not a fight.
    Democrats will not stay quiet while this administration attacks
    American workers.
        I hope we can have a productive discussion today, Mr.
    Chairman, that centers around workers experiences, and also
    focuses on low road employees, who do a disservice, not just to
    their workers, but to the best American employers who respect
    their workers. Thank you, I yield back.
        [The statement of Ranking Member DeSaulnier follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Allen. The Ranking Member yields. Pursuant to
    Committee Rule 8(c), all members who wish to insert written
    statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the
    Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5
    p.m., 14 days after this hearing.
        Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for
    14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material
    noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official
    hearing record.
        I will now turn to the introduction of our four
    distinguished witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Aaron Solem,
    a Staff Attorney for the National Right to Work Legal Defense
    Foundation in Springfield, Virginia. Our second witness is Mr.
    Vincent Vernuccio, the President of the Institute for the
    American Worker in Hamilton, Virginia, and I hope I did not
    mess that last name up too bad there.
        Our third witness is Jennifer Abruzzo, Senior Advisor to
    the President of Communication Workers of America in
    Washington, DC. Mrs. Abruzzo served as General Counsel of the
    NLRB during the Biden administration. Our last witness is Mr.
    Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel at H.R. Policy
    Association in Washington, DC.
        We thank the witnesses for being here today, and we look
    forward to your testimony. Pursuant to Committee Rules, I would
    ask that you each limit your oral presentation to a 3-minute
    summary of your written statement, as Committee members have
    many questions for you, the clock will countdown from 3
    minutes.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d), and Committee practice,
    however, I will not cutoff your testimony until you reach the
    5-minute mark. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be
    aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information
    to the Subcommittee.
        Now, it is my privilege to recognize Mr. Solem for your
    testimony.

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

        Mr. Solem. Thank you, Chairman Allen, Ranking Member
    DeSaulnier, and members of the Committee. My name is Aaron
    Solem, I am an attorney at Right to Work Legal Defense
    Foundation. I represent individual employees, workers whose
    voices are too often lost in policy debates dominated by union
    officials and employer interests.
        The National Labor Relations Act is fundamentally about
    employee free choice. It protects equally the right to choose
    the union, and the right to reject one. The Board is supposed
    to remain neutral between those choices, but over the past 4
    years the Biden NLRB has severely tilted the playing field in
    favor of union officials at the expense of employees who oppose
    union representation.
        This shift was not surprising at all. President Biden
    promised to be the most pro-union President in history, and his
    appointees followed that lead. Consider just the following
    examples: In Cemex, the Board held it would nullify an employee
    vote against a union and then decide that the union is to be
    the employee's representative, if an employer supposedly
    committed even minor unfair labor practices.
        With the Election Prevention Rule, the Biden Board took
    away an employee's right to call for a secret ballot election
    after they are subjected to a union card check campaign, by
    restoring the so-called recognition bar. With the Election
    Prevention Rule, the Biden Board revived the discredited
    blocking charge policy, which allows unions to unilaterally
    delay and employee to certification election simply by filing
    an allegation against the employer.
        No neutral fact finding required. The Biden NLRB's agenda
    confused empowering union officials with protecting employee
    free choice. The agenda ignores the reality that many workers
    don't want union representation. It ultimately infantilizes
    employees by treating them like sheep, or too ignorant to
    decide for themselves whether they want to be unionized.
        To restore balance and fairness, the next Board in this
    Congress should advance a truly pro-employee agenda. This
    agenda should be centered on employee democracy and protecting
    an employee's right not to fund union politics. That includes
    ending non-statutory election bars, like the recognition bar,
    that prevent elections at regular intervals.
        Ending the blocking charge policy to restore an employee's
    right to a timely secret ballot election, protecting an
    employee's right to opt out of funding for union politics, and
    ensuring open debate by protecting free speech on all sides.
    Labor law should not protect employees--should protect
    employees, and that includes employees who do not want a union,
    employees who want information about the down sides of a union,
    and employees who want to work without being forced to fund
    union political causes.
        Thank you and I look forward to your questions on all of
    these issues.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Solem follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Allen. Thank you, Mr. Solem. Now I recognize Mr.
    Vernuccio for your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF MR. F. VINCENT VERNUCCIO, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR
                THE AMERICAN WORKER, HAMILTON, VIRGINIA

        Mr. Vernuccio. Chairman Allen, members of the Committee, my
    name is Vincent Vernuccio, and I am President of the Institute
    for the American worker. I4AW is a 501(c)(3) educational
    organization focused on empowering American workers. Thank you
    for giving me the opportunity to testify here today.
        Constantly shifting interpretations of the National Labor
    Relations Act are causing confusion and harming workers. The
    National Labor Relations Board needs to restore balance and
    ensure fairness and transparency for workers, unions and job
    creators. In addition to the NLRB's efforts, Congress can work
    to enhance a level playing field, ensuring NLRA empowers the
    American worker with a fair and transparent system.
        This system should prioritize worker enfranchisement,
    ensuring that a majority or quorum of the full bargaining unit
    has a say in union elections, to make sure unionization
    reflects the true will of the workforce. This is something that
    a plain reading of the NLRA already provides.
        The Act is clear, representatives are to be selected or
    designated by and I quote, ``The majority of the employees in a
    unit.'' The NLRB should also ensure workers can make an
    informed decision on unionization by not stifling speech and
    forbidding employer meetings on unionization.
        These meetings are essential to allow workers to hear all
    sides on what a unionized workplace would mean for them and
    their families. The Board should also ensure the NLRA does not
    shield harassing or discriminatory language or conduct,
    preserving a respectful workplace.
        It should also preserve independent work arrangements and
    maintain a clear, direct control standard for joint employment.
    Many of these issues can be addressed at the Board level.
    Still, Congress can and is taking steps to protect
    transparency, fairness, and the ability of workers to champion
    their own destiny.
        Representative Bob Onder recently introduced the Worker
    Enfranchisement Act, which would require a quorum of workers to
    vote in a secret ballot election before a union is organized.
    To give workers more freedom, Representative Eric Burleson in
    the last Congress introduced the Workers Choice Act, which
    would allow workers in unionized jobs and right to work states
    to opt out of representation and negotiate directly with their
    employer.
        Representative Kevin Kiley recently introduced the Modern
    Worker Empowerment Act to ensure that American workers who want
    to work for themselves or earn extra side income, are not
    forced to be employees. Unfortunately, on the negative side,
    Senator Josh Hawley has introduced the Faster Labor Contracts
    Act, which would allow government bureaucrats to force
    arbitration for first contracts on workers unions and job
    creators.
        Labor law needs to embrace and encourage entrepreneurship
    and the flexibility that modern workers want. Congress has
    sought to remedy many of these matters through legislation and
    the NLRB can also restore balance for workers by embracing
    traditional interpretations on these issues and staying
    faithful to the plain language of the NLRA.
        Thank you for giving me this opportunity, and I will
    welcome any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Vernuccio follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Allen. Thank you, Mr. Vernuccio, and next I will
    recognize Ms. Abruzzo for your testimony.

       STATEMENT OF MS. JENNIFER ABRUZZO, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE
     PRESIDENT, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Ms. Abruzzo. Thank you, Chairman Allen and Ranking Member
    DeSaulnier, I am Jennifer Abruzzo, and I served the public for
    almost 30 years at the National Labor Relations Board, most
    recently as its General Counsel.
        As to the theme of this hearing, I would submit that we
    need to restore balance and ensure fairness and transparency at
    all workplaces around the country. In order to do that, the
    NLRB must be able to hold true to the public policy of the
    United States, as stated in the National Labor Relations Act,
    and that is to encourage collective bargaining, and to protect
    workers full freedom of association.
        We all know that the power dynamics at workplaces are
    skewed in favor of employers, and in enacting the statute
    Congress rightly recognized the only way to combat that power
    and balance was by fostering strength in numbers among
    employees, so they could act together, and engage with their
    employers and negotiate over improved working conditions and
    wages, with or without a union.
        As written and intended, the NLRA is a pro-worker statute,
    not a pro-union one, and not a pro-employer one. It protects
    workplace democracy where employees feel empowered to freely
    exercise their rights to engage in union or other protected
    activity to better their lives. The problem is that the NLRB is
    not fully protecting workers in this country right now, and it
    could get worse.
        Today, I share four action items for Congress to consider
    and implement. First, you should force this President to abide
    by the NLRA. In January, the President unlawfully fired Board
    Member Gwynne Wilcox, an experienced labor law attorney who was
    well, well steeped in labor law, violating not only the
    statute, but also 90 years of Supreme Court precedent.
        As a result, the Board lost its quorum, which means it
    cannot issue decisions. Who is benefiting from that--that
    dysfunction? Not workers, employers. Employers who now feel
    emboldened to violate the law with impunity and retaliate
    against their workers because there is no functioning board to
    hold them accountable.
        At the same time that corporations and billionaires are
    pushing for more tax cuts at the expense of working families,
    they are also trying to squelch worker action, worker power,
    worker voice.
        Second, Congress needs to fight to maintain the statutory
    independence of this multi-member bipartisan board, and its
    decisionmaking authority. Through actions and arguments made in
    Court, I think this President believes that he can ignore
    statutes, fire people at whim, and give his donors a blank
    check to trample on workers' rights in this country to
    unionize, collectively bargain, and act together to improve
    their circumstances.
        Third, Congress needs to fully fund the NLRB. When I
    started back as General Counsel, the staffing was at the lowest
    level it had been since 1958. The staff is very talented, and
    very dedicated, but they do not have the resources that they
    need to address the case intake.
        Until Congress fully funds the NLRB, workers are going to
    continue to experience long delays in getting remedies, after
    being unlawfully fired. They cannot get back to work in any
    timely manner. They cannot get the back pay that they deserve.
    Unfortunately, corporations can afford to drag out the
    processes, but workers cannot.
        Fourth, Congress should use its power to make the law even
    more balanced and fair by passing legislation that protects
    more employees, covers more employers, assesses penalties for
    violators, and facilitates reaching collective bargaining
    agreements in a timely manner.
        Congress passed this statute in 1935 during the Great
    Depression, amid widespread industrial instability and
    workplace conflict. A functioning, well-funded NLRB can help
    ensure stable labor management relations at workplaces that
    inures to the benefit of workers, their families, their
    communities and employers alike. This is all about protecting
    workers and their families whose interests you were elected to
    represent. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Abruzzo follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Allen. Thank you for your testimony. Last, I
    recognize Mr. King for your testimony.

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

        Mr. King. Thank you, Chairman Allen, Ranking Member
    DeSaulnier, and Committee Chair Walberg, and Ranking Committee
    Member Scott. It is nice to again appear before this Committee.
    I am here on behalf of the H.R. Policy Association. We
    represent over 350 employers that have operations throughout
    the country.
        The employee complement of those member companies is almost
    10 percent of the private sector workforce in this country. The
    issues before this Committee on a continual basis are of vital
    interest to our Association. I commend the Committee for the
    title of the hearing today, Rebalancing the Application of the
    National Labor Relations Board.
        Suffice it to say, while I have a very high regard for my
    colleague, Ms. Abruzzo, I believe she has an incorrect view of
    the National Labor Relations Act at the outset. What
    unfortunately many proponents come here in this Committee and
    other Committees of Congress, and they make the statement that
    the National Relations Act was passed to promote collective
    bargaining.
        That is correct to a point, but what those individuals fail
    to acknowledge is the Act was written by the Congress for those
    employees that desire union representation. They have the cart
    before the horse. Collective bargaining does not occur unless
    or until a majority of employees in an appropriate unit have
    elected union representation.
        With respect to the balancing of the application of the
    Act, it has been out of balance in a very significant way for
    the last 4 years plus. First, the Office of General Counsel has
    pursued initiatives that are not core important to the Act. For
    example, pursuing the initiative that college athletes, student
    athletes, should be covered by the National Labor Relations
    Act, was a significant waste of government money, and agency
    resources.
        Trying to narrow the definition of who is an independent
    contractor has interfered with numerous entrepreneurial
    opportunities for literally thousands of workers in this
    country. Further broadening the definition of joint employer
    status has interfered with business relationships for thousands
    of employers and many, many more, thousands of employees.
        The franchisor/franchisee industry has been seriously
    disrupted by initiatives by the National Labor Relations Board.
    These attempts to expand the Act well beyond its intent is well
    beyond the core mission of protecting employees, and I
    certainly agree with Ms. Abruzzo, the Act is intended to
    protect employees, not union institutional interest, nor
    employer interests. It is about employees.
        In the Office of General Counsel's pursuit of this agenda
    they have wasted taxpayer dollars in numerous, numerous
    unneeded initiatives. The agency's own statistics show that for
    every reduction of settlement percentage of 1 percent, the
    agency suffers at least 2 million dollars of wasted resources.
        The settlement rate for cases has dropped dramatically
    under the past administration, at least 5 percent. That is 10
    million dollars right there, but that is not the end of the
    story. The time it takes to even get to a settlement has
    increased significantly. At the time that the Agency is not
    using its resources properly, it continually comes to Congress
    and asks for more money.
        That is certainly not appropriate. Briefly, with respect to
    the National Labor Relations Board's juris prudence, the Biden
    Board overruled literally decades of precedent. Mr. Allen, I
    commend you for your proposal to guarantee secret ballot
    elections. The Cemex case at bottom is all about eliminating
    secret ballot elections and relying primarily on card checks.
        That case alone overrules decades of precedent. The Amazon
    case that was referred to earlier prohibits employers from
    having meetings with their employees regarding unionization.
    That case decision again overrules decades of precedent and is
    inconsistent with Section 8(c) of the NRA, and the First
    Amendment.
        From my perspective, it has no chance of survival in the
    Court. In summary, there are many other things, Chairman Allen,
    that we could discuss, and hopefully we will have an
    opportunity to discuss that this morning.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Allen. Thank you, Mr. King. Under Committee Rule
    9, we will now question the witnesses under the 5-minute rule.
    I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. Mr. Vernuccio, your
    written testimony reflects your concern that under current law
    NLRB election procedures do not do a good job at ensuring
    workers get the collective bargaining representatives of their
    choice.
        As we all know, the Biden-Harris NLRB made it easier than
    ever for unions to come into a workplace without an election at
    all. How should current election procedures be changed to
    address your concerns?
        Mr. Vernuccio. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the
    question and the opportunity. Workers need empowerment, and
    when it comes to selection to selecting a union, they need to
    be empowered to make that choice, to make that choice securely
    and privately, and that choice should be reflective of the
    entire workforce.
        Given some of your legislation in the past, Secret Ballot
    Protection Act, workers should be afforded the secret ballot to
    choose a union in private without intimidation or coercion, and
    we have heard countless stories before this Committee of that
    type of intimidation and coercion that comes with card check,
    and could come out of a decision stemming from the Cemex
    decision of the previous NLRB.
        Further, the NLRB should also honor the true language, the
    precise language of the National Labor Relations Act that says
    that a union must be chosen by the majority of all the
    employees in the unit, or at a minimum, a quorum of majority of
    employees in the unit.
        Chairman Allen. Good, thank you. Mr. King, last Congress,
    the Save Local Business Act was introduced to reverse the
    damage done by the Biden-Harris Board's position on the joint
    employer issue. Can you explain the 2023 NLRB Joint Employer
    Rule and how we could amend the law to create a predictable
    legal landscape for employers?
        Mr. King. Well, hopefully an approach will emerge from the
    Board, whether it be a Democrat Board, a Republican Board,
    Chairman Allen, that only would find a joint employer
    relationship when there is direct and immediate control of one
    entity over another entity's employees in terms of conditions
    of employment.
        This area of the law has been turned upside down, back and
    forth, it is in a State of continual flux. It helps no one, and
    as I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, it particularly
    hurts franchisors and franchisees, which are the bedrock of
    entrepreneurialism in many communities in your respective
    districts. This has to change.
        Chairman Allen. Yes, I agree. Mr. Solem, you discussed the
    Biden-Harris Board's blocking charge policy in your written
    testimony. Can you expand on your comments, and give some
    examples of the way that blocking charge policy has been abused
    by unions and the Board to delay elections?
        Mr. Solem. Chairman Allen, thank you for your question. You
    know, I give a few examples in my written testimony on pages 8
    and 9, but just to pull one out. It was one of my colleague's
    cases, it was called Apple Bus Company, and Apple Bus Company.
    They filed for an election in 2017, and they did not get an
    election until 2019 because over the course of the next 2 years
    the union filed 15 blocking charges, eight of which were
    dismissed.
        The other ones were settled with non-admissions clauses, so
    there was never any proof that any of the allegations exist.
    When the day for the election finally came, the union did not
    even face the voters. They walked away. They disclaimed
    interest, which makes it look like they were filing just to
    delay their time and power.
        The blocking charge policy, which was brought back by the
    Biden Board is going to lead to more of this, that in fact,
    Member McFerrin's own dissent, dissenting from the Trump One
    Rule showed that roughly about 22.5 frivolous blocking charges
    were filed per year. The Trump Two Board should return to the
    Election Protection Rule and allow employees to get elections
    promptly.
        Chairman Allen. Okay. Yes, thank you. Again, I was for 4
    years ran a small business, and in fact Mr. Ranking Member
    DeSaulnier and I talk about the old times a lot, but I will
    tell you over my career things changed drastically, so it is a
    modern workforce today, a very entrepreneurial workforce.
        I was with a group last night. We did not even talk about
    ESOP programs and things like that. I remember that folks
    working at Proctor and Gamble there in Augusta, who were making
    nice wages, but they ended up millionaires because they were
    participating in the Proctor and Gamble stock program.
        I know that my greatest privilege as an employer was to
    give our workers an opportunity, our employees, it is like
    family actually, to provide for their family, provide for their
    church, their community and this great country. That is a great
    privilege, so please know that you know, employers are very
    dedicated too. I am sure there are bad actors, but for the most
    part if you are going to stay in business, you better take care
    of your folks, which is what we used to say.
        With that I yield back, and now recognize Ms. McBath from
    Georgia for your questions.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Ranking Member
    DeSaulnier, and to your staffs, and to our witnesses for being
    with us today. By my count, we have had roughly seven different
    anti-union and anti-worker hearings at the Full and
    Subcommittee level last Congress, and that was more hearings
    than we had on any other topic considered before this
    Committee.
        The majority is picking up right where it left off and
    trying to make it as difficult as possible for working
    Americans to organize a union and protect themselves on the
    job. Regardless of what may be said at these hearings, or how
    hostile to unions this President and this majority may be, the
    first section of the National Labor Relations Act clearly
    states that it is, and I quote, ``The policy of the United
    States to encourage the practice of collective bargaining
    freedom, and freedom of association.''
        That is the exact opposite of what we see from this
    President and House Republicans. Instead, we see efforts to
    change the status quo, to change the rules and make it as
    uncomfortable as possible for working men and women in this
    country to exercise their rights in the workplace.
        My Republican colleagues claim overreach by the previous
    administration but fully support this President illegally
    firing Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board,
    essentially freezing this important agency, and preventing it
    from carrying out its mission to protect workers from being
    wrongly fired for exercising their rights.
        Instead of changing the rules to make it harder for workers
    to organize, and more difficult for companies to voluntarily
    recognize a union, we should be ensuring that every American
    can freely exercise their rights in the workplace without the
    fear of being fired and losing their main source of income.
        The difference between Republicans and Democrats on this
    issue and so many others could not be more clear. The Democrats
    used our majority to save the hard-earned pensions of over 1.2
    million Americans, literally preventing people from having to
    go back to work in their old age, and helping them to enjoy
    their retirement.
        Republicans used their last majority under President Trump
    to change the law to prevent union workers from being able to
    write their dues off on their taxes. Now, they are using their
    current majority to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest
    Americans, while taking away nutrition and healthcare benefits
    from millions of families, and they are doing it all at the
    same time.
        Make no mistake, this majority is not a pro-union majority
    or pro-worker majority. As I mentioned earlier, President Trump
    illegally removed Gwynne Wilcox from the NLRB without a
    hearing, as required by law, just a week into the second term,
    showing that cracking down on unions was always their
    intention.
        Ms. Wilcox was not fired for negligence or for malfeasance,
    like so many others, she was wrongly fired for her commitment
    to maintaining a political independence of this important
    agency. She was fired for her refusal to abandon the rule of
    law in this country, and our long commitment to the idea that
    some government functions should be protected from special
    political interests.
        That commitment is what differentiates our country from
    corrupt authoritarian regimes, and that is what is at risk
    every day that this President is allowed to do these things
    unchecked. Ms. Abruzzo, beyond the fact that the removal of Ms.
    Wilcox is a true overreach of Presidential power, can you talk
    about why every American should be concerned about a President
    firing a member of the NLRB without a legitimate reason for the
    first time in history?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Thank you. Yes, it is all about protecting
    workers, and workers will not have an independent body to
    decide their cases. It is putting the scales--putting a thumb
    on the scales of justice, rigging the system. Corporations with
    money, and corporate billionaire donors will be able to
    influence the White House and be able to avoid liability.
    Worse, you get folks, decisionmakers at the Board that will
    call the White House and say ``hey, we have case against
    Amazon,'' or ``we have a case against Meta,'' or ``we have a
    case against Tesla or SpaceX, what do you want us to do here?''
        It is the opposite of correcting the power imbalance, and
    it is allowing for workers to have less safe working conditions
    and more inequities at the workplace and less voice.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much, and I yield.
        Chairman Allen. The gentlelady yields. I now recognize--it
    is my pleasure to recognize our great Chairman, Tim Walberg for
    your questions.
        Mr. Walberg. Well, I thank another great Chairman, and I
    appreciate the panel being here today. This is an issue that
    you know I have had concerns with for many years right now and
    card check in my opinion right now, does not serve unions well,
    with membership that feel at times that they are pestered and
    pushed in an unfair way to even consider unionization.
        Mr. Vernuccio, good to see you. Do you think the card check
    process is less fair than secret ballot elections, and what can
    be done to ensure fairness in that process?
        Mr. Vernuccio. Mr. Chairman, it is good to see you as well,
    and thank you for the question. Card check is absolutely
    inferior to a secret ballot election. We have heard testimony
    before this Committee time and again of workers being
    intimidated, workers being threatened, and coerced of not
    getting the full story on unionization, signing cards only to
    regret that signature.
        The secret ballot gives those workers the opportunity to
    have a private vote where they can reflect on unionization
    where there is not intimidation, where there is no coercion and
    make that choice just like we choose for any political office
    in the privacy of a voting booth.
        Mr. Walberg. Yes, I appreciate that. I contend that if
    unions really understood it, that this shows that the interest
    is not so much in the worker, but rather in just the operation
    of the union. Card check is wrong. Secret ballot is American,
    and we need to continue that.
        Mr. King, you devote a considerable portion of your written
    testimony sharing your perspective on the Faster Labor
    Contracts Act, which is appreciated by me. Based on your
    experience, negotiating collective bargaining agreements, what
    effect would you expect this bill to have on parties' abilities
    to reach a first contract?
        Mr. King. Nothing positive. I negotiated, Mr. Walberg,
    collective bargaining agreements for over 45 years, and many of
    those agreements were first contracts. While the Association
    comments Senator Hawley for starting the discussion,
    unfortunately, he just lifted provisions from the Pro-Union
    Act, the PRO Act and put them in a bill.
        As noted by my colleagues here this morning, that bill
    imposed by government fiat, an agreement on the parties, union
    and employers, if no contract is reached within 180 days, or
    similar in that timeframe, that is unrealistic.
        It has constitutional defects. It is seriously in conflict
    with the National Labor Relations Act. It was written without
    any input, any meaningful input from other stakeholders and I
    respectfully would disagree, and my Association does, with the
    entire approach that Senator Hawley is taking.
        Mr. Walberg. Along that line do you believe the Faster
    Contracts Act would result in contracts that are substantially
    different than the ones derived under current law?
        Mr. King. Perhaps. We have this outside group of
    arbitrators, Mr. Walberg, that ultimately is going to be
    required to write the contract for the parties, and if we go
    under what is interests arbitration approach, which is what is
    in the Hawley bill, the arbitrators generally just split the
    baby and come out somewhere in the middle.
        No meaningful collective bargaining occurs, so yes, they
    could be quite different, quite detrimental to both employees
    and employers. Again, this proposal is defective in so many
    different ways. It was not well thought out, and it is
    something that hopefully the House will not take seriously in
    any way, shape or form.
        Mr. Walberg. I hear you. Mr. Solem, your written testimony
    describes various bars to elections, even though the NLRA only
    has a 1-year election bar. Can you explain how all of these
    other election bars developed, and whether they apply to
    elections both certifying and decertifying union
    representation?
        Mr. Solem. Thank you, Chairman Walberg. Very quickly, there
    are several non-statutory bars, like the contract bar with
    prevents an election for up to 3 years when there is a
    collective bargaining agreement in effect, except during a 30-
    day period, voluntary recognition bar, the successor bar.
        You cannot get an election when your employer sells its
    business. In terms of their development, I think former
    Chairman Miscimarra said it best, when he has developed as
    incumbent protection devices.
        Mr. Walberg. I think my time has expired, but I appreciate
    the thought. I yield back.
        Chairman Allen. Chairman, I am just following your example
    here. I now recognize Mr. Mannion of New York for his
    questions.
        Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not mean to
    correct you, I am sure you are also a great boss, Mannion,
    which misspells to man union sometimes. Not a joke. Thank you
    all of you witnesses for being here today. Thank you, Ms.
    Abruzzo, for your leadership at the NLRB, and for the reforms
    you have achieved to support organized labor and protect
    workers' rights.
        I fear that some of that progress is now at risk due to
    this administration's efforts to weaken worker protections and
    undermine independence and capacity of the NLRB. Regional
    offices, especially in Central and UpState New York have been
    confronting serious staffing and resource shortages for years
    now, leading to unacceptable backlogs.
        Workers with valid complaints are waiting months, many
    times over a year for action. These are not just delays, they
    are denial of these workers' rights, and when we pair that with
    the proposed budget cuts to the NLRB, it is clear that we are
    headed in the wrong direction.
        The Ranking Member mentioned the popularity of labor
    unions. Well, in UpState New York, in Syracuse and Utica, where
    I am from, it is upwards of 80 percent, and the people who
    represent those union workers here in Washington and in Albany,
    are pro-union and pro-worker.
        If they are not, they are not there for very long, and it
    is not because of union bosses; it is because of trust, it is
    because of securing pensions, it is because of the grievance
    process, it is because of collective bargaining. The people of
    Central New York understand that the pathway to the American
    dream is not just a good job, it is a good union job, and you
    can look back at almost any family's history in this country,
    and you will find that good union job that took people out of
    poverty.
        Before my time in Congress, I was a President of a 400-
    member teachers association, teachers, nurses, school
    psychologists and social workers. I led two successful contract
    negotiations, including one that was unanimously ratified 366
    to zero, so I understand the power of collective bargaining,
    and the importance of a fair and a functioning system.
        That is why I strongly support legislative reforms like the
    PRO Act, that would ensure workers' rights and that those
    rights would be better protected. Ms. Abruzzo, in your view,
    what statutory reforms beyond the adequate funding that you
    referenced, citing four items, four actions by this Congress or
    others, are most urgently needed to empower workers and ensure
    that the NLRB can fully carry out its function?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Thank you. As I said first of all you need to
    bring Board Member Wilcox back and have a quorum. You need a
    well steeped, well experienced labor lawyer in that role,
    otherwise there will be continued violations of the law. You
    know, corporations make a ton of money off the backs of their
    workers, and those that need the most protections and the most
    tax breaks are workers and their families.
        That is first and foremost. Second, as I said, there has to
    be independent decisionmaking at the Board. If there is not,
    then the power and balance will just get even more skewed,
    corporations will just use their money to influence the White
    House, and again, that affects workers detrimentally, and
    affects their workplaces, making them less safe, inequities,
    losing their voice.
        Third, as I said, pass legislation that actually is more
    fair and more balanced for protections of workers' rights.
    Cover more employees: domestic workers, agricultural workers,
    those that are misclassified as independent contractors. Cover
    more employers that are actually joint employers who are trying
    to avoid liability or are trying to not get at the bargaining
    table.
        Penalize violators of the law, that is how you deter
    violations from happening. Those are and of course, as you
    said, fund the NLRB. That is, you know, I believe the NLRB
    needs to be fully funded, and that requires at least 100
    million dollars more to their budget to actually protect the
    rights of workers in this country.
        Mr. Mannion. Thank you.
        Chairman Allen. The gentleman from New York yields. I now
    recognize my neighbor and friend across the river,
    Representative Joe Wilson, for his questions.
        Mr. Wilson Thank you very much Chairman Rick Allen for your
    leadership, and it is very humbling on this side. I get to
    follow two great chair people, can you imagine? Tim Walberg and
    Rick Allen, but I am grateful to be here, and with that too, I
    want to thank all the witnesses for being here.
        The National Right to Work Committee to me for decades has
    just been a pioneer for workers' rights and successfully
    promoting workers' rights and right to work laws in a majority
    of the American states. South Carolina is a prime example of
    success, with workers having rights to join a union or not.
        No forced unionization. The consequence has been that South
    Carolina now has become the largest manufacturer of tires in
    America, with Michelin Tires, Bridgestone Tires, Continental
    Tires, GT Tires of Singapore, and the leading exporter of tires
    of any State in the union. Additionally, South Carolina is the
    leading exporter of cars, with BMWs, the largest manufacturing
    plant, X-5's for everyone in Spartanburg, South Carolina, along
    with Volvo and Mercedes.
        Especially extraordinary is Boeing, with 10,000 jobs in the
    Charleston area building 787-10 jet liners, and my constituents
    directly benefit with Boeing by having tubing by Zeus
    Corporation, cable by Brisbee Incorporation, and with ATY
    providing the interiors.
        Last year I was happy to actually be in Riyadh, Saudi
    Arabia where they announced the purchase of 39 billion dollars-
    worth of 787 jet liners, and of course President Trump topped
    that. Last month he worked with Qatar to buy 100 billion
    dollars-worth of 787s. We really benefit by having workers
    having a choice of jobs, unionization or not.
        Ms. Abruzzo, I want to thank you for your service with NLRB
    with Michael Nicaro, Sr. I am grateful that the National Right
    to Work Act has been introduced over the years. I am grateful
    to be the lead. 100 co-sponsors in the House, which erases
    forced dues clauses in Federal statute, without adding a single
    letter to Federal law.
        South Carolina's right to work law State has seen
    tremendous economic growth, as I have indicated, expanding
    economic freedom for businesses and workers, and we need to
    continue to promote job creation and ending forced unionization
    to extend workers' rights to the American people.
        Mr. Solem, the work that you do at the National Right to
    Work Foundation is so critical, and how is it that you assess
    the bill of workers choice to be?
        Mr. Solem. Thank you, Congressman. I think you just hit the
    nail in the head is that right to work, you know, drives job
    creation. If you look at a study that was done by Benjamin
    Austin, Matthew Lilly, who are at Harvard and Duke now, they
    found that there was higher employment and population growth in
    right to work states.
        You know, the best thing about right to work is not
    necessarily economic growth, it is about employee free choice.
    The economic growth is just a positive externality of that.
        Mr. Wilson. Indeed. The Trump administration is proposing
    to pursue a pro-worker agenda. What would you look to as a pro-
    worker agenda?
        Mr. Solem. Yes, so how they can pursue a pro-worker agenda
    at the NLRB is to concentrate--the way I think about it is the
    three B's, blocks, stop blocking charges, stop bars, and
    enforce back and move to an opt-in, opt-out system, so
    employees no longer have to fund union politics without jumping
    through hoops.
        Mr. Wilson. Indeed. What a difference because during the
    Obama administration there was an effort to stop Boeing from
    being able to develop in Charleston. Out of the blue they came
    and acted against our Governor, Nikki Haley. They indicated
    that the plant could not be built.
        It already had 1,000 workers. It had 100,000 square foot
    facility, and NLRB came in and said you cannot do it, but thank
    goodness we also have a very good Attorney General, Alan
    Wilson, in South Carolina working with our U.S. Senators Tim
    Scott and Lindsey Graham, and it was a real team effort.
        With leadership, we were actually able to succeed. What a
    difference. It is inconceivable to try to block such a
    development, which has been so beneficial to all of American
    workers, and with that I yield back to our great Chairman, Rick
    Allen.
        Chairman Allen. I thank my friend from South Carolina for
    yielding, and now I recognize Mr. Takano for his 5 minutes of
    questioning from California.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairman, Allen, and thank you for
    the witnesses for being here today. Ms. Abruzzo, I just want to
    followup on a question that got asked by one of my colleagues.
    I want to ask you, is card check required by law?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Sorry, so yes, by law in 1935 the NLRA gave
    employees the right to designate or select their collective
    bargaining representative. What that means is that they can
    sign cards, and if a majority of those employees support
    unionization, then that union can then bring that forth to the
    employer and seek voluntary recognition.
        Voluntary recognition is actually in the statute right now,
    and to Mr. Vernuccio's point, that is a majority of people who
    are supporting being represented by a union, and that is
    through cards, or some other mechanism that shows that they
    have majority support.
        Mr. Takano. Are employers or workers ever barred from
    asking for a secret ballot election?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Well, under the Cemex decision they are not.
    They can voluntarily recognize the union, that is their
    employees' choice, and they should respect their employees'
    choices, but they have the option under the Cemex decision to
    file a petition and get a Board conducted election.
        However, if they violate the law during the election
    process, between the filing of the petition and the election
    being conducted, in ways that do not allow for a free and fair
    election,they will be subject to a bargaining order.
        Mr. Takano. The assertion made earlier that somehow
    rulemaking, or the Biden administration had somehow done away
    with secret ballot election, is that not a correct assertion?
        Ms. Abruzzo. That is not a correct assertion.
        Mr. Takano. Employers or employees could request a secret
    ballot instead of the card check?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Correct, and oftentimes unions will file a
    petition to have a Board conduct an election.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you. Thank you. My colleagues have spoken
    about the seismic changes that have occurred for workers and
    organized labor since the Trump administration took office,
    including the unprecedented removal of member Gwynne Wilcox
    from the National Labor Relations Board.
        As you stated, the removal of Member Wilcox deprived the
    Board of a quorum. What does that mean for the workers on the
    ground, and can you give some examples of how this has impacted
    American workers?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Right now, the Board cannot make--issue any
    sort of decisions, so that means that workers who are fired,
    for example, cannot return to work, cannot get the back pay
    that they are owed. We are seeing delay tactics, whether it is
    in unfair labor practice cases where employers now are not
    settling cases, but rather litigating, and then letting it sit
    at the Board where a decision cannot be made, so those
    unlawfully fired people cannot get relief in any timely
    fashion.
        We are seeing it in election cases, where the employers
    will appeal after an election, and have it sit at the Board, so
    when a union wins an election, there will be an appeal by the
    employer, and then it will just sit, and so nothing can happen
    until the Board reaches a quorum.
        Third, just one other thing, they can also test cert,
    meaning that--and have been doing this, where union wins, they
    just say we are not going to recognize and bargain with you,
    with your representative, and then that is it. What happens is
    it undermines employee choice, and it undermines union support
    because the union cannot get to the bargaining table.
        Mr. Takano. Okay. I would like to note for the record that
    as of last week there were 459 cases pending before the Board.
    That is 459 cases of workers who won their union, but their
    bosses are refusing to bargain if their contract workers who
    have been fired, but have not gotten their jobs back, and
    workers illegally denied raises, including thousands of
    Starbucks workers waiting to get back pay.
        On February 18th, the Trump administration issued an
    executive order that mandates that the NLRB submit new
    regulations to the Director of Office of Management and Budget
    for review, but it also allows for OMB to control, and OMB's
    apportionment to advance the President's policies and
    priorities, requires NLRB staff to--oh my goodness, I have run
    out of time.
        I will have to let that--some other member ask that
    question. I will yield back.
        Chairman Allen. I thank the gentleman for yielding and now
    call on Dr. Onder from Missouri for your questions.
        Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
    witnesses for taking time to come and be with us here today. We
    are holding this hearing today at an exciting time in the world
    of labor policy. The American people elected a President who is
    committed to improving worker freedom, so workers could have a
    stronger voice.
        Workers have a right to organize and join unions. At the
    same time, workers' rights of free speech and free association
    must be respected as well. Nowhere is this principle more
    important than in workplace unionization elections. Unions have
    at times hijacked these processes, sometimes with surprising
    results.
        According to research from the Institute for the American
    Worker, just 4.9 percent of current union workers have voted
    for the union that represents them. Unions frequently
    discourage workers who they know will vote against them during
    elections from voting altogether, leading to elections where
    only a handful of workers show up to vote and unionize an
    entire workplace.
        An example is the United Football League, where only 13
    percent of players voted the union into power. Unionization
    elections should empower American workers, not cherry pick the
    few workers who favor unionization. We must ask ourselves how
    we got to this point.
        A study published by the Institute for the American Worker
    in the Mackinac Center for Public Policy released this week
    entitled, ``Misread, How Legal Authorities Allow Tyranny of the
    Minority to Subvert Worker Enfranchisement,'' addresses this
    question.
        The study shows how flawed Court interpretations of the
    Railway Labor Act, and the National Labor Relations Act have
    given rise to our current predicament. Mr. Vernuccio, could you
    share with us some of the key findings of this study?
        Mr. Vernuccio. Thank you, Representative Onder, and it is
    good to be testifying in front of you again, this time in front
    of Congress, so thank you very much.
        Mr. Onder. Yes.
        Mr. Vernuccio. Thank you for your leadership on the Worker
    Enfranchisement Act that would require a quorum of workers to
    bring in a union in order for that union to have exclusive
    representation and represent all workers. The misread study
    that you cite, it has several findings, the first of which it
    sites an earlier Institute for the American Worker Study that
    shows that, as you said, only 4.9 percent of workers had ever
    voted for the union at their workplace.
        The reasons for that is many first, as you pointed out,
    unions can organize with a minority, a slim minority of workers
    voting for that union. It is also, as my fellow witness, Mr.
    Solem, has pointed out, the difficulty of removing a union when
    it is formed.
        This is why having a quorum or having as the clear language
    of the National Labor Relations Act says, the majority of
    employees select the union is so important.
        Mr. Onder. Yes. Well, no, thank you. Thank you for that.
    Yes, thank you for your mention of my own bill, the Worker
    Enfranchisement Act. I think clearly, we need a legislative
    solution to fix this problem. That is why my bill would require
    two-thirds quorum of eligible workers to be present at a
    workplace unionization election for the election to be deemed
    valid.
        I believe this ensures a fair elections process, and before
    we subject the entire workplace to monopoly representation by
    the union, this is important. My bill, as you know, would also
    require secret ballot voting. The NLRB has long recognized that
    in person voting via secret ballots results in the highest
    level of participation in union representation elections.
        The Supreme Court, in fact, in NLRB vs. Gissel Packing
    Company recognized that card checks are, ``admittedly inferior
    to the election process,'' and noted that, ``We would be
    closing our eyes to obvious difficulties if we did not
    recognize that there have been abuses, primarily arising out of
    misrepresentation by union organizers.''
        Mr. Solem, I was wondering if you could highlight some of
    those abuses, particularly in light of the NLRB's Cemex
    decision?
        Mr. Solem. Thank you, Congressman. Well, if you look at
    what Cemex does, it is rather radical. Cemex says we take an
    election, and we throw out the election results, install the
    union by government fiat to rule, even when they lost. I am
    running out of time, so just very, very quickly, card check is
    vastly inferior because all of the protections of the secret
    ballot election are missing in a card check.
        There is no secrecy, there can be coercion, and you can be
    asked time and time again to sign a card, whereas an election
    you just vote once.
        Mr. Onder. Thank you, I yield back.
        Chairman Allen. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Now, I
    recognize Ranking Member DeSaulnier for your 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Abruzzo, the
    importance of the independence of all independent Boards and
    Commissions, but in this instance in particular, the danger of
    that independence as prescribed by statute, could you address
    that, and the attack on that by this administration?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Yes. Thank you. Workers again will not have an
    independent agency, and independent decisionmaking, so what
    that means is that there will be thumbs on the scale of
    justice. The system will be rigged. It means the people with
    more money, corporate billionaire donors, and other
    corporations will be able to spend their money to influence the
    White House to then avoid liability.
        It actually encourages corruption, and those that are at
    the effect of this are workers who will have less power in
    their workplaces, and less opportunity to make gains, and to
    actually profit for the value that they add to their employers'
    profit-making enterprises.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. We have heard a lot about intimidation. You
    were there for 30 years. Maybe some of that just happens in
    these kinds of situations, but I think of the situation right
    now that is happening in Southern California with David Huerta,
    a labor leader for SEIU and what happened to him, and what is
    happening seems incredibly heavy handed.
        Could you speak to that? If we are going to be--get to what
    I hear all four of you say, and my Republican colleagues, is we
    want to balance. It certainly seems we are out of balance from
    our perspective, and that is an extreme example right now where
    fortunately, he has been released, and due process should go
    ahead if he has broken the law, he should be held accountable.
        The interpretation and the pretty heavy-handed application
    of the law in this instance and others is directed, I think, at
    labor, at silencing them.
        Ms. Abruzzo. Yes, I thank you for that. You know, it's an
    injury to one is an injury to all, and this is an assault on
    immigrant communities who are being indiscriminately rounded up
    and detained, but it's also an assault on this esteemed labor
    leader. It is an assault on the labor movement, and it is an
    assault on all workers around the country and their rights in
    this country, including under the Constitution.
        Their right to free speech, their right to freely
    associate, their right to engage together, their right to
    protest peacefully, and the weaponization of the Federal
    Government to squelch those rights and squelch those actions
    cannot be tolerated. When I was General Counsel, I took an oath
    to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States
    from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
        Just because I was removed from my role as General Counsel
    does not mean that I do not feel that I had that duty to this
    day, and we all need to do our part to ensure that we remain a
    country of the people, by the people, and for the people.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Ms. Abruzzo, history is repeating itself to
    me right now. I remember growing up in Lowell, Massachusetts
    listening to my grandparents and their generation talking about
    the 30's when the Women's Federation of Textile Workers was the
    first labor union, and they were largely immigrants who
    realized how they were being abused.
        The immigration and I like to tease my friend, good friend,
    former Chairman Foxx, that when she says this country was
    founded on freedom, I always add, and cheap labor, so it is a
    dynamic in our history that is replaying itself right now in
    Southern California from my perspective.
        More people come here to aspire to get jobs, but on the
    other hand unfortunately there have been employers and
    political people who wanted them to work for nothing, or next
    to nothing. Could you talk to that? Whether it is the Irish,
    the Italians, or people from Central and South American now
    today. We keep going through this struggle, and we cannot
    forget the original sin of this country in terms of
    enslavement.
        Ms. Abruzzo. Yes. I would say that, you know, rather than
    villainize immigrant communities, we should be embracing these
    hard-working people. They take care of our parents, they take
    and serve our food, they build our homes, they are a part of
    the fabric of this country, and so we should--you know, we have
    more in common than that what separates us.
        We should be embracing everyone who makes sure that this
    country can function as well as it does, so certainly I
    couldn't agree with you more, there should be no intolerance
    when it comes to whether it is immigrant population or the
    LGBTQ population for example.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. For the good of the country.
        Ms. Abruzzo. That is right.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Allen. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and now
    it is my privilege to recognize our great Chairman Emeritus of
    this Committee, Ms. Foxx of North Carolina.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    it, and I thank our witnesses for being here. Mr. Solem, the
    NLRB, during the first Trump administration issued an Election
    Protection Rule, could you explain and provide examples of how
    this rule safeguarded employee free choice?
        I have some followups, so I will ask you to be as succinct
    as you can because I would like to get all my questions
    answered.
        Mr. Solem. Chairman Emeritus Foxx, I will be very succinct.
    It guarded employee free choice because it meant a mere
    allegation could derail an employee's decertification election.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. Let me followup. In August of last
    year, the Biden-Harris NLRB issued a Final Rule titled, ``Fair
    Choice Employee Voice,'' which rescinded the Trump's Board's
    Election Protection Rule and reinstated the Obama era,
    ``blocking charge ending policy,'' which allows certain types
    of unfair labor practice charges to ``block'' a Board's
    scheduled election.
        Can you explain the differences between the Trump and Biden
    policies as they relate to unfair labor practice charges, and
    do you believe the Biden era blocking charge policy effectively
    weaponized unfair labor practice claims to stop workers from
    voting to decertify a union?
        Mr. Solem. Chairwoman Foxx, you are absolutely correct. The
    difference between the two is under the Trump One Rule, a mere
    allegation could not stop an election from occurring. Under the
    Biden Rule means that any unfair labor practice that is filed,
    regardless of whether it is meritorious or not will stop an
    election, so it incentivizes filing charges just to increase
    delay.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. Mr. King, welcome back.
        Mr. King. Nice to see you, Dr. Foxx.
        Mrs. Foxx. You are coming so often. You say in your written
    testimony that you believe the restrictions the Biden NLRB
    General Counsel imposed on parties engaged in settling unfair
    labor practice charges proved deeply harmful. Could you explain
    why this was harmful?
        Mr. King. Before General Counsel and her staff took an
    unrealistic approach to settlements it cost the agency millions
    of dollars. Pursuant to the agency's own formula, for every
    decrease in the settlement rate, the agency suffers at least a
    2 million dollar hit, if you will. The settlement rate, Dr.
    Foxx, under the previous administration dropped at least 5
    percent, so that is 10 million dollars right now.
        Finally, the time to get to settlement, when and if you
    could get to settlement, has lengthened considerably. The
    budget of the NLRB has been adversely impacted by the prior
    administration.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Vernuccio, in 2023, the
    Biden Board decided the Lion Elastomers case, which held that
    racist, sexist and vulgar rhetoric is permissible in the
    workplace, so long as it occurs in the context of union
    activity. What is your opinion of the Board's decision in this
    case?
        Mr. Vernuccio. I think it opens up the workplace for--it
    creates an unsafe work environment. It opens up the workplace
    to harassment, to vile language and conduct, and it prohibits
    employers from taking action to protect their employees. Those
    employees deserve that respect and that protection.
        Mrs. Foxx. We are quite well aware of the vulgarity that
    has been used by union bosses in recent times, and this is I
    think really disgusting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back
    my time to you.
        Chairman Allen. Thank you, Dr. Foxx, and now I recognize my
    friend Joe Courtney for 5 minutes of questions from the great
    State of Connecticut.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to the
    witnesses for being here today. This is sort of the annual sort
    of, you know, union trashing event that we have in this
    Committee, and you know, it is interesting because I usually
    try to point out with the latest polling from Gallup is in
    terms of the American people's view of labor unions. Again,
    last December was the latest version, 70 percent approval,
    second highest in history.
        Again, that is not always been the case, if you go back
    even a couple decades ago where it had dipped closer to 50
    percent. You know, I also was privileged to join a bipartisan
    delegation to the Vatican a couple of weeks ago for Pope Leo
    the XIV's first papal mass, which was unbelievable to have an
    American pope up there.
        His choice of the name Leo, I think, sent a very powerful
    message because the last Leo, Leo the XIII, wrote the papal and
    cyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891, which recognized basically the
    dignity of work, and the right of workers to ``withhold their
    labor,'' as a way, again, of trying to improve their life.
        It was written actually as sort of a counter to the sort of
    rising Marxism and socialism in Europe, but again, it was a
    recognition that, you know, we have to in a free market
    economy, give workers a legal pathway to make sure that the
    value of their work is also reflected in terms of the labor
    market.
        Again, I think that is really what the genesis of the
    National Labor Relations Act was all about. A couple months ago
    in my district, we had a successful outcome of collective
    bargaining between Electric Boat and the UAW Marine Draftsmen
    Association.
        Again, Congress recognizing that we need to accelerate
    submarine construction, actually appropriated some wage
    improvement funds, which were incorporated into the collective
    bargaining agreement. 30 percent wage increase over the next 5
    years. The metal trades union, which had an earlier contract,
    was reopened to again, you know, match that level.
        Again, it is because frankly if we want to get people into
    the metal trades, we need to basically increase the entry level
    wage rates, as well as to retain workers who were further
    along. I have a column in the Connecticut Mirror, ``Collective
    Bargaining is Rebuilding America's Defense Industrial Base,''
    which I would ask to be admitted to the record.
        Chairman Allen. Without objection.
        [The information of Mr. Courtney follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, it is an
    example of where collective bargaining again helps individual
    workers, but it also provides a very efficient way to address
    critical needs in our economy and national defense. General
    Counsel, former General Counsel Abruzzo, maybe you could
    comment on that?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Thank you. Well, on that last point I would
    say that you know in 1935 the NLRA was enacted because
    employees lacked channels of communication with their
    employers. Congress rightfully said we need to empower workers
    here. We need to--we know there is strength in numbers, we need
    to make sure that they can collectively bargain through
    representatives of their free choosing and improve their wages
    and working conditions.
        Congress rightfully understood that through those improved
    negotiated wages and benefits it would help the failing
    economy. It helps everyone to have workers that have power to
    improve their wages, but also other working conditions: making
    sure there is no discrimination in the workplace, making sure
    there are safe workplaces, making sure there is a grievance in
    arbitration proceeding so that workplace conflict can be
    diminished. That is what the NLRA was enacted for, to promote
    productive labor management relations.
        I will just say one other thing, if there is no independent
    NLRB anymore, then I fear, and I expect, that workers are going
    to go back to the pre-1935 self-help activities of mass
    protests and mass strikes to gain or regain the benefits that
    they earned through their hard work.
        We take governance of our country and get the dignity and
    respect and recognition that they deserve for the value that
    they add to their employer's operations.
        Mr. Courtney. Build a stronger navy. Could you just respond
    to again the comments made about some of your actions as
    General Counsel?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Yes. I mean my goal over my almost 30 years at
    the agency has always been to educate workers about their
    rights and employers and unions about their obligations under
    the statute, and to protect workers' rights to freely associate
    with one another to improve their circumstances.
        Chairman Allen. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
    now recognize Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania for your questions.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am always a bit worried
    about the misinformation and the propaganda that exists and
    floats around, not just in this hearing, but also just from the
    administration as a whole about unions, and about what the NLRB
    is. Especially using the phrase ``restoring balance,'' when we
    are talking about the power dynamics between, you know, a
    corporate conglomerate, and a conglomerate of bus drivers or
    nurses, or fast-food workers.
        I think that is nasty work. There is a blatant attempt to
    mischaracterize what a union is and why they are necessary in
    the first place, so to clear it up we all understand that an
    individual worker has very little, if any, power at all over a
    corporation or CEO. Any other framing is disingenuous.
        People in power in this country would never answer to the
    needs of an individual, say, a janitor, alone, but when all the
    janitors come together in a union and work as a group, that is
    when the power, the boss, the worker, or the corporation has to
    respond. Power attacks unions because they create a more fair
    and balanced economy in favor of working-class people over the
    1 percent. Unions help us adjust the racial and gender race
    gap.
        Right now, nothing is more frightening to a wannabe
    autocrat than organized labor and an educated electorate.
    Corporations have grown accustomed to having an open lane to
    influence politics, however they see fit, and they want you to
    think that it is unfair that their political influence might be
    challenged by some workers, by working class people who have
    come together to advocate for themselves.
        Organized labor in this country is not about big business
    versus big unions. There is no such thing as big unions.
    Working class people versus the people in power or David and
    Goliath as some of us know it, but that is why they do not want
    you to unionize.
        That is why they want to divide union workers versus non-
    union workers because their biggest fear is that all the Davids
    recognize that we are on the exact same team, and they realize
    that if we were to work together against the Goliath, then we
    would be significantly stronger.
        It makes a lot of sense why the rich and the powerful
    people want to attack unions and NLRB, who enforces workers
    rights to form a union. It is not because they think working
    class people have more power than a corporation, but it is
    because they are terrified of what would happen if they
    actually did.
        Over the last 20 years regional NLRB offices across the
    country have lost 50 percent of their staff, while cases have
    skyrocketed. In my district, Pittsburgh NLRB Region 6 office
    have experienced 30 percent decrease in staff without any
    reduction in the case load.
        Then the Trump administration has of course deputized DOGE
    to cut worker protections, and remove the Board member, to
    prevent the Board from maintaining or establishing a quorum.
    Nurses at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Magee
    Hospital have consistently advocated for investing in bedside
    nursing, retaining qualified nurses more direct care for their
    patients.
        UPMC met their concerns with mass layoffs, and they paid
    their former CEO 30 million dollars, and they are leasing a 50-
    million-dollar private jet at the end of May. The nurses filed
    for a union election, but UPMC, our state's largest private
    employer, is trying to exploit the National NLRB's Trump-
    induced dysfunction to claim our local NLRB office cannot hold
    a union election.
        Legal precedent and practice affirm that local labor boards
    are fully authorized to hold elections, even if the national
    board lacks a quorum. Ms. Abruzzo, is that your understanding?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Yes. The regional offices can of course
    conduct elections and certify the results. The issue is that
    there is too many employers out there that are abusing the
    processes and then pushing it to the Board by appealing when a
    union wins an election, and that appeal then gets stuck at the
    Board because there is no quorum.
        Ms. Lee. I have two questions, and we have 1 minute. Very
    quickly, can you speak to the broader impact the NLRB
    understaffing has had on workers over the last decade, and what
    the further cuts may do? If you could compare the NLRB's record
    on fairness and transparency during your time, in your tenure
    to now would be very helpful.
        Ms. Abruzzo. Yes, thank you. In terms of the funding, so
    you know, we have--I say we, the NLRB has the same case intake
    now or around that than they had in 2011, and yet the staffing
    in the field offices has decreased by 62 percent. That means
    that these really dedicated, talented Board agents are doing
    more with less.
        They are trying to process cases as fast as they can, but
    they just cannot keep up because of the chronic understaffing.
    I do not understand the two current agency heads asking for
    less money when the agency needs even more money to ensure that
    they can protect workers in this country.
        Ms. Lee. I appreciate that. I think we could all go on and
    on about the power imbalance, but I will yield back, and thank
    you for the time.
        Chairman Allen. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Now I
    call on my friend, Ranking Member Scott, for your questions,
    sir.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Abruzzo, is it true
    that members of unions tend to get higher wages, work in safer
    workplaces and get better benefits?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Yes, it is absolutely true.
        Mr. Scott. Do union members--does membership in a union
    reduce the racial and gender disparities and pay?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Yes.
        Mr. Scott. In a right to work State, if a person is not a
    member of a union, but a union pays for experts to negotiate a
    good contract, do the non-union members who did not pay any
    dues, get the benefits of higher wages and the other benefits?
        Ms. Abruzzo. They absolutely do.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. King, if a union wins an election fair and
    square, what happens if an employer just stonewalls and refuses
    to effectively negotiate? Without the fine provisions in the
    Hawley legislation, what happens?
        Mr. King. Well, right now Mr. Scott, a Section 885 charge
    would be filed by the union for failure to bargain in good
    faith. That charge is then processed by the agency. I just want
    to make one comment. The H.R. Policy Association and employers
    generally want a quorum on the Board. We want the Board to
    function, Mr. Scott, and in the case you just mentioned, we
    want the Board to expeditiously proceed.
        We urge in our testimony that the President fill two
    vacancies on the Board at present.
        Mr. Scott. Even with those vacancies, without any
    requirement then you are up to what is good faith and if the
    employer really does not want a contract, winning the election
    did not do much good, is that not right?
        Mr. King. Mr. Scott, I would agree with you.
        Mr. Scott. Unless you get that nice language that Mr.
    Hawley, Senator Hawley's proposing that he took right out of
    the PRO Act.
        Mr. King. The Pro Union Act, I think Mr. Scott.
        Mr. Scott. That comes right out of the NLRA, we are
    supposed to be encouraging collective bargaining.
        Mr. King. Mr. Scott, we would agree with you that contract
    negotiations, first contracts, could be done better. The Hawley
    approach is not the way to go.
        Mr. Scott. Ms. Abruzzo, if someone--if a business is
    committing an unfair labor practice, like firing a person for
    organizing unions, what are the sanctions?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Well, currently there are no sanctions because
    there is no functioning Board, so workers that are fired, and
    we see this, or the agency has seen this quite often that when
    employers get wind of an organizing drive, they try to nip it
    in the bud by firing the main union activist, for example.
        Right now, without a full quorum, workers--fired workers,
    cannot get the relief that they deserve.
        Mr. Scott. Even if they were to be a quorum, what would be
    the sanctions?
        Ms. Abruzzo. If there were to be sanctions, they would then
    have to come back. You know, an offer of reinstatement would
    have to be made, and they would get whatever back pay that they
    were owed as well as any direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms
    that resulted from the----
        Mr. Scott. The fact that it matters what they made in the
    meantime?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Correct, right, where they had to work
    elsewhere, that would be deducted, the interim earnings would
    be deducted. I do just want to say one other thing. You know
    whether there becomes a quorum, as Mr. King just said that he
    also, or the H.R. Policy wishes there to be a quorum as well,
    when you don't have independent decisionmakers, that quorum can
    be lost at any time because the President could just fire a
    decisionmaker whose decision he does not agree with.
        That just creates chaos at workplaces where you could just
    keep losing quorums because the President does not like the
    decisions being made.
        Mr. Scott. Can you say a word about captive audience
    meetings, how extensive they can be?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Yes. When I was at the agency--so first of all
    knowledge is power, and employers bank on the lack of knowledge
    of employees, especially during nascent organizing drives and
    violate their rights by firing them, by holding these captive
    audience meetings where they are subjected to anti-union
    rhetoric by their employer, often combined with threats, or
    interrogation and the like.
        Mr. Scott. Whose choice is it to join a union? Is it the
    employees or the employer?
        Ms. Abruzzo. It is the employee's choice of course.
        Mr. Scott. What--and did the employers have to say about
    it?
        Ms. Abruzzo. Nothing.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Allen. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
    believe that concludes our questions. Thank you panel for your
    expert testimony today. Now, I would recognize myself for a
    closing statement. Would you like to make a closing statement,
    Mr. Scott?
        Mr. Scott. Sure.
        Chairman Allen. Okay. All right. I recognize our Ranking
    Member Mr. Scott for a closing statement.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and once again I would
    like to thank everyone for coming, and thank our witnesses for
    speaking with us today, particularly Ms. Abruzzo for
    specifically for her testimony and good work on the NLRB.
    Committee Republicans would have you believe that labor unions
    are the enemy of workers, but as Ms. Abruzzo just testified,
    they do much better when they join a union.
        The fact is that the game has been rigged against workers,
    union and non-union. For decades, unions were popular with the
    American people because they enabled workers who strongly
    advocate for higher wages, safer workplaces and better
    benefits.
        Right now, the fundamental right to unionize is in danger.
    The Trump administration's relentless attacks against the NLRB,
    its staff and its independence are an attack on workers
    themselves. Without proper enforcement of the NLRA and
    independence of the NLRB, workers' rights are compromised.
        These are the people who provide for their families and
    simply want to come home at the end of the day with their whole
    paycheck, healthy and safe, and they deserve to be protected by
    an agency that works for them, not for law breaking employers.
    Forming a union must be a protected right, not an endless
    fight.
        By gutting the NLRB and eliminating its quorum, the Trump
    administration and congressional Republicans undermine working
    people, businesses, the economy and America as a whole. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Allen. I thank the Ranking Member for yielding,
    and now I will offer my closing statement. Again, on behalf of
    the members of the Subcommittee I thank our witness for giving
    your perspective on how the NLRB can fulfill its mission.
    Restoring balance and ensuring fairness and transparency at the
    NLRB I think is a worthy cause, and I think we have made it
    clear today we have got some work to do there.
        Today's hearing makes clear that we need labor policies
    that put individual worker choice at the forefront with
    reasonable expectations for job creators. You know it is hard
    to believe just 6 years ago we had the best economy in my--our
    lifetime. Workers' wages were increasing at a pace not seen
    before.
        You know, today we even have 7 million openings for jobs in
    this country, and I think in this Golden Age there is going to
    great opportunity for workers if we can put the proper policies
    forward that will make us again, the greatest economy in our
    lifetime because folks, it is all about jobs, jobs, jobs, and
    opportunity.
        I believe every American should be given that privileged,
    and also the privilege to be an entrepreneur as well, and so
    that's what we are fighting for. As our witnesses testified
    today, the NLRB should implement policies that allow employees
    the freedom to choose how they want to be represented, through
    the use of secret ballot elections and clear, predictable
    guidelines for employees, employers, and I again emphasize
    secret ballot.
        The NLRB should also serve as a neutral authority on the
    issues of joint employment and independent contractor status.
    The Biden-Harris Board, however, was not a fair or neutral
    agency. They put the interest of put labor first at every turn,
    and workers across America are paying for it today.
        I look forward to working with the members of this
    Subcommittee and administration to find much of these solutions
    that advance worker and employer freedom. This hearing is about
    the worker, it is not anti, it is about workers. The people who
    have made this country.
        This body did not create the greatest economy in our
    lifetime it is our great workers that created the greatest
    economy in our lifetime. I would like to again thank our
    witnesses for taking the time to testify before this
    Subcommittee today. Without objection, there being no further
    business, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [Additional submissions from Rep. Onder follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Questions and responses submitted for the record by Mr.
    Aaron Solem follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Questions and responses submitted for the record by Ms.
    Jennifer Abruzzo follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]