[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]