[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNMASKING UNION ANTISEMITISM
=======================================================================
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, SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
----------
Serial No. 119-26
----------
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 PUBLISING OFFICE
63-570 PDF 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 September 9, 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 on
Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
WITNESSES
Mann, Kyle Koeppel, Senior Staff Attorney, New York Legal
Assistance Group (NYLAG)................................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Rubinstein, David, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of History,
Cornell University......................................... 69
Prepared statement of.................................... 72
McCartin, Dr. Joseph, Professor and Executive Director,
Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor,
Georgetown University...................................... 152
Prepared statement of.................................... 154
Taubman, Glenn, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal
Defense Foundation......................................... 162
Prepared statement of.................................... 164
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Chairman Allen:
Letter dated September 2, 2025, from Keri D'Angelo....... 360
Written testimony dated September 9, 2025, from Shelley
Goldfarb............................................... 362
Written testimony dated September 9, 2025, from Karin
Yaniv.................................................. 365
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina:
Article dated August 29, 2025, from www.wsj.com, titled
``Stanford's Graduate Student Union Tries to Stifle
Dissent''.............................................. 346
UNMASKING UNION ANTISEMITISM
----------
Tuesday, September 9, 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, Owens,
Fine, Walberg, DeSaulnier, Courtney, Norcross, Lee, Mannion,
and Scott.
Also present: Representative Stefanik.
Staff present: Vlad Cerga, Director of Information
Technology; Maren Emmerson, Staff Assistant; Cabell Fleet,
Intern; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human
Services Policy; 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; Kevin O'Keefe, Professional Staff
Member; Alexis Morgan, Intern; Ethan Pann, Deputy Press
Secretary and Digital Director; Leah Raymond, Intern; Kane
Riddell, Legislative Assistant; Sara Robertson, Press
Secretary; Dominico Sassano, Intern; Heidi Schneider,
Professional Staff Member; Ann Vogel, Director of Operations;
Joe Wheeler, Professional Staff Member; James Whittaker,
General Counsel; Jeanne Wilson, Retirement Counsel; Damian
Arambula, Minority Intern; Ellie Berenson, Press Assistant;
Ilana Brunner, Minority General Counsel; Zenaida De La Cruz,
Minority ChCI Fellow; Sarah Holehouse, Minority Intern;
Alexandra Pernie, Minority Intern; Stephanie Lalle, Minority
Communications Director; Dhrtvan Sherman, Minority Research
Assistant; Raiyana Malone, Minority Press Secretary; Kwesi
Matthews, Minority Einstein Fellow; Kevin McDermott, Minority
Director of Labor Policy; Eleazer Padilla, Minority Staff
Assistant; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; Banyon
Vassar, Minority Director of IT.
Chairman Allen. The Subcommittee on Health, Employment,
Labor and Pensions will come to order. I note that a quorum is
present, and without objection, the Chair is authorized to call
a recess at any time.
Today's hearing will examine the ways in which unions are
using Federal law to pursue their anti-Israel political agenda,
and to harass and discriminate against Jewish workers. Today we
will hear about how unions, like the United Electrical Workers,
and United Auto Workers affiliate, A Better NYLAG, N-Y-L-AG,
would rather defend union members who engage in disruptive,
discrimination and antisemitic behavior than fulfill their duty
to fairly represent all the workers they represent.
We will hear today about how their unions are selling them
down the river, even though Jewish workers have supported
unions and been leaders in the labor movement for generations.
This Subcommittee held a hearing 14 months ago because we were
concerned about the increase in antisemitic incidents in our
country and in our workplaces.
Unfortunately, in the last year, we have seen even more
tragic incidents of discrimination and violence against Jewish
people, including right here in our Nation's capital. According
to the FBI crime tracking data, anti-Jewish incidents are the
most common religion related hate crime, for a group that
represents less than 3 percent of Americans, Jewish people are
victims of roughly 60 percent of all religious-based hate
crimes.
Last year, the ADL reported over 9,300 antisemitic
incidents across the United States, a 5 percent increase from
2023, and the highest number on record since the ADL began
tracking antisemitic incidents in 1979. The unions we will hear
about today have chosen to spend time and money advancing their
divisive, harmful and anti-American political agenda.
Furthermore, these unions are throwing sand in the gears of
the employers, trying to create workplaces that are not hostile
or discriminatory for the Jewish employees. Take for example,
ABN. ABN represents public interest lawyers in New York City.
When employees put up posters around the office celebrating the
actions of Hamas and violence against Jewish people, the
employer banned all posters about the conflict in Israel and
Gaza.
The union did not go along with this quietly. Instead, ABN
filed unfair labor practice charges against the employer for
this policy designed to protect Jewish workers. Take another
example, the Cornell Graduate Student Union. This union spends
its time trying to stop Cornell from disciplining students who
violate school policies. They disrupt campus life and harass
Jewish students.
When Jewish graduate students respectfully ask not to have
to fund this union's activities, the union tries to make them
pay anyway and threatens to get them fired if they do not pay
dues, flouting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Union
members have rights under the Labor Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act and the Supreme Court's backed decision to speak
out against these unions and not pay dues for political
activities they disagree with.
Title VII protects workers who want to live their lives
with integrity and protects them from having to sacrifice their
faith and their principles to get and keep a job. Unions have
every incentive to keep workers in the dark about their rights.
Today we will hand the microphone over to those who are not
truly represented by their unions. We will discuss how the law
protects their political and religious convictions and how
lawmakers could provide additional protection. We might not all
agree on the appropriate role of unions in society, but I
believe we can all agree that they should use their resources
to promote the workplace interests of the employees and treat
each worker who relies on them with equal dignity and fairness.
With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for an opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Allen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back to
all the witnesses, thanks for being here. Let us start by
saying no one should be threatened, harassed, or attacked
because of who they are, who they worship, or what they stand
for. I agree we should do more to combat antisemitism in
America.
I also agree with Ranking Member Scott of the full
committee who has correctly pointed out that while we have had
many hearings on antisemitism, we have not had one addressing
racism, xenophobia, sexism, Islamophobia, or similar harms
confronting workers and student groups.
As we discuss these issues today, I want to remind my
colleagues that the labor movement is a large, diverse
coalition of workers of Americans, including Jewish Americans,
that has been a significant force in the battle against
antisemitism. We are fortunate to have Joseph McCartin here as
one of our witnesses.
He is a labor historian, and a history professor at
Georgetown University, who also serves as the Executive
Director of the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the
Working Poor. Dr. McCartin's written testimony details how the
labor movement has been among the most important forces
countering antisemitism, and how labor unions are fundamentally
diverse.
On a personal note, I will always also note that he
graduated from the best Catholic Jesuit college in the United
States, Holy Cross in Worcester, which I just happened to go to
as well. As Dr. McCartin mentions in his testimony, one of the
most notable labor leaders, and one of the most amazing
Americans in our history, was a Jewish immigrant from London,
Samual Gompers, a cigar maker by trade, and the son of Dutch
Jewish working-class immigrants, by way of London.
He was the first President of the American Federation of
Labor. He is reported to have said, ``To be free, the workers,
[American workers,] must have a choice. To have a choice they
must retain in their own hands the right to determine under
what conditions they will work.''
Throughout history, unions have been pivotal in advancing
the conditions of the right of workers. From establishing the
5-day work week to championing minimum wage, banning child
labor, protecting workers from being maimed and killed at work,
the labor movement has been instrumental in building and
sustaining America's middle class.
The labor movement created the American middle class, which
is now under relentless attack. Since returning to office,
President Trump and his administration have attacked workers'
right to organize, exposed them to exploitive workplaces. For
example, President Trump has stripped nearly half a million--
half a million--of Federal workers of their hard-won
protections in one of the worst, if not the worst, act of union
busting in modern American history.
He has also undermined the National Labor Relations Board,
which is responsible for cracking down on illegal union busting
for millions of private sector workers. At a time of obscene
wealth inequality in the United States, union workers enjoy
approximately 20 percent higher wages and are more likely to
have access to benefits such as health insurance, paid leave,
and pension plans.
Union-represented workers also have the right to resign
from union membership, the right to object to dues beyond
representational activities known as the Beck right, which the
Chairman referred to in his opening comments. Even the right to
request religious accommodation for nonpayment of union dues.
Unions are legally required to inform workers of their Beck
rights. Conversely, employers have no obligation to directly
inform their workers of their right to organize a union and
stand up for better working conditions without retaliation. Our
economic system has been rigged against the working class for
decades.
As lawmakers, we should work to strengthen workers' rights
to balance the playing field, so that workers can afford to
provide a better life for themselves and their families, to buy
a home, and to retire in dignity, and give their children a
better life than they had.
I look forward to today's discussions. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member DeSaulnier
follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Allen. Okay. I thank the Ranking Member, and now
we will go to the introduction of witnesses. Sorry, excuse me.
Sorry. A few legal matters to take care of. 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 note that some of our colleagues who are not
permanent members of this Subcommittee may be waving on for the
purpose of today's hearing. I was in a hurry to get to our
witnesses, so I almost missed that.
Now, we will turn to the introduction of our four
distinguished witnesses. Our first witness is Ms. Kyle Koeppel
Mann, Senior Staff Attorney for the New York Legal Assistance
Group from New York City. Our second witness is Mr. David
Rubinstein, a Ph.D. Candidate at Cornell University's
Department of History in Ithaca, New York.
Our third witness is Dr. Joseph A. McCartin, Professor of
History and Executive Director at Georgetown's University's
Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Work Poor in
Washington, DC. Our last witness is Mr. Glenn Taubman, a Staff
Attorney for the National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation in Springfield, Virginia, and I trust I got most of
those names correct.
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 count down from 3
minutes.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d), and Committee practice,
however, we 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.
I will first recognize Ms. Mann for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MS. KYLE KOEPPEL MANN, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, NEW
YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
Ms. Mann. Thank you. Good morning. I am Kyle Koeppel Mann,
a Coordinating Senior Staff Attorney in the Immigrant
Protection Unit at the New York Legal Assistance Group, a civil
legal services nonprofit. I am also a former member of A Better
NYLAG, or ABN, a chapter of UAW Local 2325, the exclusive
bargaining representative that has a duty to fairly represent
me.
NYLAG has been a part of my life for decades. It was
founded by my step grandmother in 1990 as a partner agency of
United Jewish Appeal, Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of
New York, which still funds its work. I love the work I do
helping my clients, and I once loved the office where I did it.
Like you, I am a public servant because I care deeply about
improving lives.
In June 2019 I voted to unionize. I believed collective
bargaining would mean better pay, healthcare, caseloads and
workplace conditions. In February 2023, I walked the picket
line when ABN went on strike. However, in 2024, I withdrew from
ABN as a religious objector after its crusade against Israel
following the October 7th Hamas attacks.
The union turned NYLAG from a place where I could proudly
be Jewish and Zionist, identities inseparable for me and most
Jews, into a hostile, antisemitic workplace. For months, Jewish
staff faced posters glorifying violence against Jews and
Israelis. ``Intifada Now, Long Live the Resistance, and Abolish
the Settler State,'' covered NYLAG's walls.
In one of my many complaints to NYLAG management, I wrote
that the images called for, ``the destruction of the Jewish
State of Israel, after the massacre, rape, and kidnapping of
nearly 1,500 Jews by Hamas, an organization that has murdered
countless Jews. The rhetoric in these images is not vague. They
are rallying cries for murdering Jews.
As a Jew, I feel threatened when I see these and depressed
that they surround my workplace.'' To its credit, NYLAG
responded by banning harassing materials that create a toxic
work environment for many Jewish employees. Instead of
supporting us, ABN filed an unfair labor practice charge
against NYLAG for its opposition to antisemitic material.
ABN has failed in its duty to fairly represent all
employees. As such, with the Brandeis Center for Human Rights
Under Law, I, and several other Jewish colleagues have filed
complaints with the National Labor Relations Board and the
Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.
We cannot serve the public while enduring abuse at work.
Jewish union members have the right to expect that their union
will fight to remediate toxic antisemitic workplaces, not be
the ones creating them. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mann follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Allen. Thank you, Ms. Mann. I now recognize Mr.
Rubinstein for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID RUBINSTEIN, PH.D. CANDIDATE, DEPARTMENT
OF HISTORY, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NEW YORK
Mr. Rubinstein: Good morning. My name is David Rubinstein,
and I am a Ph.D. Candidate at Cornell University. In fall 2023,
a bare majority of grad students voted to install the Cornell
Grad Student Union, CGSU as our official bargaining agent. CGSU
is affiliated with the United Electrical Workers, UE, a union
that seeks the destruction of Israel.
When I objected to campus celebrations of Hamas terror
after October 7th, a union organizer emailed my whole
department calling me an apartheid apologist. When Jewish Ph.D.
students were targeted in their offices, CGSU claimed Cornell
needed its consent to discipline the culprits.
When two grad students were suspended for leading a
disruptive encampment calling for intifada revolution, CGSU
demanded their reinstatement. When contract negotiations began,
CGSU demanded that all Ph.D. students be forced to pay union
dues. I and others lobbied the university to reject this
violation of free speech and association.
Cornell promised to protect our rights. President Mike
Kotlikoff stated that forced association would be ``Deeply
unfair to our students, and incompatible with our commitment to
academic freedom.'' This commitment turned out to be
meaningless. When the union threatened to strike, Cornell
reneged on its promises and agreed to mandatory dues.
The sole exception included what Federal law largely
provided already, that religious objectors in a narrowly
defined group with ethical and moral objections could pay a
charity instead. Despite this, Cornell assured us that
assertions of religious and ethical objections would not be
challenged, yet when I and others submitted objection letters,
CGSU subjected us to invasive and burdensome questioning.
Cornell then caved again and agreed that students must
allow the union to ``evaluate'' whether to exempt them from
forced dues. Cornell's Jewish Ph.D. students must now beg the
union for permission not to fund its pro-Hamas, and pro-BDS
activism. When CGSU and UE refused to process my objection and
demanded relative personal information, Cornell and the union
left me no choice but to file discrimination charges at the
Equal Opportunity Commission, with free legal aid from the
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
CGSU then belatedly recognized my objection, but other
students' objections are still being stonewalled, while the
students receive zero support from Cornell. GCSU has since
denied the existence of even narrow exemptions from forced
dues. This summer, the union began targeting student objectors,
claiming we would be fired if we refused to pay them.
Cornell initially protested, but then settled with the
union, despite zero change in its behavior. I know multiple
students currently being threatened with termination for not
paying CGSU, and Cornell refuses to act to end this harassment.
Nearly 2 years after October 7th, the situation is only getting
worse. At Cornell, the union uses its power to shield offenders
from the consequences for their conduct.
Recently, CGSU has rallied to support a self-declared Hamas
backer with a long record of harassing behavior, including
pushing past police to shut down a campus career fair. Though
Cornell belatedly expelled him, the university reversed course
after union intervention. When his visa was finally revoked
after urging the destruction of America, CGSU backed his
lawsuit.
CGSU never misses a chance to protect bullies, while
threatening to fire those who refuse to fund them. It seeks
cover by calling this ``protected activity,'' under the
National Labor Relations Act. I am a registered Democrat.
Protecting students from antisemitism and forced association
should not be a partisan issue. It is wrong to make support of
any ideological organization a condition of earning a Ph.D.
As the steward of taxpayer dollars, Congress should hold
Cornell accountable to its obligations under the Civil Rights
Act. When Cornell allows CGSU and UE to create a hostile
environment, it must face consequences. Finally, Congress
should clarify that Ph.D. students are students, not workers
subject to forced dues.
This was settled law until 2016 when the National Labor
Relations Board erroneously classified us as employees.
Congress should promptly fill vacancies on the NLRB so this can
be rectified.
By ensuring degree students are rightly defined as
students, Congress can end the intimidation and harassment I
and others have experienced from CGSU and UE. The payment of
union dues should be strictly voluntary. Thank for your
invitation to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rubinstein follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Allen. Thank you, Mr. Rubinstein. Next, I
recognize Dr. McCartin for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH MCCARTIN, PROFESSOR AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, KALMANOVITZ INITIATIVE FOR LABOR AND THE WORKING
POOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. McCartin. Thank you, Chair Allen, Ranking Member
DeSaulnier, and members. I wish to share my perspective as a
labor historian on the question you considered today. Let me be
clear that I am not here to represent a union, but rather, as a
scholar of the American labor movement, which is I would argue,
the oldest democratic, multicultural, racially, religiously,
and regionally diverse institution that the United States has
produced in its 250 years.
I would like to speak briefly of the character of the
American labor movement, Jewish members' important role in its
history, and about how the movement historically wrestled with
and addressed such issues as antisemitism. My brief opening
remarks I am just going to make two quick points.
The first is that the labor movement is a uniquely diverse
and pluralistic entity, and American Jews have historically
played and continue to play an important role in its
development and leadership. Labor has been one of the most
important forces counteracting antisemitism in America, even as
it often found its opponents framing their attacks on it in
antisemitic terms.
The pluralistic and inclusive labor movement that emerged
in modern America, and within which Jews have played an
important role and continue to, was a hard-won thing. It was
built in a hostile environment where most workers could not
count on the law to protect their efforts to organize and
bargain collectively until 1935.
It was also built by a uniquely diverse working class, the
most diverse of any industrialized nation. In this context,
marginalized workers often initially had to build their own
separate unions.
Blacks were initially excluded from unions on the railways,
for example. They formed their own Brotherhoods. Most important
being A. Philip Randolph's Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters
whose centenary we have recently marked.
Similarly, many Jewish workers had first opted to form
unions of Yiddish speaking workers, founding the United Hebrew
Trades in 1888. The UHT unions ultimately though affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, though the UHT persisted
as its own organization, ultimately it should be said, giving
birth to the Jewish Labor Committee in 1934, whose explicit
purpose was to fight Nazi antisemitism.
It exists, by the way, to this day as a presence in labor.
Remarkably, out of this fraught crucible of the working class,
a vast diversity, and despite employers' conscious efforts to
pit one group against another, to undermine union organizing,
and to break strikes, the union movement arose that became ever
more inclusive over the course of the 19th and 20th Centuries.
Jewish workers have played a vital role in that history,
and they continue to. At its founding in 1886, the American
Federation of Labor was, as Ranking Member DeSaulnier notes,
headed by a Jewish immigrant, Samuel Gompers, who was elected
to his post, even though Jews were then far outnumbered by
Protestants and Catholics within the AFL.
Nor was Gompers unique. Jewish leaders, such as Sidney
Hillman, Bessie Abramowitz, Rose Schneiderman, David Dubinsky,
Clara Lemlich, Jerry Wurf, Albert Shanker, Sandra Feldman,
Randi Weingarten to this day, have helped to build inclusive,
multi-racial pluralistic unions that have fought for American
workers of every race, religion, and color over decades and
into the present.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that each of those
leaders contended at times with antisemitism, but the
antisemites they fought were typically opponents of the union
movement who used their very prominence within it as evidence
that it was somehow foreign, un-American, or even part of a
worldwide Jewish conspiracy.
In part because of the minority status of America's Jewish
activists, they have always understood the importance of
building bridges across lines of difference, creating unity
among workers. Jewish influence remains strong in labor today.
Antisemitism has not gone away, of course. No one can certify
that there are no antisemites in the labor movement, but where
it does rear its head it must be combated.
The history record clearly shows that labor has been a
bastion of opposition to antisemitism and remains so. Second,
and very quickly, the labor movement is a democratic movement.
It allows for free speech and difference of opinion. Much of
what we will hear today speaks only to that aspect of it.
These two elements, its democracy, its diversity, can allow
it to be characterized, but its record I think is clear. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCartin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Allen. Thank You, Dr. McCartin. Now, I recognize
Mr. Taubman for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. GLENN TAUBMAN, STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIONAL RIGHT
TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA
Mr. Taubman. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.
I have been practicing labor and constitutional law for over 43
years at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
My clients are individual employees who wish to stand apart
from a workplace labor union that they did not choose and do
not want.
I was honored to testify before this Committee exactly 14
months ago, detailing the workplace harassment that labor
unions fomented against Jewish and Israel students at elite
universities, teaching hospitals, K through 12 schools, and
legal aid workplaces. I am back to report that things are worse
than ever due to ever more virulent union antisemitism, which
is actually fostered and protected by our Nation's misguided
labor laws.
More than ever since October 7th, my phone is continuing to
ring off the hook with calls from unionized Jewish and Israeli
graduate students at the Nation's elite universities and
interns and residents at esteemed teaching hospitals asking me
how they can disassociate from unions like the UE, the UAW, and
SEIU. These unions, or their radical affiliates, foment chants
of antisemitic slogans, ostracize the Jewish and Israel
employees they purport to represent, and generally menace them
in their workplaces.
In recent months, I have read commentary to the effect that
what Jewish and Israeli employees are facing in the workplace
is not a real problem, and that the Trump administration is
weaponizing over blown charges of antisemitism to tear down
universities and education. Such assertions are false and
stomach turning.
I want to speak about the real weaponization that is at
play in today's workplace. The weaponization of an archaic
Federal labor law that Congress passed over 80 years ago, which
empowers labor unions with unique privileges granted to no
other private organization in America.
Today's labor unions are not your father's labor unions.
Many of today's progressive unions harbor strong, antisemitic
and even anti-American world views, and they feel free to use
and abuse the potent power Congress gave them to harass and
intimidate Jewish and Israeli employees.
Federal law empowers them to do so in four specific ways.
First, Federal labor law empowers the unions to act as
employees exclusive bargaining representatives, even when the
employees don't want to be represented by such hostile and
hateful organizations.
Second, the Clinton, Obama, and Biden NLRBs transform
graduate students from students to employees, thereby paving
the way for radical unions to represent them and force them to
pay dues, whether they want to or not. Third, under the Biden
NLRB's extravagant view of union power and the Home Depot
ruling, unions outrageous pro-Hamas activities and even
workplace intimidation are considered to be ``protected,
concerted activity,'' meaning union actions that are overtly
hostile to Jews are coddled and protected by Federal law.
Fourth, labor law authorizes unions to demand compulsory
union dues, which allows antisemitic unions to force the
victims of the harassment to pay for those activities or be
fired. At the National Right to Work Legal Foundation, we are
redoubling our efforts to help such employees, but despite our
best efforts, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Beck
decision, and the Duty of Fair Representation Doctrine are
inadequate.
What are the solutions? First, Congress should pass the
National Right to Work Act to end the problem of coercive
forced unionism. Second, Congress should enact legislation
redefining graduate students as students, not employees, as
they were for the first 60 years. Third, Congress should
strengthen Title VII to better protect employees of faith from
union's antisemitism and radical ideologies.
These would be small steps to restore individual employees'
right to not be part of a forced collective that takes hateful,
pro-Hamas views on foreign events 5,000 miles away from the
workplace. What could be more American than that?
I want to conclude by saying that Samuel Gompers, who we
have heard the Jewish AFLCIO Chairman, also said that the
workers of America prefer organizations of a voluntary nature
rather than organizations of compulsion. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taubman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Allen. Thank you, Mr. Taubman, for your testimony.
Under Rule 9, we will now question witnesses under the 5-minute
rule. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. Obviously, we sit
here today thousands of years after Abraham's covenant with
God, and the battle still reigns.
Ms. Mann, you and many of your Jewish coworkers were
supportive of the union before October 7, 2023. Have Jewish
colleagues withdrawn from union activities or stopped attending
meetings due to fear of harassment or hostility?
Ms. Mann.
Ms. Mann. Yes.
Chairman Allen. How does the union's cultivation of this
hostile office culture weakened Jewish members' ability to
benefit from union representation and collective bargaining?
Ms. Mann. Yes. I, along with several other Jewish members
have obtained religious objector status because we do not
believe the union can fairly represent us. Some Jewish members
only attend on Zoom because they cannot face the hatred in
person. In 2025, A Better NYLAG went on strike for a week.
Their No. 1 sticking point was not salary, healthcare, or case
load. It was free speech in and out of the office. The ability
to support Hamas over its Jewish workers.
The union has targeted Jews and sent emails members have
sent emails to other staff members, excluding all Jews in the
office. There has been no declaration that this was
intentional, but it cannot be a coincidence that only Jewish
members have been left off of these emails, thank you.
Chairman Allen. Mr. Rubinstein, you have filed
discrimination charges against the union with the EEOC, which
you included as an attachment to your written testimony. How
did the unions and Cornell's actions give you no choice but to
file charges with the EEOC?
Mr. Rubinstein. Cornell could have denied the union's
demand for mandatory dues but instead made me proactively seek
out a religious exemption. Upon contract ratification, Cornell
claimed I had nothing to worry about because I could
religiously object by ticking a box on a form. That never
materialized.
Instead, I had to beg union bosses for permission by
sending a highly personal letter detailing the private details
of my religious beliefs and practices. It felt deeply
humiliating and degrading to need to beg for permission from
those engaged in Jew hatred. Even that was not enough for these
union bosses, and they demanded further irrelevant personal
information, not only about myself, but also about my synagogue
and my rabbi.
At that point, because Cornell was forcing me to pay dues,
and the union was demanding information they had no right to, I
had no other choice but to press charges.
Chairman Allen. Thank you. Mr. Taubman, you represent
several employees seeking religious accommodations from the
unions that represent them. Could you discuss whether Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act provides sufficient protections for
people of faith in unionized workplaces? Is there anything we
can do to strengthen legal protections for religious workers in
unionized workplaces?
Mr. Taubman. Title VII provides some protections, but as
Mr. Rubinstein just said, the problem with Title VII is these
employees are essentially required to beg their tormentors. I
will say that again. You have to ask the entity that is
harassing you and tormenting you on your workplace for a
religious accommodation. That is the worst part of this because
Title VII requires you to prove to certain level your sincerely
held beliefs. Who do you have to prove it to? To the union that
is tormenting you.
This should be something that Congress can fix, by making
it easier for people to assert their religious rights.
Chairman Allen. Could you define tormenting? I mean.
Mr. Taubman. Tormenting meaning ostracism, shunning, pro-
Hamas activities, telling your graduate students pay dues or be
fired, while we are out fomenting pro-Hamas activities. Hamas
is a meatyevil killing terrorist group on the U.S.'s watch
list, but suddenly its protected labor free speech to support
an anti-American murderous media evil terrorist group. That is
what the labor laws bring to the situation.
Chairman Allen. Thank you. That concludes my questions,
unless the panel has anything else you would like to offer.
Okay. Well, I will yield my time to Mr.--Mrs. Lee of
Pennsylvania.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important
that we are clear about what is really going on here.
Republicans are committed to eroding labor protections in this
country, and they will do anything, and use anything to that
end. The attacks on workers are relentless, and let us be
clear, when they attack unions, they are attacking Jewish
workers and Black workers, and white workers, and disabled
workers--all workers.
Just last month the Department of Veterans Affairs
terminated collective bargaining agreements for workers at the
Pittsburgh VA Medical Center in my district, abandoning
groundskeepers, transportation workers, nurses, and doctors.
Unions, just like our government, are democratic institutions.
Workers choose to unionize based on majority support, just
like Cornell graduate workers voted to unionize 1,873 votes to
80. Unions are also a channel for their members to debate and
voice beliefs and political issues, just like when UAW debated
and voted to adopt a cease-fire resolution, 1,067 votes to 570.
In democracies we are supposed to accept the outcome of a
vote, even if we disagree with it. As democratic institutions
unions bear responsibility for protecting their members from
acts of hate, absolutely, while fostering environments for
critical and constructive discourse because union members will
never agree on every point, and they are not meant to.
Being engaged in a union where you have a stake and a say
means having uncomfortable conversations, but discomfort and
danger are not the same thing, and at a time when those in
power are looking for any excuse to undermine worker
protections, it is more important than ever that we understand
and make that distinction.
Those of us who believe strongly in unions recognize that
while organized labor may have had a complicated legacy,
especially considering its history, dealing with, and even
excluding marginalized groups that today they work to remedy
that because they know, and we all know that for marginalized
groups, it is the No. 1 pathway to economic security and a
place in the middle class. We fight and we work every day with
unions, just like we do with our own nation's governments, and
make sure that they live up to their true ideals.
Unions are institutions that reflect the demographics and
the diversity of our workplaces, and we have more work to do,
just as we have more work to do to make our country that more
perfect union. There is no question that if we actually want
workers to be protected, we need unions.
If we want unions to be equitable, we cannot ask them to be
apolitical. Dr. McCartin, can you speak briefly about the
history of workers taking political stances through their
unions at critical times in history?
Dr. McCartin. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman, I'm
happy to. Unions, from their formation in the United States
have realized that they have to take political stands to
effectively defend and advance the interests of their members.
That was true in the 1820's when the first unions helped to
launch their own political parties, working men's parties.
That was true in the early 20th Century when Samuel Gompers
drafted labor's bill of grievances because the courts were
attacking workers' rights to strike effectively, to organize,
and they knew they had to get political to fight back against
that. That was true in the 1960's when the labor movement
supported the Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act because
they understood that what could be won at the bargaining table
could be undermined by politics if workers didn't have a
democratic voice there.
That has been the labor movement's history. That is its
stand even today.
Ms. Lee. Yes, and if I could ask you another question very
quickly. Historically, how has social inequality coincided with
the strength or lack thereof of labor unions?
Dr. McCartin. Social inequality has been in inverse
proportion to union strength. When union strength is strong,
social inequality is weak. When union strength weakens, social
inequality grows. That was true in the 1920's when the labor
movement hit one of its low points, inequality surged.
After World War II, when the labor movement was strong,
inequality dropped. Economists talk about the period of the
Great Compression because the poorest 20 percent of Americans
saw their income rise most then. When unions weakened in the
20th and early 21st Century, however, we have seen inequality
surge. Perhaps members here know of the recent study by the
Rand Corporation, which documented that if we had merely
retained the distribution of income we had in 1973 to the
present day, the lowest 90 percent of Americans would have
earned 79 trillion dollars more than they ended up earning.
That is because of union weakness.
Ms. Lee. May I, if I can conclude. I just want to say that
this is obviously not about protecting workers, it is about
silencing dissent, criminalizing free speech, and chipping away
at the foundation of our democracy in order to accelerate a
shift toward authoritarianism.
Unions are the first line of protection against that, and
we have to speak out against these attempts to suppress these
unions. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Allen. Thank you. The gentlelady yields. Now, I
call on our great Chairman for his questions.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, let me make it
very clear. We are not attacking unions. We are attacking
abusive union leadership that are not doing what they are
supposed to do for their union membership. I thank unions for
the working conditions I had at U.S. Steel South Works because
of what my dad as a union organizer and others did.
We are talking about the backing away of protecting union
workers. We are not attacking unions here, and I think that is
why the Republican party is now being seen as the party of the
working man and woman. The rank and file. Randi Weingarden has
not said anything, anything about antisemitism. To raise her
name, raises my ire.
Ms. Mann, your testimony is very clear. Let me go back.
Have there been instances where the union has chosen to advance
the interests of those engaging, and I am talking about the
union leadership, protecting the interests of those engaging in
harassing conduct over the interest of union's Jewish members?
Ms. Mann. Yes. Very sadly, the union has doubled down on
protecting its members' ability to promote antisemitism and
images that make Jews feel threatened in the workplace. As soon
as our poster policy was enacted, requiring that the office
simply be neutral, that nobody posts anything related to the
Gaza Israeli conflict.
Mr. Walberg. What is wrong with that?
Ms. Mann. Exactly, that is all we are asking for. We just
do not--at 5 p.m. when you leave the office, you should be free
to say whatever you want about whatever issue it is. You have
complete free speech.
Mr. Walberg. American liberty.
Ms. Mann. When you are in the office you do not have a
right to free speech, and that is all that NYLAG management
asked to be done. As soon as that happened, ABN posted
watermelons all over our office, a symbol of Palestinian
solidarity, and over the watermelons it says, ``NYLAG violates
free speech. NYLAG silences workers.'' They continued these
tactics, holding lunchtime pickets where they walk around the
office in Keffiyehs holding Palestinian flags.
They pose for pictures in our reception area. These images
are visibly seen by clients, not just Jewish members, but we
serve the most vulnerable populations in New York City, and
they too are traumatized by walking into our office.
We have to shield them from the images that surround our
cubicles and try as quickly as possible to get them to a
conference room without seeing so many of the intimidating,
harassing materials that surround the office.
Mr. Walberg. Cowardly union leadership that is encouraging
this type of thing to go on, as well as entities that do not
stand up against it, so I appreciate that. Mr. Rubinstein,
United, as you have indicated, United Electrical Workers Union
leadership and the Cornell Graduate Student Union leadership
chose to help fellow graduate students avoid university
discipline, and expulsion, and deportation by the U.S.
Government.
This student engaged in disruptive anti-Israel advocacy on
campuses, as well as cheering for the, and I quote, ``End of
the U.S. empire,'' celebrating Hamas' actions on October 7th,
and tweeting that Zionists are a ``moral less, soul-less,
cowardly, inhumane bunch.''
What do you think of the union leadership using its
resources to defend this graduate student?
Mr. Rubinstein. Well, that is certainly the union's
prerogative to defend such an individual. I want to be clear, I
am not antiunion, and I believe in free speech, so if they want
to support someone like that, absolutely fair game, but Jewish
students should not be forced to financially support that. We
should certainly not be forced to beg for permission to not do
so, as Cornell is currently forcing us to do.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you for nailing that home, the issue
that we are talking about there. That goes back to free speech
and freedom in American, thank you. Mr. Taubman, the duty of
fair representation doctrine was intended to protect workers in
a bargaining unit who may be in the minority in the union and
to force unions to represent those people fairly as well, even
if the union leadership did not like those workers or agree
with their views.
Have you seen unions violate the duty of fair
representation with respect to Jewish employees?
Mr. Taubman. The duty of fair representation, if properly
interpreted, would prevent exactly what Ms. Mann and Mr.
Rubinstein are seeing on their campuse, or their workplaces.
The problem is that over the years the duty of fair
representation has been watered down, and it is very difficult
for employees to use that to protect themselves from this sort
of antisemitic atrocities in the workplace.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
Chairman Allen. I was a little lenient on our chairman
there on time, but anyway.
Mr. Walberg. Less lenient than one of our other members,
take it from Mr. Wilson.
Chairman Allen. All right. Mr. Wilson is next. All right. I
will now recognize Mr. Wilson, from the great State of South
Carolina, for his line of questioning.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Chairman. I am very
grateful to share a district with you, North Augusta, Augusta,
South Carolina and Georgia working together. Indeed, Mr.
Taubman, I appreciate your service as the staff attorney for
the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
For decades, the National Right to Work Committee has been
a successful champion across the country for workers who have
the freedom to join or not join a union. The Right to Work
Committee is just such an example of freedom and so thank you
for what you do.
With that in mind, your written testimony says that some
unions are weaponizing our labor law to harm Jewish employees
in the workplace. How are they doing that, and can you give
examples?
Mr. Taubman. Sure. As I said in my opening, Federal law
allows forced representation. Nobody tells you, Congressman,
that when you want to sell your house you must use a certain
representative who may hate you and may trash your people and
your religion. In the union context, Federal labor law allows
for forced representation. These people are required to be
represented by a hateful organization. That is the first
Federal laws protections of unions.
Then the second one, of course, is forced dues. They are
told that they have to pay for the privilege of being harassed
by these unions. This is all a matter of Federal labor law.
Mr. Wilson. I want to thank you too for bringing up the
issue of Hamas. We are not talking about people who are
disagreeing with issues. Hamas, the covenant of August 1988 was
very clear. Article 7, it states that every Jew is to be chased
behind a rock or tree until you find the last Jew behind a rock
and kill him. That is their covenant.
That is their plan. From the river to the sea, means the
elimination and death of the Jewish people. We are not talking
about just a disagreement of a policy. Ms. Mann, some unions
have chosen to mount defenses of antisemitic activity in their
units, and in some cases advocate on behalf of union members
who have engaged in antisemitic conduct outside the workplace,
particularly something that sounds so innocent, such as pushing
the anti-Israel boycott divestment and sanctions, BDS policies.
What do you feel can be done? Does this undermine the
National Labor Relations Act?
Ms. Mann. I believe that unions should stick to negotiating
wages, healthcare, employment conditions. The union should not
have a political view that is unrelated to its members well-
being in the workplace. Just because unions were once
politically active, historically, does not mean that they need
to be now. Times change. We should not have to vote about
political resolutions on anything about foreign policy that has
nothing to do with representing individuals in New York City.
The resolution that was mentioned by Ms. Lee was a
resolution that was sent by ABN less than a month, or sorry,
just over a month after 10/13, asking union members to vote on
whether they support calling the Israeli--sorry, calling
Israel's attack on Palestine a genocide.
We should not be forced to answer such questions. It does
not matter to our workplace. It does not matter to what we do
for our clients. Political foreign relations should not be a
part of the union's purview.
Mr. Wilson. How sad, indeed, genocide of the population of
Gaza has increased substantially. There is not a genocide, and
how sick for people to misconstrue what's going on. Mr.
Rubinstein, you say in your written testimony that you did not
believe graduate students should be considered employees under
the National Labor Relations Act.
Why do you think the graduate students like yourself, as
young as you are, should not be covered by NLRA?
Mr. Rubinstein. As Ph.D. students, we are provided with
teaching assistantships to support ourselves while we work
toward our degree. Our work as teaching assistants serves as a
derivative of our primary status as students. Since
unionization, our primary role as students has become a
derivative of our part-time job as teaching assistants, meaning
that we now have a non-academic, third party that holds power
over the primary purpose for which we came to study in the
first place.
Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you for bringing that to the
attention of the American people. I yield back.
Chairman Allen. Okay. The gentleman from South Carolina
yields. Now, we go to Chairwoman Emeritus Foxx from North
Carolina, for questions.
Mrs. Foxx. Well, thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate that. I appreciate our witnesses being here today. I
know this is a very tough issue for you all to be dealing with,
especially Ms. Mann and Mr. Rubinstein because they are so much
involved with this, so I really appreciate your being here.
Ms. Mann, your written testimony discusses how Jewish
employees are afraid to speak up about the toxic workplace the
unions created. Why do you believe they are afraid to speak up?
Ms. Mann. I believe they are afraid to speak up because
they have already experienced the feeling of being ostracized.
We never considered ourselves as a separate group in the
office, but we have essentially been pushed into our own little
Jewish ghetto, where we can only discuss matters of the office
with each other.
We do not feel that the union has our back, and in fact,
before this last strike many of my Jewish colleagues who had
not yet obtained religious objector status, felt that the union
was pressuring them to go on strike because their primary goal
was not increasing our wages or getting us better healthcare.
It was fighting the NYLAG management policy that posters
not be posted in the office about anything related to this
conflict. They argued again that they have the right to free
speech in the office, and the union has misled them because
there is no right to free speech in a private workplace.
The union has told them that the poster policy is an
``egregious infringement on our members' speech and a violation
of labor law.''
Mrs. Foxx. What you are talking about sounds so much like
what happened in Germany a long time ago, and we have all said
never again this kind of thing can never happen again. Mr.
Rubinstein, your written testimony includes exhibits of many
emails documenting how the union and Cornell have tried to
enforce the forced dues clause in the collective bargaining
agreement.
Could you discuss whether the union has communicated to
graduate students clearly and honestly what their rights and
obligations are with respect to the union?
Mr. Rubinstein. It has not. We have the right to object to
union dues on religious, ethical, or moral grounds, and yet the
union has consistently represented that all graduate students
are forced to pay dues or agency fees to the union, negating
that third option.
Mrs. Foxx. What do you think could be done to make sure
that people in unionized workplaces like yours know their
rights?
Mr. Rubinstein. Well, the first answer to that is that one
should not be forced to go through a burdensome and time-
consuming exemption procedure in order not to fund a union that
one does not wish to support. Union dues should be voluntary.
While Cornell is locked into a contract with forced dues, the
university should make clear that all exemptions will be
recognized.
That the individuals do not need to beg for the unions'
permission, with the union being given free rein to obstruct,
ignore or deny visa exemptions. The university can recognize
them.
Mrs. Foxx. Mr. Taubman, Mr. Rubinstein's written testimony
and what he has said verbally, discuss receiving an intrusive
questionnaire from the union, which he is alluding to again
when he tried to obtain a religious accommodation. What
responses have your clients at other workplaces received when
they invoke their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act?
Mr. Taubman. The first response that the UE union gave my
clients at MIT, who were Jewish, was to write them a letter
saying, ``Jews can't object to our union because our founder
was Jewish.'' They told these people that they know more about
their Judaism and their religious beliefs than they do.
Since that time, the union has been sending these invasive
questionnaires, and this has happened at Stanford. This has
happened at Cornell. This has happened at other schools. They
try to conduct a little mini inquisition to harass and delay
and prevent these people from exercising their religious
liberties under Title VII.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, and I think the term you used earlier
about torture is certainly very appropriate. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent to insert in the record an article from
the Wall Street Journal, August 29th, Stanford's Graduate
Student Union Tries to Stifle Dissent.
Chairman Allen. Without objection.
[The information of Mrs. Foxx follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Allen. The gentlelady yields back. Next is Ranking
Member Scott for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Go ahead. Could you call on Mr. Courtney?
Chairman Allen. Mr. Courtney is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Courtney. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to Ranking Member Scott. I apologize, a lot going on today,
but I did read, again, the witnesses' statements, and again,
you know, I want to thank all of you for being here, and the
effort that you put into your testimony.
Ms. Mann, in particular, I found your testimony to be
actually quite powerful in terms of just telling your story. As
a former public defender, I sort of identify a little bit, at
least with the mission of the legal aid, and you're obviously
very passionate about your clients in terms of trying to, you
know, advocate for fairness and justice, you know, in the
system.
You know, that is not for the faint of heart. I can
personally attest to that. Obviously, you also, you know,
described your sort of, you know, your sort of foundational
feelings about unions a little bit. I guess the one question I
just really wanted to ask you was that you know, after reading
your testimony, and you know, there are some really important
issues that everybody has raised in their testimony.
There is obviously also another sort of agenda here, which
is to pass a National Right to Work Law, and I just was curious
just to hear what your thoughts were about whether or not that
somehow, you know, would be a solution to you know the problem
that has been identified here because that would be a fairly
blunt instrument, you know, in terms of the rights of workers
who again belong to unions that are actually doing good things
for themselves.
Ms. Mann. Yes, there is--the union members that I work
with, while they have been told that they are aware of their
rights, most of them did not know that they had the right to
file for religious objector status.
Mr. Courtney. I understand that. I am really talking about,
like we are here as Members of Congress to deal with
legislation, and there is a bill to pass a National Right to
Work Law, and that is really my question. I mean do you feel
that that is something Congress should take up, and that would
be a solution in terms of, you know, really radically rewriting
the labor laws of this country?
Ms. Mann. I think as Mr. Rubinstein said, the labor laws
need to be addressed under the current framework, and then NLRB
should take up the claims that we filed with them about an
unfair representation and the duty to represent.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Right to work, I mean it is really
just, as I said, it is a far blunter sort of instrument in
terms of addressing this issue, and I certainly agree with you
about, you know, having the NLRB act swiftly. It did not help
matters that the President almost the day after he was
inaugurated, basically fired a member, and they do not have a
functioning quorum, so that, you know, the goal of actually
having timeliness in terms of taking up issues has been
paralyzed by this administration.
Dr. McCartin, as some of my colleagues know, I kind of
always track the Gallup poll in terms of American public
opinion regarding labor unions. They have been asking this
question since the 1930's. Actually a few days ago they did
their 2025 update, and again it was a 68 percent approval
rating.
It is eight straight years now that it has exceeded 60
percent, and I have been around long enough in this Committee
to remember when it was much lower than that. I just wondered
if you would just sort of comment in terms of particularly at a
time when we are watching health care get cut through H.R. 1,
the exchange premiums are about to be devastated, and rates are
going to skyrocket literally within days. We are going to get
those numbers.
In terms of just what is driving that popularity because of
the economic insecurity that working people feel in this
country.
Dr. McCartin. The weakening of unions in general is one of
the things that is contributing to growing inequality to the
impact, the adverse impact, of the kind of cuts that you are
talking about, and what they will have. Fighting for a National
Right to Work Act, as Mr. Taubman is calling for, is not going
to solve the problem of antisemitism or improve the bargaining
power of workers.
It is really a non sequitur when it comes to the question
that we are considering here today as well. That is, the unions
promote antisemitism. Union members have rights. There has been
lots of talk that--unions are not properly defending their
members, representing them today.
I would assert that they represent their members as well as
anybody on this panel represents their constituents. That does
not mean that your constituents agree with everything you do,
they do not. That does not make your positions any less
legitimate. That is what unions are about: representing people.
They might not do it to the satisfaction of every member.
We have heard from both Ms. Mann and Mr. Rubinstein that
they do not want to support an organization, okay, that they
object to, and they are not. They have the right not to and
they are not.
Mr. Onder. [presiding]. The time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes himself for 5 minutes. Thank you to all the
witnesses here today. I will begin with the principle that I
think everyone should agree with, no employee should be
required as a condition of their employment to financially
support a political agenda or candidate that he or she opposes.
This is an application of the First Amendment, and a
cornerstone of American liberty. The Supreme Court agrees in
Janus v. AFSCME. The Supreme Court recognized that Federal
employees' First Amendment rights are violated when employees
who are not members of the union are forced to pay agency fees.
The Court said that such agreements violate, ``the free
speech right of non-members by compelling them to subsidize
private speech on matters of substantial public concern.''
Given that government unions, everything they do have to do
with matters of public concern, free speech would be violated.
It is great that government employees' First Amendment
rights are protected, but what about private sector workers?
The Supreme Court case, Communication Workers of America v.
Beck, partially protects employees from being forced to
contribute to political causes they disagree with.
It is clear from the witness testimony today that Beck is
not strong enough. At Cornell University, Mr. Rubinstein and
his Jewish friends were continually harassed by their graduate
student union for refusing to fund their affiliate union's pro-
Hamas agenda.
At the New York Legal Assistance Group, Ms. Mann and her
Jewish colleagues fear expressing support for Israel in their
office because of the antisemitic climate created by the union,
even though she was exercising her back out, opt-out rights.
Mr. Taubman, you helped litigate CWA v. Beck, why is Beck
insufficient today for Jewish employees and those who for other
reasons do not want to support their union's politics?
Mr. Taubman. Beck is inadequate first of all because many
employees have no idea that it exists, and unions have no
incentives to tell them because if they find out then the union
gets less money. Second of all, look at what happened with UE
at MIT. People filed Beck objections in 2004 and 2005, and the
UE gave them financial disclosure from 2018 and 2019--five and
6 year old financial disclosure, so how are people supposed to
know what the union is doing with their money when the union
will not open up their books to tell them?
I just want to address this point about right to work that
Congressman Courtney paints this as some kind of radical thing.
Right to work. It is called free choice in America. No one
tells you what church to join. No one tells you to join the
Elks Club or not join the Elks Club. No one tells you to join
the AAA for your car, but Federal law tells you join this
union, this Hamas supporting terror organization, or we will
get you fired.
I could show you hundreds of threats to get employees
fired. That is American. Okay. Free choice in America to join a
private organization. Unions are not government. Unions are a
private organization, and I think it is a disgrace that any
American has to fund a private organization that they do not
want to.
Mr. Onder. It is sometimes said that these unions have been
chosen in a certification election, but many times that
happened decades, or even generations ago. Do you care to
comment?
Mr. Taubman. I think the last statistics I saw was that 90-
some percent of employees have never voted for the union that
represents them, and even if they have, I can tell you from
experience trying to decertify a union is difficult, if not
impossible.
Mr. Onder. I think Mr. Rubinstein alluded to this, and you
may know the law on this. I have not heard of this phenomenon
before of having to go to your union and apply for a religious
exemption. What is that all about?
Mr. Taubman. What that is all about is under Title VII, you
have to show that you have a sincerely held religious belief.
Who do you go to to apply and prove that you have a sincerely
held religious belief? The party that is forcing you to pay the
dues. In this case, it is either Cornell and/or the union.
Mr. Onder. The party that is taking your money. Well, thank
you. I yield back. Ranking Member Scott is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, and I thank all our witnesses for
coming. Mr. McCartin, we have heard a lot about the Right to
Work Law and some of the things that people do not like about
it. If you are in a right to work State and not joining the
union, did not pay any dues, do you get the benefits of all of
the benefits that have been achieved by the unions, like higher
pay, safer workplace, better benefits? Do you get individual?
Dr. McCartin. Yes, you do.
Mr. Scott. Do you get individualized representation to the
same degree as dues paying members?
Dr. McCartin. That is correct.
Mr. Scott. I do not hear any complaints about that?
Dr. McCartin. No. In fact, right now if Mr. Rubinstein had
a grievance with Cornell University, the union that he is
attacking would be compelled to defend him in that grievance.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. If you find that you said if you have
found religious or racial discrimination in a union, you can go
to the EEOC. Is that right?
Dr. McCartin. That is correct.
Mr. Scott. The funding in the Republican budgets have cut
the EEOC?
Dr. McCartin. Yes, they have.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Now, antisemitism is a problem in society.
Is it more or less of a problem in unions?
Dr. McCartin. I would say that it is less of a problem in
unions because unions have long understood that antisemitism is
a threat to the whole idea of a union.
Mr. Scott. Are there problems with racism, Islamophobia,
homophobia, gender-based discrimination in society?
Dr. McCartin. That is true, and unions have understood that
they needed to fight those.
Mr. Scott. Is that problem more or less than in society?
Dr. McCartin. I would say less. The union movement has been
a force against all of those things.
Mr. Scott. Were gender and racial pay differences, on the
pay differences, more or less in unions or in the general
public?
Dr. McCartin. They are less in unions.
Mr. Scott. That is because everybody gets equal pay for
equal work in a union contract?
Dr. McCartin. Unions fight for their members on a basis of
equality.
Mr. Scott. We have heard about the religious exemption. Is
there a similar exemption if a Black person were to decide that
the union was run by racists. Do they have a way to get out?
Dr. McCartin. They can go to the EEOC, but to my knowledge
not a similar way.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Onder. The gentleman yields back. The Chair next
recognizes Mr. Fine for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fine. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman. Look, I want to
start by apologizing to those of you, particularly the two of
you on my left. You have had to deal with this. I understand
what it is like to deal with antisemitism. I dealt with it my
whole life. Ironically, you know, the institution I went to 35
years ago where the problem is widespread today, it does not
really exist today.
I am also angry. I mean what is clear is that Muslim terror
has come to the United States, and it exists in our
universities. I noted in your testimony, just to give a couple
of interesting points about it before I get to my question. Ms.
Mann, you talked about the first example of pro-Muslim terror
stuff in your institution on October the 13th. Mr. Rubinstein,
in your testimony you talked about it on October 25th at
Cornell. I read your statements before I got here.
Israel did not send ground forces into Gaza until October
the 27th, so to be clear, the Muslim terrorists were focused
through your institutions on spewing their propaganda and hate
before Israel had even responded, and that just shows you how
the kind of evil that we are dealing with.
The good news is thanks to the Chairman and others up here
we are willing to fight that fight. I have few questions for
you, for the two of you. Ms. Mann, you testified about how the
union contributed to the culture in your workplace. Could you
tell us--the best is not the right word, the worst examples in
the communication of antisemitic tropes or conspiracy theories
in the multitude of things that you have gone through?
Ms. Mann. I would say that the posters that said, ``From
the river to the sea,'' were definitely the worst of what I
saw, or.
Mr. Fine. How do you interpret from the river to the sea?
What does that mean to you?
Ms. Mann. To me, that means it is a call for the
destruction of Israel, for the elimination of Israel, for the
elimination of Jews. I interpreted that as them calling for my
removal from existence.
Mr. Fine. By the way, you would not be wrong in having that
view. That is exactly what it means because if you look at
places where those folks have taken over, the best example for
example is Bethlehem when it was under Israeli control was 85
percent Christian, and now it is 10 percent today. That is a
part of from the river to the sea that they have taken control
of, and they have endeavored to effectively launch a genocide
of those who are not like them.
You have accurately described what is going on. Mr.
Rubinstein, in your written testimony, you include an
attachment, a petition that Cornell graduate students signed to
express opposition to Cornell entering into a union shop
agreement with the graduate student union.
Half the students who signed the petition signed it
anonymously. They did not--they put their academic department,
but they did not put their name. Why do you think so many
students signed that petition anonymously?
Mr. Rubinstein. Yes. I actually signed that petition
anonymously myself in early 2024. The reason being after
students became signing that petition the union dispatched its'
agents to meet with friends, with colleagues of signatories in
order to turn those closest to them against them.
The union is engaging in this targeted personal harassment
of anyone who publicly stands against them, and many people
simply did not feel comfortable exposing themselves.
Mr. Fine. Then in an institution that wants to parade
around talking about academic freedom, and let us all, you
know, peace, love and talk, you are saying that graduate
students, not like 18-year-old freshmen, but graduate students
did not feel like they could put their own name on a petition
without facing harassment from those behind Muslin terror?
Mr. Rubinstein. Cornell cannot claim to support academic
freedom when it lets its students be harassed for expressing
their views, and when it additionally forces students to
support an ideological organization.
Mr. Fine. We know why the unions do this. We have talked a
lot about it today. Why do you think in your case, Mr.
Rubinstein, why do you think Cornell puts up with it? I mean
why do they allow it?
Mr. Rubinstein. Cornell knows that this is wrong. President
Michael Kotlikoff actually put out a very strong statement
against mandatory dues, which----
Mr. Fine. He is weak?
Mr. Rubinstein [continuing]. As a violation of academic
freedom, but ultimately Cornell is responsive to public
pressure. After the union threatened to strike, President
Kotlikoff reneged on his promises to protect us, and I think
that public pressure-is the only thing that will force Cornell
to change course now.
Mr. Fine. Well, public pressure or the law. I think this
Committee under Chair Walberg has made clear that we are coming
for the universities that will not protect their Jewish
students, and maybe Cornell will find themselves in your seat
here in the not too distant future. I do not know. I again, I
am angry for you. I have two Jewish children too, and I know
what it is like to go through what you all have gone through
myself, having dealt with it my whole life.
I am sorry we have failed you to solve the problem, but
rest assured there are me and my colleagues who are determined
to get to the bottom of it and put an end to their scourge.
Thank you for being here, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Onder. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
Ranking Member DeSaulnier for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thanks. I defer to Mr. Owens and wait my
turn.
Mr. Onder. The Chair recognizes Representative Owens for 5
minutes.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate
you convening this hearing today on union antisemitism, and I
want to thank the witnesses for coming here to testify. I just
want to start off by saying that Utah is a right to work State.
It is also one of the most attractive states in the union
because unions there know they have to compete for their people
to pay them.
If they are antisemites, or if they are antiblack, then we
just do not--they do not pay in, they do not survive, so that
is the very good thing to bring in, the competition piece of
this. It is really disgusting that some unions are spending
their time advancing antisemitic and anti-Israel priorities
instead of addressing the immediate needs of their members.
Imagine the same unions would have advocate the issues that
actually impact the well-being of their members, all their
members, instead of paying for the support of hateful leftist
politicians or politics. I hope that these union leaders are
watching and will get the message. Do your job. Stop the
antisemitic activity among your ranks.
You are paid a very good salary to protect your members
against hate. Your failure to do so now, and your cowardly
silence is deafening. Let me just start of Mr. Taubman, I just
want to ask you real quickly, I know you have been addressing
this a little bit already.
The way it is set up right now, if there was a union that
was run by KKK supporters, the way it is set up right now,
would I be forced if I worked for that company to pay these KKK
folks to continue moving on? Is that the way it is set up at
this point? Do I have a way of getting out of that?
Mr. Taubman. Well, that is the way that you would have to
pay if you worked in a right to work State. If you are in the
25 or so states that have forced unionism, and you have a KKK
union, you will pay them or you will be fired. Yes, you could
try to exercise Beck rights. Yes, you might be able to try to
exercise Title VII rights, but the bottom line is the default
position is pay that union or you will be fired.
Mr. Owens. It is amazing that those who are pro-Hamas, who
are nothing but KKK, feel they have a right to demand people
paying them when they hate them. It is amazing to see that we
are having this in 2025, we are having this conversation. Mr.
Rubinstein, you mentioned requesting religious accommodation.
Can you kind of go through that process?
You mentioned that it was very frustrating, but tell us
what that looked like for you to try to get something in this
process done
Mr. Rubinstein. Upon contract ratification, Cornell
University promised that I could religiously object by doing no
more than ticking a box on a form, and yet that form never
materialized, and instead I needed to beg union officials for
permission to object by writing a highly personal letter,
detailing private information that's none of their business.
Even after I did that, they demanded further intrusive
information that they have absolutely no right to, at which
point I decided that if I did not want to pay the union, I had
no choice but to file legal charges against them. That is not
the ticking a box on a form that Cornell promised.
Mr. Owens. Well, I am going to give my time away, and I
will give it back, but I just want to say this. We are in 2025,
I am so thankful that we have a President, we have a body now
that understands this, and we are going to have the right
people sitting in front of us explaining why allowing unions to
hate their folks, and continue to survive, how that happens in
2025, so thank you guys for being here before us, and we are
going to continue to followup on this conversation big time,
and I yield back.
Chairman Allen. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and now
I will call on Ranking Member DeSaulnier for his questions.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank the witnesses and Ms. Mann and Mr. Rubinstein. As a very
pro-labor person, and as someone who was a member of the
Teamsters and the AFL-CIO, I am appalled at what happened to
you, and I would love to discuss it individually if you would
care to.
Mr. McCartin, I could spend more than 5 minutes, we will
talk later, but the history, as Santayana said, ``For those who
forget history, they're condemned to repeat it.'' This is a
pattern, so if we want to talk about unions as a countervailing
institution, I am particularly interested. I have a chart I use
regularly at town halls reflecting what you said about union
membership and opportunity in this country for the middle
class, they track evenly.
Samuel Gompers, I have to talk about this just because as
someone who loves Teddy Roosevelt. There, Gompers is showing
Teddy Roosevelt the tenements not far from his house, as a son
of privilege. That instance where Roosevelt switched from being
a Harvard son of this caste system in America, to understanding
of what it was like to live in those kind of environments, and
how that changed the American union movement.
Talk a little bit about, we could easily be having a
hearing right now, with all due respect, about the business
community and antisemitism in corporate board rooms, but let us
talk about the context of why unions are important for
equality. Can you give us a little framework on why it is so
important, and how people like Samuel Gompers, not just him,
and you alluded to this in your, you did not allude to it, you
mentioned it in your opening comments, that they were part of
the fabric of creating a strong middle class.
Without them Jewish Americans, and the labor movement, we
would not have had the American middle class that now is under
attack again. We are at the second coming of the Gilded Age,
which created that moment of history in southern Manhattan when
Gompers took Teddy Roosevelt to the cigar manufacturers.
Dr. McCartin. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, what unions did
is they brought diverse workers together to give them
bargaining power, and that is what built the middle class that
you are talking about. To do that they had to bring diverse
people together to do it.
They often faced being caricatured in the way we have heard
today, as they attempted to do that. For example, the idea of
unions as an outside agitator. Samuel Gompers was often called
that. The idea that unions are somehow disconnected, that they
are union bosses.
You know, it has been a lot of energy talking about the
United Electrical Workers here today. Mr. Rubinstein, Mr.
Taubman together had 255 pages of testimony about the UE. Not
once in those 255 pages did the name Carl Rosen appear. Who is
Carl Rosen? He is the son of a Jewish worker. He leads that
union now, and he has being attacked here as a supporter of
Hamas.
I would urge anybody on this Committee to go to the website
of the United Electrical Workers and see if they endorse and
embrace Hamas. Since Samuel Gomper's time, and you will find
that they do not. Since Samuel Gomper's time, this is the kind
of attack labor has faced.
Mr. Taubman has told you for 43 years he has fought unions.
He says these unions are not your father's labor unions. He did
not like our father's labor unions either. He was fighting them
43 years ago. Then he might not have been talking about
antisemitism, now he is.
At the very moment that he is bringing these cases forward,
he is also bringing another case forward at Cornell of a
student who is not alleging antisemitism at all, but just does
not believe that they should be in a graduate student union.
Mr. Taubman at one point said that Samuel Gompers said unions
ought to be voluntary.
Samuel Gompers might have, if you pulled that out of
context somewhere, said something like that, but he fought his
whole life for the idea of a union shop being a very American
thing. That was what he was dedicated to. To portray him in
this way, to caricature him, and to caricature so many of the
people we have heard caricatured here. It breaks face with that
image that we are talking about Congressman, of Gompers
enlightening Roosevelt.
We need a little bit more of that kind of enlightenment I
would say.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I just conclude by the observation of
somebody who is a proud Californian, in the fourth largest
economy in the world, that is very strongly union, over 65
percent of the U.S. GDP comes from states that are not right to
work states. I yield back.
Chairman Allen. The gentleman yields. Now, we will call on
Ms. Stefanik from New York for your questions.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to direct my
questions to Ms. Kyle Koeppel Mann, regarding the concerning
rise of antisemitism in certain union organizations in New York
State. Give me one moment here.
Last week a group of Jewish educators rallied outside their
union headquarters in New York City. The members of the UFT, an
affiliate of NYCT, AFT, and the NEA were rightfully upset that
the union called an emergency meeting to vote to endorse
candidate Zohran Mamdani.
They felt Mr. Mamdani's support of the term ``globalized
intifada,'' is antisemitic and antizionist, correctly. While
the educators were at the rally, AFT President Randi Weingarten
was at a rally right down the street with Mr. Mamdani.
Considering the union members' opposition and the recent rise
of national antisemitism, are unions required to make political
endorsements?
Ms. Mann. No, unions are not required to make political
endorsements, and it is inappropriate for them to do so.
Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Glenn Taubman, I wanted to ask your
response to that?
Mr. Taubman. No, they are not required to, and in the
current world that we live in, it is divisive and hateful to
support Hamas and Communist, antisemites like Mr. Mamdani.
Ms. Stefanik. Is there any mechanism today for Jewish
teachers to opt out of paying dues to unions that support
antisemitic causes? If not, how is that remotely
constitutional, Mr. Taubman?
Mr. Taubman. For public sector employees like the New York
City teachers, they are covered by the Janus ruling, which says
you have a right, as a matter of free speech and association,
to not pay the union. For private sector employees, if they are
not in a right to work State, they can be forced to pay or be
fired.
It would be nice to apply Janus to the private sector,
where private people's constitutional rights could also be
protected.
Ms. Stefanik. Do you believe that unions like the NEA and
AFT are functioning as ideological enforcement arms rather than
neutral labor advocates, especially in their treatment of pro-
Israel educators?
Mr. Taubman. I have been at this for 43 years. When I
started, I used to say unions were representatives who did
politics on the side. Now, they are political powerhouse
parties that do a little collective bargaining on the side, and
that is what the NEA and the AFT and unions like that are all
about.
It is all about power and money to them, and the collective
bargaining is a secondary thing to their political power and
their money.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Allen. The gentlelady yields back. I believe that
is the conclusion of our questioning, and I call on Mr.
DeSaunier to give his closing comments.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and again I want to
just say that I am happy to work with you if we really want to
approach antisemitism in any institution or field, in a
serious, serious way, and that is not to diminish the comments
from Ms. Mann and Mr. Rubinstein's right today.
It is crucial to emphasize that combatting antisemitism
transcends, or should, transcend political divisions. It is a
moral imperative that demands unwavering commitment from all
Americans. However, as Dr. McCartin noted in his testimony,
``The historical record clearly shows that the labor movement
has been a bastion of opposition to antisemitism through its
modern history and remains so today.''
America's union movement not only uplifts workers who have
been left behind but also gives all workers the power to higher
wages, better benefits, and safer workplaces. That benefits
everybody in America, including employers.
At the time of great economic inequality, where life is
unaffordable for millions and millions of working families, we
should be working to strengthen workers' union rights, and
ensure all their rights are made reality, and make sure that
cases that have been brought up today about antisemitism or
hate in any institutions are dealt with directly and
forcefully.
Unfortunately, since returning to office, President Trump
has attacked workers' rights to organize, and undermined the
agencies intended to protect them. In closing, I just want to
end with a quote from Samuel Gompers. You can tell I am a fan.
He said, ``What does labor want? We want more schoolhouses
and less jails, more books and less arsenals, more learning and
less vice, more leisure and less greed, more justice and less
revenge.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Allen. I thank the Ranking Member. With that I
will issue a closing statement as well. We are living in
different times today. I appreciate the history of all the
great history of our country, but unfortunately, our country is
very divided today.
From a standpoint of history, as I said earlier, this goes
back thousands of years. The battle rages on, and you know, God
will deal with this. I want to thank our witnesses for sharing
their experiences and perspectives on unions fomenting
antisemitism. Today's hearing makes it clear that our labor
laws must respect the choices of Jewish workers, and workers
who do not support their union's actions and political
priorities.
Unions are no longer a bastion of fighting discrimination.
That is clear by this testimony today. No worker in America
should have to pay dues to a union that celebrates violence
against Jews or any other group and seeks the destruction of
Israel to get or keep their job.
You have to be kidding me. Really? As witnesses testified
today, NLRB should implement policies that allow employers to
protect their Jewish employees at work and that free graduate
students from the tyranny of antisemitic unions. Unions should
not be allowed to play additional burdens on employees seeking
exemption from funding the union's political or hateful
activities.
My State of Georgia is a right to work State. That means
that you do not have to pay union jobs to hold your dues--pay
union dues to hold your job. Unions should be required to
represent all their members fairly, even those who have
different political or religious views.
I look forward to working with the members of the
Subcommittee and the administration to advance the freedom of
dignity of workers in America, and shield Jewish workers from
hate and harassment at work. I will say this, this
administration is the pro-worker administration. Again, that
has changed drastically, and we will continue to fight for
workers and against antisemitic or any other hateful activity.
Thank you and I yield to--thank you to our witnesses, and
again, for your time and testimony in the Subcommittee today.
Without objection, there being no further business, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional submissions from Chairman Allen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]