torture. >> No, no. The subcommittee on health, employment, labor, and pension will 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 ways in which we can strengthen the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act to better support union members who want to participate in governing their unions. All workers in a unionized workplace, whether they voted for or against the union, are represented by it for the
purposes of collective bargaining, contract administration, and pursuing grievances. Because of this broad authority, many workers choose to stay involved in union affairs and maintain their membership. >> [clears throat]
>> Congress passed the uh LMRDA to ensure unions operate fairly and demographically recognizing that unions like any organization can be vulnerable to mismanagement or corruption. Title one of LMRDA protects key rights of
union members. These includes the right to elect their leaders, participate in union meetings, speak freely, access their collective bargaining agreements, and seek justice in court if internal procedures fail them. In short, if a union goes rogue or engages in corrupt
or anti-democratic actions, the LMRDA is supposed to empower members to hold their unions accountable. Unfortunately, the LMRDA is falling short. Too often, union union members are left without a real choice, a real voice in decisions that directly impact their work and
livelihoods. We will hear testimony about unions not allowing members to vote on collective bargaining agreements or strike authorizations, despite the enormous stakes of both. We will also hear about how difficult it can be for union members to even get a copy of
their union contract or their union's internal rules or procedures. We'll also discuss the political activity of unions. They make generous financial contributions to various political causes and candidates. They support get out the vote efforts all over the
country. They endorse political candidates. But these unions do not ask their members if they support any of these activities. Members are not pled before endorsements are made or funds are spent. That is why members of this committee have introduced legislation
aimed at making union leadership more accountable to the workers they represent. These bills reflect reflect the original intent of the LMRDA to keep unions honest, democratic, transparent, and responsive to their members. We may
not all agree on the broader role of unions in society, but today I hope we can agree on this. Workers deserve a real say in the organizations that speak and act on their behalf. Strengthening the LMRDA is a step toward respecting the choices of American workers and
making sure unions truly work for workers. With that, I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and I want to thank the witnesses for being here. Excuse [clears throat] me. Let me get begin with a simple truth from my
perspective. You cannot be porker and anti-UN. Workers build unions so they can have a voice strong enough to be heard. You cannot lift up workers while tearing down the very organizations that represent them, protect them, and
bargain on their behalf. Being proworker requires acknowledging that unions are not outside forces. They are the voice of workers themselves. Today, union popularity remains strong at 68% according to wellrespected
nonpartisan polling. Americans overwhelmingly understand that unions remain one of the most effective tools workers have to negotiate a better quality of life for them and their families, to negotiate higher pay,
better benefits, and safer workplaces. >> [snorts] >> And yet, despite record high public support and worker organizing skyrocketing over the last several years, union membership is at a record low, just 99.9% of US workers.
That contradiction should concern every member of this committee and every American. Why is this happening? It's not because workers don't want to have unions. Millions say they would join one today if they could. It's because the
system has been tilted against them. The facts are mind-boggling. Employers were charged with breaking labor law 41.5% of all union elections. Workers were illegally fired for organizing in one
out of every five elections in the United States. And in 2024, the NA National Labor Relations Board received over 21,000 unfair labor practice charges, a 7% increase over the previous year.
Why does this keep happening? Because the National Labor Relations Act, the law protecting workers right to organize a union, has almost no teeth. If a company fires a worker illegally, the worst that usually happens is that
they pay the worker what they should have earned in the first place. There is no penalty, no deterrent for illegal threats or coercive tactics. Employers often face nothing more than a cease and disaster order years after the damage is
done. In other words, breaking law is cheap and union busting is effective. And this makes high road employers at an unfortunate disadvantage. It's not all employers. It's the ones that drive the
race to the bottom just based on more greed in my opinion. [snorts] Unfortunately, that is not the only problem confronting workers. Over the last two years to three decad two to three decades bosses and corporations are increasingly hiring union busting
consultants to conduct intensive anti-UN campaigns to break worker American workers efforts to organize a union. Employers spend an estimated 433 million every year on anti-UN consultants and that number is likely
underestimated due to widespread under reporting. Although it's required, employers, bad employers and union busting consultants routinely fail to file disclosures when they hire
these consultants and too often face no real consequences. What about transparency? Meanwhile, law requires unions rightfully to remain accountable to their members. I fully support strong, transparent,
workerdriven union governance. Union members deserve to know how their dues are used and have leadership that reflects their voice, not outside political agendas. But we must hold corporations and union
busting corporations and their consultants to the same standard of transparency. Workers deserve to know when their employer is paying consultants to mislead, intimidate, or pressure them. If we demand accountability from unions but ignore
that corporations breaking the rules can get away with not being held accountable and not having transparency. That is not oversight. It is bias and it's anti-worker and anti-American. This is all happened in an economy with
staggering inequality tilted against or American workers. From 1979 to 2023, wages for the bottom 90% the bottom 90% of Americans rose 44%.
While incomes for the top 1% imagine that 90% and income for the top 1% skyrocketed by over 180%. [snorts] 44% for workers, 180% for the top 1%. You wonder why we
have problems in this country? That's it. Today, most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. 385 workers die every day. 385 every day from unsafe working conditions. 100
million people hold 220 billion in medical debt. The number one reason for bankruptcy in this country is medical debt. and families are working harder than ever just to scrape by. The system is not simply unfair. It's rigged and
America is sick because of it. I speak not only as a lawmaker but also as a former small business owner. I know the responsibility of meeting a payroll and I know that workers are the heart of any successful enterprise. And I speak as a
former union member myself. I have seen firsthand how unions raise standards and high road employers, union and non-union, raise standards for their workers because it's the right thing to do for their business, for consumers, and for their community.
I have seen how collective bargaining gives ordinary people a fighting chance in an econ economy do dominated by enormous obscene greed. But for unions to remain effective, they must remain
sovereign and member driven. Workers, not Washington, must decide the union's future. Just as it is a worker's decision to unionize, we must also respect workers ability to govern their own organizations.
The real crisis we face is not unions having too much power. It's the concentration of wealth, the obscene concentration of wealth in this country. and that too few of those people, that top 1%, have too few consequences for violating
workers rights and ethical behavior. And when employers break the law nearly half of the time in union elections when they fire workers with near total impunity, when they hide the millions they spend on anti-UN campaigns, we cannot pretend
that workers have a fair shot at exercising their right to organize. Workers want fairness. Workers want a voice. Workers want the same basic economic security that previous generations
enjoyed. And workers know that unions remain one of the few tools they have left to obtain. And I'll end with a quote that this committee's heard often time by Dwight David Eisenhower who said, "Only a fool would try to stop
American workers from organizing." Thank you, Mr. Chairman. may yield back. >> I thank the ranking member for yielding. Pursuant to committee rule 8C, 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 5:00 p.m. 14 days after this hearing. And 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. Uh now I will turn to the introduction of our four distinguished witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Nathan McGrath, the president and general counsel for the fairness center in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Our second witness is Mr.
Michael Alhorn, a crew member at Trader Joe's from the village of Clarkston, Michigan. Our third witness is Mr. Bob Funk, the executive director of labor lab from Helena, Montana. Our last witness is Mr. Alexander Mc McDonald, a
shareholder and co-chair of the work uh place policy institute at Littleton Middlesson PC here in Washington uh DC. We thank the witnesses for being here today and we look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to committee rules, I would ask
that each uh limit your oral presentation to the threeminut summary of your written statement. As committee members have many questions for you, the clock will countdown from three minutes. Pursuant to committee rule 8D and committee practice, however, we will not cut off your testimony until you reach
the five minute mark. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of your responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. I will first recognize Mr. McGrath for your testimony. Good morning, Chairman Allen, Ranking
Member Dane, and the honorable members of this subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Nathan McGrath, and I'm the president and general counsel of the Fairness Center. My firm has represented many employees related to their union.
My testimony focuses on why transparency and accountability matter to employees and how the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act contributes to that. I approach this issue from a practitioner's point of view. My colleagues and I often meet a client for
the first time because the client is seeking answers about how the union was using its money or its influence and was stonewalled or labeled a troublemaker in response when they asked about what was going on with records or money or spending.
We have seen firsthand how union officials, if they choose, have the power to prioritize their interests over the employees they represent. The LMRDA addresses exactly that risk. Congress recognized that corruption, breaches of trust, and disregard for
individual rights were real problems. So, Congress acted in a bipartisan way to ensure unions and their officials adhere to high ethical standards. I hear repeatedly from our clients that they care about access to information and the ability to enforce transparency.
When a union becomes an employees exclusive representative, that worker loses significant autonomy. Unions control negotiations over wages, hours, and conditions of employment. Generally, employees cannot speak directly to their employer about these subjects.
If they disagree with a union's contract terms, spending priorities, or agenda, their only real option is to leave their job. Unlike voluntary associations, employees cannot simply opt out of union representation while keeping their position.
That imbalance of power makes transparency essential. Employees want to know how their dues are spent to participate in fair elections and to trust that union officials act in their best interest. I've seen what happens when those safeguards fail. In one case, my clients discovered that union
officials had concealed a better contract offer, one with higher salary increases and improved retirement benefits while pressuring members to ratify an inferior deal. In another case, we discovered that union officials were using members dues as a slush fund for luxury vacations, first class
travel, and they even falsified political reports. It took years of litigation to expose these abuses. I've also represented clients who spent years just trying to access basic documents like collective bargaining agreements or union bylaws only to be stonewalled or
to have their motives questioned. Unions hold extraordinary influence over employees livelihoods. Our clients believe that transparency and accountability are how they can be assured that the power is being used properly. Based on my interactions with clients and others, employees would highly value reforms that enhance their
access to information without risk of reprisal. I applaud this subcommittee for thinking about ways to provide employees with greater information related to the unions that represent their interest and tools for accountability. I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. McGrath. I now recognize Mr. Alorn for your testimony. >> Thank you. My name is Michael Alorn and I've been a crew member at Trader Joe's for 11 years. I'm also a visiting fellow at the Institute for the American Worker. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify about the need for greater accountability and transparency for unions. My testimony is about my experience at the first unionized Trader Joe's store in Hadley, Massachusetts. I first heard about the effort to unionize our store from a co-orker who told me that people could get fired if
management found out. That secrecy was intimidating and unusual because our store had always been an open, communicative place. When I said I didn't think we needed a union, the organizer told me that 30% of us needed to sign cards so that we could simply discuss the issue. But that
wasn't true. We were misled. And by signing those cards, we were saying that we want to unionize. Workers should never be tricked like that, especially since it's our money and workplace on the line. But the lack of transparency didn't end there. After filing for an election,
organizers issued public statements and videos portraying our store as an abusive workplace. But those narratives did not align with our experiences. When I asked an organizer why they didn't talk to all employees about this, I was told they wanted to surprise the
boss. But the secrecy didn't just surprise management, it surprised the workers, too. It also surprised me when co-workers when my co-workers and I were labeled anti-UN for simply raising concerns. That's not democratic. After
the union won the election, the same lack of transparency continued. The union quickly held officer elections with limited notice. Only a small portion of employees were even informed. An organizer admitted that they didn't advertise the vote because they wanted
to ensure the right people got elected. And ever since, I've seen the union put the political demands of its leaders ahead of the workplace needs of workers like me. None of this is democratic either. My experience has strengthened my belief that every worker deserves
accurate information, a fair process, and the transparency that helps us make the best choice. We should be able to see how unions spend their dues, how union leaders are chosen, and how union decisions are made. I urge Congress to
strengthen disclosure uh disclosure requirements for all unions, new and old. The Union Member Right to Know Act is a good first step. So is the Protecting Union Representation and Elections Act and the Ask the Union Members Act, which would
require secret ballot elections when selecting union officers, ratifying a collective bargaining agreement, or authorizing a strike. The bottom line is that workers deserve full information, fair elections, and honest representation. I wish I'd had
those things when I was unionized, and I hope that Congress protects workers from such an injustice ever again. Thank you again for having me, and I look forward to your questions. >> I thank Mr. Alhorn for his testimony. Uh, a vote has been called in the Houseu
pursuant to the previous order. The chair declares the committee in recess subject to the call of the chair. We'll plan to reconvene uh promptly 10 minutes after the last votes have been called in the series. The committee stands in recess.
Okay, the hearing is reconvened and uh we will continue where we left off. Next, I recognize Mr. Funk for your testimony. >> Thank you, Subcommittee Chair Allen, Subcommittee Ranking Member Donier, and members of the subcommittee. My name is
Bob Funk and I serve as executive director of Labor Lab. My purpose today is to document the Department of Labor's failure to enforce all aspects of the LMRDA. It's often forgotten that the law
applies to employers and consultants. The failure to evenhandedly enforce the LMRDA is well documented. Congress has effectively put workers and their unions under a microscope while letting the union busting industry off the hook,
creating a transparency crisis where workers have no idea who is trying to influence or possibly violate their protected rights. Workers have an LMRDA right to know who these anti-UN consultants are, what they're doing, and
how much they're being paid. If this committee is genuinely concerned about ensuring workers have effective representation, the top priority must be addressing the millions of workers who have been silenced by a shadowy industry
that rout routinely bends and breaks the law with impunity. This is not a peripheral issue. This is among the top concerns for American workers and the broader public who overwhelmingly support the right to organize.
Our most recent analysis of corporate and union buster annual disclosures reveals a deeply troubling enforcement gap harming working people. Workers unions have achieved an 83% ontime disclosure rate with the Department of Labor, while just 34% of employers and
anti-UN consultants can say the same. A 1984 House Education and Labor sub uh subcommittee report entitled the forgotten law found that the Department of Labor has abdicated its responsibility to enforce the employer
and consultant reporting law and frustrated Congress's intent that the labor management relations be conducted in the open. Unfortunately, it's 1984
all over again, and little has changed. The 2024 Inspector General report confirmed a continued compliance gap that identified 65 employers named in consultant reports
who hid anti-worker spending. and 1,478 consultants named in employer reports who never disclose their activities. These compliance these compliance rates actually overstate compliance levels because they do not account for the
alarming number of anti-UN consultants who simply ignore the law. Even when reports are filed, they're often deficient. Many consultants emit pay rates exceeding $600 an hour because they know this is a crucial piece of
information that can cause workers to critically assess their presence and the nature of their activities. Let me be clear, non-inforcement creates an environment where abuses flourish. Union busters accessing or collecting nurses
personal information, including details about their children. consultants fraudulently representing themselves as government registered agents or neutral educators, convicted felons, union busting despite legal
prohibitions, and employers secretly spending millions on undisclosed consultants. For decades, the Department of Labor has chosen to aggressively scrutinize democratically run worker organizations while turning a blind eye to the real
problem, corporate disregard for current law. This betrays congressional intent and the workers who want free and fair elections. Employers and their anti-UN consultants are thumbming their nose at
Congress, the law, and the public with impunity. If Congress considers amending the LMRDA, it must prioritize changing it so that the law performs its original intent to shine a light on third-party consultants that are paid vast sums of
money to engage in highly questionable tactics designed to divide, coers, and intimidate employees. It's time to restore transparency, protect workers from predatory consultants, and remove the hidden barriers that prevent 60 million workers
from freely exercising their right to organize. Congress must demand it. Thank you. >> I thank the gentleman for yielding. Lastly, I recognize Mr. McDonald for your testimony. >> Mr. Chairman, uh, Mr. ranking member,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for having me today. Um, I'm encouraged that this body is considering the LMRDA and labor law in general. Um, which is a really big topic, but I think we're starting in the right place. And that place is the core of labor law, which is
the right of every employee in this country to choose for him or herself whether to form a union, to join one, and to bargain collectively. That right is the core of labor law and it has been the northstar of federal labor policy for nearly a century now. But that right
is effective only when an employee can choose a union that is responsive to the employees views. And since 1959, the law has tried to guarantee that responsiveness through the LMRDA. Now, as the members of the subcommittee
know, the LMRDA was adopted in response to widespread reports of corruption and abuse. Um, those uh reports were exposed in the now famous Mlelen Committee. And among the abuses that the LMRDA targeted
were reports that some union leaders were suppressing uh dissenting views within their ranks. And Congress sought to make sure that that would never happen again. And it did that by adopting title one of the LMRDA, which is a union members bill of rights. And
the bill of rights did a lot of things, but among the most important things it did was to guarantee every union member certain rights like the right to vote, the right to run for office, the right to nominate candidates for union office. It also guaranteed union members, the right to attend union meetings, an equal
right, and to speak about union policies. Um, in short, the the the Bill of Rights sought to make unions into truly democratic institutions. And to a large extent, the Bill of Rights was a success. Union members today have more
rights than they had in 1959. But of course, no model is perfect. And recently, as the chairman's uh initial remarks reflect, there have been concerns raised that unions are not fully responsive to union members in all aspects of their representation. um that
concern has been raised in particular in response to union's political activities. And so we know from public polling data that union members are by and large politically diverse. Um and they're growing more so over time. And that's no surprise because union members
are a subset of the American voter, the American electorate, and we live in a divided country. Um but we also know and as scholars have written um and and public data tells us that union leadership is not as politically diverse
and not as divided. Uh for example, we know uh that union uh leadership spends the vast majority as the chairman said of their political money supporting one side of the aisle. We also know from public data that unions endorse political candidates um overwhelmingly
from one party um particularly in presidential elections. Now, the law guarantees that unions will fairly represent their workers uh at the bargaining table. And as the LMRDA reflects in its original intent, unions
are supposed to be responsive to their members views. As I understand the bills that the committee is considering today, they are a effort to reconcile and harmonize those two um uh principles. uh the the duty of unions to represent
their workers fairly and their duty to be responsive to the views of their members when they represent those members in all aspects of representation. I'm encouraged that the committee is uh paying attention to these issues and I look forward to discussing with issue. Thank you.
>> I thank the gentleman for yielding. Under rule committee uh under committee rule 9, we will now question witnesses under the fiveminut rule. I will recognize myself for five minutes. Uh, Mr. Alorn, your written testimony
says that when the union was certified at your Trader Joe's store, you and other members of the bargaining unit had trouble getting information about your rights and about collective bargaining negotiations. What could be done to make sure people in unionized workplaces like
Trader Joe's know their rights? >> Thank you. Um, I think workers should be informed of their rights. Um when an organizing campaign is going on, I think they should have access to the information about that union. Um all the disclosures about the constitution, the
bylaws, any previous collective bargaining uh agreements. In my case, we had no information for the union that we were voting for and didn't know how to get more information. So essentially, we were signing a blank check when we were signing that union authorization card.
So, I think more disclosure, more transparency is what workers deserve. >> Mr. McDonald, as you point out in your written testimony, a labor union has a duty of fair repres representation to its members when it bargains with the employer, but it has no such duty when it engages in politics. What are your
concerns that the duty of fair representation does not apply when the union engages in politics? >> Well, is correct [clears throat] that the law >> Mike sir, >> thank you. Uh you're you're correct, Mr. Chairman. The law does guarantee that when a union
is representing members at the bargaining table, the union must fairly represent the workers, all workers that are represented. And that that principle isn't actually in the statute per se. It has been inferred by courts from the duty or the the right of exclusive representation from a a union uh when it
bargains collectively. um be under the the duty of exclusive representation, workers cannot bargain for themselves when there is a union certified in the workplace. The union bargains on behalf of everyone. Um that duty, however, has not been extended to all the other
activities that a union undertakes. Um again, you point out to the you pointed to the union's political activities. Um there is today no legal duty on behalf of a union to um engage with its members to uh see whether its members agree with
its political views to make sure that it's its endorsements or its political statements reflect its members even though those statements are made ostensively on behalf of the union. We've heard some statements today that the union is the workers. The union is standing in their shoes. Um there
frankly is no legal protection in that aspect. I mean that's that's an area of consideration for the for the committee. >> Uh and uh in your opinion how can we ensure that unions are representing their members in this in the political arena? >> There are several options available to
the committee. Um one would be and it has been proposed this is not my idea. It's been proposed multiple times in multiple avenues um to actually statutoily guarantee the duty of fair representation. And were the duty of fair representation to be statutoily guaranteed, there's no principle that
would necessarily have to limit it to the bargaining table. Um, again, that that duty has been inferred by the union's exclusive right at the bargaining table, but were it a statutory right, the committee could consider other aspects of representation, all aspects of representation. And so that is a a area
of exploration and potential legislation for this committee. >> Thank you, Mr. McGrath. The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act requires union members who want to vindicate their rights under the act to go through the union's internal hearing procedures for up to four months before
they can bring a case in court. What is your opinion of this exhaustive uh requirement? >> Well, I think that uh from a practitioner's point of view, uh there's there's two things that would concern me there. What we've heard especially from our clients as well is that the first is
to go through that fourmonth process going through it alone and in the situation that you know we're considering here which would be the employees perhaps adverse to the union official or to the union they have to run through a fourmonth process that's
really run by those who have a self-interest in not being held accountable and so at the end of four months the second problem could that if they do choose to go through that and they do endure kind of the testimony and the hearings and the decisions that
could happen once they finally do get to go to court, instead of starting with a clean slate, they're followed by the baggage that could come through the fourmonth um hearing process or the exhaustion process that they would have. So, uh, it's very daunting for them, uh,
to choose to do that on their own and then when it follows them into court, they're not actually getting a fair shake there either. >> And how would this help union members? >> Well, it would help in two ways. Just kind of follow up on my points. Number one, a person wouldn't be weeded out
early because they um, you know, are are concerned about going through the four-month process that's weighted against them. Um, and so they could just go directly to court. And then the second benefit would be when people go directly to court, there's no past
history that the unions then could try to bring into court and say, "Hey, look, in the last four months they said this or this decision happened in our internal process." >> Thank you. I'm out of time. I and I yield back and now I recognize our ranking member, Mr. Sier, for the
purposes of the question to witness. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I would like to request unanimous consent to enter into the record Department of Labor reports can do more to protect workers rights to
unionize through enforcing persuader activity disclosure and US House Committee on Education Labor Committee report the forgotten law disclosure of consultant and employer activity under LMRDA.
without without objection. >> Thank you. Um I we've had so many of these hearings both when you have been in the majority and we have trying to seek the right balance here. There's obvious tension between people with a
lot of money who have a lot of equity and average everyday workers. Another quote I've used over and over again in these hearings is Lincoln saying labor and capital must be balanced and if they're out of balance, you've lost democracy. I would argue right now at
the largest disparity in that uh analogy in the history of the country arguably more than the guilded age that's where we are. So counterveailing institutions we've created these on a macro level to have an equal balance which is what Lincoln was talking about. Uh Mr. Alhorn
I appreciate your perspective and your individual um perspective. I spent some time in the Birkshire is a beautiful place but this balance is what we're fighting over here. So, Mr. Funk, if you could talk a little bit about the real consequences of BIS and again, these
aren't all these are bad employers from my perspective, having signed many payrolls uh and own a small business that was non-union, but I never tried to get in the way of my workers. If they wanted to unionize, they could do it. So
this balance when you got $433 million per year on union B busting consultants, they make $350 an hour on average. That's $2,500 daily rates. Uh average workers, unionized or not, do not have that kind of resources.
um 2021 alone there were roughly 1100 union organizing campaigns in which approximately 75% of the employers hired these consultants if you don't have unions to represent you properly um what kind of what kind
of voice the average American workers have so could you speak to a little more of that in terms of also how do you run a business I always wonder this if if your employer employees are so disaffected. >> Thank you. Um, thank you so much [clears throat] for the question. I
think you frame it perfectly. This is about balance. The LMRDA was passed by this body to create balance and bring labor relations into the public eye. Unfortunately, the Department of Labor and by proxy
Congress have made it so it's only unions that are getting um getting enforcement. This is horribly harmful. The reason that any union member can find out the expenses of their union, the salaries of organizers and
presidents is because they're transparent. And when they're not transparent, the Department of Labor takes action. The question that the American people and the American worker are asking is why are we not doing this for the employers and the union busting industry that violates the law with
impunity? And these aren't just our facts. They're the facts that came from the predecessor to this committee. They're the facts that came out of this last year. Now, how does this actually impact workers? One, the $433 million spent a year on union busting probably isn't accurate because that's based on
what we know is reported. We have submitted 700 complaints to the Department of Labor this year with evidence of union busters on site surveilling, interrogating, intimidating workers and nothing has been done. On
top of that, you talk about the $350 an hour. Just last week, a union buster, we found out their contract was $9,000 a day. Now, why do they not comply with the law? Because this industry thrives
in the darkness, thrives with loopholes, and thrives because the Department of Labor and Congress will not do anything about it. As a result, we have union busters in the workplace that refuse to give their name, hide uh refuse to give
their aliases, even lawyers that say, "Oh, I'm using the advice loophole." But then they go in and take part in captive audience meetings. workers have a right to know where their employer's priorities are. And when an employ a union buster come in and says, "I'm just
neutral. I'm here to give you the facts." But then we get a hold of their contract and it says, "We get a $25,000 bonus if we bust this union." That's the facts that workers are entitled to. >> Thank you, Mr. Funk. I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman for yielding and
now call on Mr. Wilson, my neighbor to the east in great state of South Carolina for his questioning. >> Thank you very much, Chairman Rick Allen, and we appreciate your leadership on this important issue. And uh as I think of uh unions, I'm just really grateful in South Carolina and Georgia
uh and our other sister state of North Carolina, we have right to work. And so we've seen the benefit of right to work. I'm just really grateful in my career I had the opportunity as a member of the state development board to work with Governor Jim Edwards to recruit Michelin to South Carolina. Now we have in the
district I represent the largest Michelin manufacturing facility in the world and we make uh mining tires uh now with the president uh going back to recruiting a Keystone pipeline. the benefit, the ripple effect is across um
the southeast and indeed next to that is Bridgestone Tire, Japanese and continental, German, GT, uh Singapore, South Carolina as now uh because of right to work the leading manufacturer and exporter of tires. And then uh we're also grateful cars with Governor Jim uh
with Governor Carol Campbell. I was grateful to be with Senator John Russell in Spartanberg uh for the groundbreaking for BMW. Uh initially uh people were making fun of us and saying they're going to have to change the name of Bavarian Motorworks to Bubba Motorworks.
Well, now that's an $18.2 billion investment. Uh very very successful. Uh and that's also recruited for us Volvo uh and also Scout Motors now. Uh we even work with our friends up north in Charlotte uh with the manufacturing
facilities of Scout in South Carolina at Blewood, but the headquarters will be in uh Charlotte. So over and over again, we benefited and now South Carolina is the leading exporter of cars of any state in the union because of right to work. And then we get to with Governor Nikki Haley. I'm so grateful for her
leadership and attorney general Alan Wilson uh and a one of the administrations the NLRB tried to block Boeing from uh completing its manufacturing facility in Charleston. But thank goodness uh we pre prevailed with Tim Scott, Lindsey Graham, the
whole crowd and Trey Gaudy too. uh and now we have uh 10,000 people uh there uh manufacturing uh 787 uh-10 Dreamlininer aircraft and I appreciate President Donald Trump uh with uh Qatara Airlines
uh agreeing to buy 96 billion dollars worth of new aircraft and then just last month I was with Secretary Scott Bessant in Charleston as the uh facility there the Boeing facility uh is being doubled in eyes and so we we see the benefit of
right to work and hey it's not anti-UN if people want to join a union they can but we see the benefit in South Carolina right to work Mr. Alcohol. In your written testimony, you give example of some corporations, unions advancing a political agenda at the bargaining
table. Uh this is concerning. Uh and how does uh this uh not have uh unions putting politics ahead of better working conditions and h how is this to be addressed? >> Yeah. Uh unfortunately in my experience
with the Trader Joe's United, one of the first things that they brought to the bargaining table was asking for Trader Joe's to include paid abortions and paid gender affirming care in a contract. And at the and this is already uh covered by our insurance. Uh and then it became
clear I heard from other people that they were doing this on purpose in the hopes of attacking Trader Joe's progressive image. So, this had nothing to do with us and our working conditions and our wages. It was all about trying to tear down my employer. Um, so I think
it's really important that workers know that this is going on so they can vote on whether they want these proposals to go forward because if they would have asked us in my workplace, we all would have disagreed with that way of doing things. So, I think we need to make sure that there are some sort of rights for
workers to have secret ballot elections on especially who their leaders are going to be, which I didn't have. um and what the proposals might be and any contract they might try to get. >> Well, I appreciate your courage bringing this to our attention. And Mr. McGrath, you testified that many of your clients
really believed in unions and wanted to be union members, but now they would like to uh withdraw from membership and that's why you've been retained. What are the reasons that they have indicated to you as to why they would like to uh
eliminate their union membership? Well, a lot Yeah. a lot of our clients actually started out, you know, in favor of their union and and wanting their union to work well and and saw benefit in that. But, uh, oftent times it does
have to do with transparency where they start to ask for certain documents or they want to see the financials or they start thinking that, oh, maybe there's some corruption going on. We'd like to investigate. and they're uh ignored or a targets put on their back and they start
to be kind of uh the outsiders and outcast. And so instead of um you know union leadership embracing that and saying hey they want to help make us a better union they're they're often disregarded and pushed away which then causes them to come to us to either help
them get that information or just you know how how do I end my time with the union? >> Thank you very much. I yield back. I thank my friend for yielding. Now I call on Mr. Manion from New York to your line of questions.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today's hearing is another attempt by the majority to cast unions in a negative light. The repeated accusations about unions not being transparent or not putting the interests of their members first are simply not what I experienced myself as a union
member and a union president. Unions are democratic institutions accountable to their members and they must comply with extensive reporting and financial requirements. In addition to following federal law, union leaders are bound by
their own constitutions and bylaws. As a former teachers association union president who represented over 400 members, I can tell you if you're a labor representative and not handling things in the correct manner that is a good reflection of your membership, it
will not take long for those members to take notice and hold you accountable. I did so myself. I was a union member. did not like how my union leadership was representing that membership and I ran with a slate of candidates and defeated
that union leadership. As a result, I went on to negotiate my first contract which was successfully ratified 366 to zero. So I felt like I was in touch with my members and knew what their
priorities were. Um, the narrative of unions somehow operating in the shadows and not giving their members say in the conversation is certainly not what I experienced and therefore I find it inaccurate. They follow the law as well
as their own policies and bylaws and if they don't there are appropriate grievance procedures and legal remedies. Mr. McDonald, I agree with you in your testimony that uh that union representation,
union membership is a good reflection or a subset of society. And in my time as the union president of a 400 member association of teachers, nurses, and school psychologists, we were a good reflection of a conservativeleaning
suburban school district. Um, but I will also say that union leadership you suggested is not politically aligned well uh with their membership. But I will tell you that if you go talk to
leadership or members at AFGE when their collective bargaining agreement was illegally suspended, I think many of those members and certainly those leaders, regardless of party affiliation, would disagree with that executive order. Um, this committee
should stop selectively targeting the labor movement while ignoring widespread anti-UN campaigns. We should stop scapegoating the organizations of working people and make sure that we hold corporations and union busting consultants accountable to the same
standards. This brings me to my question, Mr. Funk. As you and others have pointed out, the current reporting requirements under the LMRDA are unbalanced with more expected of unions than corporations. The law requires extensive financial reporting
requirements for unions, regulates their internal governance, including elections, and mandates some transparency by employers and their union busting consultants. So therefore, I ask you this, how does compliance with the law compare as it relates to unions
versus employers and consultants? >> Thank you so much for the question. Um, it's night and day. While uh we sit here talking about uh meddling in the affairs of one of the most regulated institutions in America,
the union busting industry and employers are operating on the dark side of the moon. We do not know what they're doing even though every taxpayer has a right to know. And I bring taxpayers into this because a lot of these employers receive
m taxpayer dollars. So we should all be concerned. But to your question about compliance, as I spoke, 83% of unions get their dis annual financial disclosures that are incredibly detailed into the Department of Labor on time.
83%. Union busters and employers operate at 34% and that doesn't even include the thousands, as I said, o almost 1,500 union busting consultants that don't comply with the law. Now, let me bring up another point of compliance. When a
union buster is hired, either to speak directly to workers or spy on workers or collect information on workers or write messaging for employers or turn supervisors into frontline uh fighters, they're supposed to disclose that within 30 days so they have that information
before the election. Only 20% of union busters do that. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Manion. We now proceed to Chairwoman Ammeritus Virginia Fox of V
of North Carolina. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that very much and I thank our witnesses for being here today. Um, Mr. Alhorn, you say in your written testimony that Trader Joe's employees who asked for
more information or expressed doubts about the union were shamed and called names. How would things have been different if employees were able to get information about the union and their rights as union members on the union's website or in the mail without having to
ask a union representative for that information? >> Thank you. Yes, I believe the onus should be on the union to uh reveal and keep uh their members informed and the people that they represent. Obviously in
my case um we felt harassed and a little bit iced out by the people who were organizing the union as well as the people who sort of elected themselves as leaders without a proper democratic process. So workers there should be information available to those workers that are represented and they shouldn't
have to go to union officials to get it. >> Thank you very much. Mr. McGrath, you've represented union members and even a few unions in cases where your client's goal was a more transparent union that serves members better. I've introduced the
union members right to know act which would require unions to provide to their members copies of the collective bargaining agreement union constitution and union bylaws either by mailing those documents to members once a year or posting them on a website.
in in your experience, how would easier access to these important documents help union members? >> Yeah, I think in our experience, what this would really promote is uh union members being able to get documents without uh having to selfidentify and
get a a kind of a target placed on their back. A lot of our clients come to us after weeks, months, years of trying to get their CBA or their constitution bylaws. And there's a lot of reasons for that. Some of it may be, I want to know what the grievance process is. Some of
it could be, I want to know what the union officials obligations are, but when they do that, they're often ignored or they're met with questions of, well, why do you want that? You know, are you a troublemaker? What are you looking into? And so having an opportunity for them to either affirmatively have these
documents sent directly to them or going to a centralized place uh where they can just click on and download the documents and see these underlying documents for themselves. I think would um help them very much and um keep a lot of our
clients at least that we've seen from getting into these antagonistic relationships with union officials where really it's up to the whim of the union official to hand these things over. >> I I'd like to do a followup, Mr. McGrath. We've watched a rising tide of anti-semitism wash over our college
campuses in the last two years. Your organization has represented at least one Jewish Israeli post-doal researcher contending with a local United Autoworkers chapter that fostered a culture of anti-semitism on campus. How
might strengthening the LM RDA lead to a better lead to better unions for Jewish graduate students and employees? Yeah, our firm has represented uh a number of clients who have experienced um anti-semitism
uh either directly from union officials or um encouraged by union officials. And I think the you know the LMRDA at at its root through the bipartisan process was really to promote transparency, accountability, and so that union
members knew what was going on with their union. they they didn't have to guess or wonder or hope someone told them the correct information. And so I think for um Jewish employees who are facing these things, the more transparency there is, the more
strengthening of them being able to understand really what's going on, what their officials are doing, and to be able to hold them accountable would give them some um comfort that uh they that they have some outlet, they have some control over their destiny.
Yeah, we hear all these glowing things about what unions do for workers and uh it isn't ever as rosy as it is portrayed to be. And I think you can be pro-worker
in every way and be anti-UN bosses. Now, we're told that that's not the case, that you can't be both. I think you can be and I'll continue to assert that and to have anti-semitism lurking there in the unions is just
unacceptable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. >> Thank you very much, Chairwoman Ammeritis uh Virginia Fox. And it's so inspiring for you to be asking questions with your portrait over your shoulder. >> Uh now, we're also grateful to have uh
from Pennsylvania, Congresswoman Summer Lee. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would say that history tells us that you cannot be proworker and pro uh the boss who is oppressing the worker any more than you can be pro the oppressed and pro the oppressor in any other facet of life.
This hearing is just another opportunity for Republicans to go after workers and to make their case for why unions should not exist. They would rather uh a country in a world where workers continue to be subjugated by the top 1% than one where workers are able to
collectively bargain uh for benefits uh for workplace safety and fair pay, things that help our entire society. And instead of trying to diminish workers power by talking about union leaders who are out of step with the Republicans agenda, I just find it interesting that we never talk about for instance members
of Congress who are out of step with their own constituents because they are doing the bidding the bidding of special interests like members of Congress who are allowing their people uh to lose access to affordable healthcare at the end of this month because they will not bring a bill to the floor to protect it
or Republicans were holding an entire hearing accusing union leaders of ignoring their base but will not look inward. In fact, they won't jump without asking their corporate lobbyists how high. Workers are more than capable of regulating their own workplaces without
unilateral oversight by the federal government. They don't need Republicans to further dilute the power they have to elect their own leaders. We need to get out of not add to outdated and arbitrary um policies that restrict access to
union leadership. I introduced a union participation for all act is to repeal um just unnecessary restrictions that prevent workers who have had certain convictions from participating in unions. Right? We live in a society that already overcriminalizes people, especially black and brown and other
marginalized folks and then continues to marginalize them when they're trying to get back on their feet into the workforce. Barring workers with certain convictions from union employment and leadership just further uh is just further unwarranted punishment from a system that already overpunishes. My
bill would give the power back to the workers to decide who they deem to be best to lead them. We also need to hold corporations accountable. Unions comply with extensive disclosure and reporting requirements. While these massive conglomerates and their union busting
consultants operate without any oversight at all, companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on anti-UN consultants. And corporate monopolies like Amazon spend $20,000 a week poor consultant. Mr. Funk, can you describe some of the tactics these
union busing consultants are using to fight workers organizing efforts? >> Uh, Congresswoman, thank you so much for the question. Um, luckily we have discovered a number of uh the tactics that are used even though that they're done in the shadows thankfully because
of the tips and evidence we receive from workers. Let me give you a few examples. Um, during my testimony I spoke of a union buster that was collecting personal information about nurses and their children. HIPPO violations. We have one consultant who was hired to
bust preschool teachers in Denver being paid $350 an hour to sit in a bar where the organizers met and spy on them. We have another union buster that would follow the organizing committee around with a camera. We have um a number of
consultants that come in and say, "I'm just here to give you the facts. I'm just here to answer your questions. I'm not biased." But then when we get a hold of their contract, it says that they get $25,000 bonuses for defeating the union. This is why that information belongs in
the hands of workers so that they can make informed decisions uh before they vote. Um >> Mr. Funk, just just really quickly, can you can you tell me if these union busting consultants and their corporations that hire them, are they fully complying with their reporting requirements under the Labor Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act? >> No, it's a joke. Why do workers unions comply with disclosure laws at higher rates than you can bust in corporations? Just really quickly, >> because Congress and the Department of Labor have taken one side of the LMRDA seriously and completely neglected the other part of it.
>> Thank you so much for that. Republicans will have us believe it. problem is these largely underpaid for their labor rank and file workers who are trying to elect leaders that represent their issues and not these multi- like million dollar multi-billion dollar corporations and their reckless and unlawful union
busting. We have got to stop the madness here. We got to stop wasting time with these same old hearings about how unions are bad and big company bosses are the ones who are being hurt when people across the country are suffering with the highest
unemployment rates in over four years in a manufactured healthcare crisis that Republicans created and refused to solve. These are urgent issues that demand our attention. Not whatever this is. I promise you these conglomerates do not need our protection. Workers, your
constituents do. Thank you. I yield back. >> Thank you, Miss Lee. And now we proceed to Congressman Randy Hammerfine of Florida. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll find out whether I brought it with me today in a minute. Um I sometimes I sit in these hearings and I wonder if I'm hearing
discussions about things that are different because fundamentally this debate is about or discussion is about five bills that I thought were there to help protect rank and file workers. So I'd like to really steer my questioning towards Mr. Funk because I'm confused. So my bill, for example, would simply
say that these rank and file workers, which I hear that we care about, would have the right to vote in the elections of their officers. So why would giving rank and file
uh members the right to vote for their officers hurt rank and file members? Why would that be a a bad idea? Mr. Fine. >> Congresswoman Congressman Fine. One of the most amazing things about the labor movement
is that they are truly the most democratic organizations in the country. >> Great. So then my bill should be great because you can't be more democratic than saying letting people vote for something. So >> well, I'll I'll go into the detail. >> So So we're really democratic, but we're not going to be democratic. >> No, not at all. Okay. As a former member
of a union, any member of a union can come to their union and change the rules. So my uh point is why is Congress nibbling away and meddling in the internal affairs of a union while actually ignoring the fire in the house?
Right. >> Well again if you actually trust union members. >> Well, no I I am trust my bill trusts union members. You guys can have the right to vote. So I don't again confusion. Hey, we believe in democracy, incredibly democratic, but no, no, no, no, no. Don't pass a bill that requires
rank and file people to actually vote for their own people. I think something doesn't smell right. Now, 6139 says that requires transparency for workers because it requires these rank and file members to have access to information. So, we're incredibly
democratic, but we oppose a bill that that allows our rank and file members to actually engage in democracy with all the information available to them. Why on earth would anyone be against that? >> Let me just say that I would take all of these five pieces of legislation a lot more seriously if you were paying
attention to the major problem we are here talking about. >> Okay. So great. So let so so so let but we're here in isolation. A law is a law. Motivations other things going on in the world. The weather it doesn't actually matter. The question before me when I'm a legislator is something a good idea or
not? So it sounds like we actually may be in agreement in here. Is it a good idea to allow rank and file members of a union to be guaranteed the right to actually elect their own leadership? Forget everything else that's going on in the world. Is that a good idea? >> I think >> yes or no. >> I think that this is absolutely
disingenuous and insulting to the American people and the >> I come from a family of members who worked in unions. It's my bill. So my question is, is it a good idea to allow a union member to have the right to guarantee their leadership? Sounds like you think the answer is no. I belong to a union where we do that because the
members came forward and changed the rules. So we can do that. We do not need Congress imple getting agreeorporate. You agree that the bill is a good idea. Every union member should have the right to vote, but Congress shouldn't guarantee people those rights. They should bring on it themselves. How about
the one about information? So you also agree that every union member should have access to complete and total information. >> And they can do that. >> Well, they can't. Okay. So if they have that right now, what's the big deal on us giving them the right to do that? >> Why are you meddling in a sovereign independent institution while ignoring
the union busting industry and corporations where workers actually can do >> and by the way it's perfectly fine. It's it's perfectly fine to say I wish you were passing more laws. Perfectly fine perspective, but that's not the discussion today. We have individual pieces of legislation that will likely
be voted on by this committee and we have to decide yes or no. So it generally sounds like you think that letting people vote for their own membership is a good idea. People having access to information is a good idea. You for some reason have an issue with the government guaranteeing people these rights, but you think they're a good idea. The third one is do what is the
issue with allowing union members I mean if you go on strike that's a really big deal for you personally. There's probably nothing more consequential that a union member can do than go on strike. The third bill 6142 would require the members again the the lynch pins of democracy to actually make sure that
they want to go through the discriminate the the trouble and the challenge of actually voting. Do you agree that union members should have the right to decide whether they go on strike? I think that most unions actually already do that. Why do you have to get in there while
you let the American public suffer because you want to crack down and meddle and infringe on the freedom of workers to set their own rules for their own unions? >> Look, here's what I don't understand. We're saying this is good. This is good. This is good. People should all do these
things, but somehow when Congress guarantees those rights, it's bad. It doesn't make sense. We should pass all of these bills. If we actually care about workers, we should give workers rights so they are in charge of their own destiny and not some thug union bosses who actually lie and want to just keep it from them. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back. >> Thank you very much, Congressman Fine. And now we proceed to Congresswoman Johanna Hayes of Connecticut. >> Thank you. Um, I think the previous exchange really
further illuminates the importance of having members on this committee who have actually been engaged as employees of a union. Members who have actually had to take these votes and sit in on the negotiations. Members who actually know that unions
are made up of the membership. I was a member of the Waterberry Teachers Association, the Connecticut Education Association, the National Education Association, and SEIU 1199. And in all of those instances, our contracts were
posted online by the employing agency and the union because it was required as a part of our negotiations. I have been a part of a union where members have challenged the leadership and put forth a different candidate and
there had to be a vote on that. So all of these things already exist and I think just the framing of this conversation really shows that there is a trust deficit when you talk about the membership as the quote lynchpins of
democracy. If you are trying to help someone and help an institution or an organization be more democratic and you actually refuse to even understand the processes, I can understand why the membership is
saying, "I'm sorry, we have this. Our sovereign bodies will set our own rules and set our own standards like every other organization does." And this hearing today represents the third time since June that Republicans on this subcommittee have organized to directly
attack unions. Unions have 70% public approval right now. If membership wants if if if members want to organize, they should have the right to do that. If members choose not to be a part of the union, they should have the right to do that. I have worked in
um in workplaces where it didn't make sense for me to join a union many many years ago at St. Mary's Hospital in Waterberry when there was an effort to organize and I have worked in workplaces where the union organizing was essential to guaranteeing
um a healthy and safe working conditions. Mr. Funk, you mentioned in your testimony that Congress have put has put workers and their unions under a microscope while letting corporations and their union busting law firms and consultants off the hook. Do you believe that workers currently have the ability
to make informed choices about unionization with the enforcement measures in place under the labor management reporting and disclosure act? And what is the single biggest obstacle to even-handed enforcement of the law? >> Thank you so much for the question and uh the framing is absolutely correct.
This is about trust. As you said, not only are unions popular, they are also the most trusted institution in America right now. So, it's disingenuous that we're spending so much time trying to litigate the internal operations of
unions instead of actually going after the real problem. The re biggest problem facing enforcement of the law is will. We need that uh as was submitted to the record that we have recommendations that
are put in place. We need a team at MS that goes after the union busters and the corporations. We need a tip line that actually functions because until uh recently the tip line at the Department of Labor for workers to report on union busters wasn't monitored. We have a major problem. We also need to put a
persuader rule in place so that uh law firms can stop saying everything they do is advice when they're literally meeting with workers. The solutions are there. We just need the will. >> Thank you. And it it always is remarkable to me how on this committee
the term union bosses is thrown around as if this obscure character drops out of the sky. Unions elect their leadership. It's a a person who is a part of their membership who runs for an election and wins by the support of
their membership and that is the person who is elected to lead that particular local or that particular particular organization. To act like sometime somehow union members are hypnotized by this structure is so incredibly
disingenuous. And to say now that Congress will decide for you is outside the pale. Um I have I have a series of questions, but again I don't think that the this hearing or
similar hearings or quite frankly most of the hearings that we've had on this committee uh in this Congress are for information gathering or actually to do to improve conditions. It is to in this case attack unions. And with that I yield back.
I thank the gentle lady for yielding. And now I recognize Mr. Harris from uh great state of North Carolina for the purpose of questioning the witnesses. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate the opportunity to wave on to this subcommittee. And I appreciate all the witnesses and the testimony we've heard
today. Mr. Mr. Alhorn, in your written testimony, you expressed support for a bill I introduced uh HR6141, the Fair Access to Justice for Union Members Act. This bill allows union members to hold their unions accountable
in court without the delay of exhausting internal union processes when their rights have been violated. I wonder if you could speak from your experience with the Trader Joe's union, how you think this bill would help workers to protect their rights under
the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Thank you. Um, I think this would be really helpful to workers because what I experienced with the Trader Joe's United was people trying to be union bosses and using whatever they could to do that
when they organized and then they wanted to have unfair election of officers that were not democratic. Uh, and they claimed that they could do this because they were a new union and there that is not protected under the LMRDA and it should be whether it's a new union or
not. we should all be given a fair election of our officers because essentially then they can do if it's not a fair election they can go and do whatever they want and then they'll create the grievance procedures. We didn't have a constitution at the time so they were going to create all this. So rather than me have to go through
that I think it'd be best for workers to be able to have another way of of getting justice. >> Thank you Mr. Alhorn. Mr. McGrath turning to you. My legislation was actually inspired by Jewish members of the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys. And these Union members thought their
rights were violated by the union's proposal of an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel resolution. Unfortunately, when the union members sued to stop the vote, they were instead sued because they had not exhausted the union's internal appeals for four months before
going to court. Mr. McGrath, current law set that 4-month time limit for exhausting appeals, but my bill eliminates that time period. Can you describe what problems tend to arise for union members if they have to go through the union's internal procedures for 4
months before they're able to go to court? >> Yeah, I I think that in our clients experience, so they're entering a four-month process that is run by the very people who they're trying to seek relief from. And so uh it's really not a
fair fight in and or it's a very slanted field that they start from. And so as they go through this process, they could have uh statements taken, they could have hearings um conducted and there could be decisions that come out of it
at the end of the day. And uh typically uh at least our clients have always had it go against them because the very people who control this either they or their friends control the process. And then we actually had clients who went through this exhaustion process in their
matter. And then when they came to us, we were able to bring their matter to court and the other side, the uh union officials said, "Oh, look, there's all this sworn testimony. There's this decision that's already been had. We
win." And so not only did we have to deal with the typical contentions of court, but we had all this baggage that got dro brought in from the exhaustion period that our clients had had to go through. Well, thank you, sir. My my legislation
supports the workers's rights by ensuring they can go directly to court, as you point out, to protect their rights under federal law without waiting for the very union violating those rights to uh decide their fate. Mr. McGrath, in your written testimony, you
recount a story about a client whose union violated its own bill of rights for union members and deliberately misled its members about terms the employer was was offering during negotiations of a collective bargaining agreement. In your experience, how
common is it for union members to have little or no say in negotiations over the terms and conditions of their employment? I think this is something that varies nationwide and union to union. We have seen unions that are very transparent
and uh ask for input and they ask for you know they keep members updated but obviously we've seen the other side of the pendulum where like as in this case the union's members our clients opinions weren't taken into consideration and
then they were actually lied to about a uh proposed collective bargaining agreement that was worse off than what the employer actually was offering. And so when they had found they were they were basically harassed into signing this deal and then they found out days later from the employer like hey we
actually gave you everything that you had said you wanted and better raises. We don't understand and and for its efforts the employer was sued for that too. But >> do you think union members should have the right to vote uh to ratify their contract? I, you know, I think from every client
I've ever heard from, they absolutely would want that right to do it because to them they're voting on something that um controls their their livelihoods. >> Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman for yielding. And
now I recognize Mr. Manion to uh for his for the closing statement for the ranking member. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again to our witnesses that are here today for your testimony and your comprehensive answers. Workers are the backbone of
this country and unions are the most powerful tool workers have to defend their rights and secure fair wages, benefits, and safer working conditions. But for far too long, the system has been rigged against them. Employers who break labor laws face little more than a
slap on the wrist. and union busting consultants continue to thrive in environment in an environment of near total secrecy. Meanwhile, workers are left fighting for the dignity that they deserve with their voices silenced before they even have the chance to be
heard. The solution to these problems is clear. It's time to hold corporations accountable. It's time to enforce the law. And it's time to ensure workers have the power to decide their own future without fear of intimidation or retaliation. We must also respect
workers ability to govern their own unions in the ways that they deem fit. I must reference two recent discharge petitions that have occurred. One was to restore the collective bargaining rights of federal workers. If you look at who signed that discharge petition, it was
from states that have a high participation in unions and are considered pro- labor. and the people that signed that discharge petition, it was not tied to political party. Today, we have a discharge petition that has
reached 218 signatures and members of the majority of party that have signed come from the states of New York and Pennsylvania. I don't believe that that is coincidence, but I will tell you that the participation in affordable care act plans compared to other states is
relatively low in New York State and in Pennsylvania. And the reason that is is because unions are negotiating comprehensive and affordable health care coverage for their members. The workers who built this country deserve that.
Let's ensure that they have the research, resources, protections, and respect that they need to thrive. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman for yielding. Uh I want to thank our witnesses for sharing your experiences and your perspectives.
Today's hearing makes clear that LMRDA is falling short and union members are often left without a voice in their own [snorts] unions. I will also uh comment uh you know the in the Affordable Care
Act unions were given a waiver and uh the faith-based community was given a waiver because it doesn't have hide protection in the Affordable Care Act. Uh, why shouldn't every worker
have a waiver from the Affordable Care Act? Every employee. Labor law gives unions a privileged position as the exclusive representative of the million millions of workers. It is only right that we make sure union leaders answer to their
members and will their power responsibly. For example, of the of the 374 million spent by the National Education Association in 20 in 2020 and 2021, roughly 50% was spent on political
activity, contributions, gifts, and grants. Less than 10% was spent directly supporting its members. As witnesses testified today, union leaders are deeply engaged in politics, and that is their right. It is also why committee
members have introduced legislation to make sure union leaders are truly representing their workers and their workers political views. Union members should have easier access to information about their union and the contract the union negotiated on their behalf. They
should have final say on any collective bargaining agreement and any strike authorization and not the union leaders. Unions should be required to represent all of their members fairly, even those who do not share their political views.
For example, Mr. McGrath said that there are some unions that are uh applying these these principles and truly representing uh their people, but we have to deal with those who are not. I look forward to uh working with the members of this subcommittee and the
administration to continue to support the freedom and dignity of our workers. I'd like to thank the witnesses again for taking your time to testify before the subcommittee. Without objection, there being no further business, the sub
commmittee stands adjourned. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.