[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STANDING WITH PUBLIC SERVANTS:
PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND LABOR
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 26, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-32
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: https://edlabor.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-318PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
Susan A. Davis, California Virginia Foxx, North Carolina,
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Ranking Member
Joe Courtney, Connecticut David P. Roe, Tennessee
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Tim Walberg, Michigan
Northern Mariana Islands Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bradley Byrne, Alabama
Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Mark Takano, California Elise M. Stefanik, New York
Alma S. Adams, North Carolina Rick W. Allen, Georgia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Francis Rooney, Florida
Donald Norcross, New Jersey Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
Pramila Jayapal, Washington Jim Banks, Indiana
Joseph D. Morelle, New York Mark Walker, North Carolina
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania James Comer, Kentucky
Josh Harder, California Ben Cline, Virginia
Lucy McBath, Georgia Russ Fulcher, Idaho
Kim Schrier, Washington Van Taylor, Texas
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Steve Watkins, Kansas
Jahana Hayes, Connecticut Ron Wright, Texas
Donna E. Shalala, Florida Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
Andy Levin, Michigan* William R. Timmons, IV, South
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Carolina
David J. Trone, Maryland Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
Susie Lee, Nevada
Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
Joaquin Castro, Texas
* Vice-Chair
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
Brandon Renz, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida, Chairwoman
Donald Norcross, New Jersey Tim Walberg, Michigan
Joseph D. Morelle, New York Ranking Member
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania David P. Roe, Tennessee
Lucy McBath, Georgia Rick W. Allen, Georgia
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Francis Rooney, Florida
Haley M. Stevens, Michigan Jim Banks, Indiana
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Russ Fulcher, Idaho
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio Van Taylor, Texas
Josh Harder, California Steve C. Watkins, Jr., Kansas
Donna E. Shalala, Florida Ron Wright, Texas
Andy Levin, Michigan Dan Meuser, Pennsylvania
Lori Trahan, Massachusetts Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
(VACANT)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 26, 2019.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Walberg, Hon. Tim, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Health,
Employment, Labor, and Pensions............................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Wilson, Hon. Frederica S., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Brewer, Mr. Tom President, Charlotte North Carolina Fire
Fighters Local 660 and North Carolina Fighters'
Association, Mooresville, NC............................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Messenger, Mr. William L., J.D. Staff Attorney, National
Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Springfield, VA.... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Onder, Hon. Robert F., M.D., State Senator, Missouri General
Assembly, Jefferson City, MI............................... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Paterson, Mr. Teague P., Deputy General Counsel, American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), Washington, DC................................... 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Slater, Dr. Joseph, J.D., Ph.D. Eugene N. Balk Professor of
Law and Values and Distinguished University Professor,
University of Toledo, Toledo, OH........................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Whitaker, Ms. Tina Y., United Teachers of Dade, Homestead,
Florida.................................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Additional Submissions:
Chairwoman Wilson:
Letter dated June 25, 2019 from Service Employees
International Union (SEIU)............................. 85
Letter dated June 25, 2019 from The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights.............................. 86
Letter dated June 25, 2019 from International Federation
of Professional and Technical Engineers AFL-CIO and CLC 88
Prepared statement from the National Association of
Police Organizations, Inc.............................. 90
Prepared statement from Hirono, Hon. Mazie K............. 93
Questions submitted for the record
Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
Mr. Brewer............................................... 106
Mr. Paterson............................................. 108
Dr. Slater............................................... 117
STANDING WITH PUBLIC SERVANTS:
PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE
----------
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Health, Employment,
Labor, and Pensions,
Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frederica Wilson
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Wilson, Norcross, Morelle, McBath,
Underwood, Stevens, Courtney, Fudge, Harder, Shalala, Levin,
Trahan, Scott (ex officio), Walberg, Roe, Allen, Banks, Taylor,
Watkins, Wright, Meuser, Johnson, and Foxx (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Kildee, Finkenauer,
Fitzpatrick, and Cline.
Staff present: Tylease Alli, Chief Clerk; Ilana Brunner,
General Counsel; David Dailey, Senior Counsel; Kyle DeCant,
Labor Policy Counsel; Emma Eatman, Press Assistant; Mishawn
Freeman, Staff Assistant; Eli Hovland, Staff Assistant;
Stephanie Lalle, Deputy Communications Director; Jaria Martin,
Clerk/Assistant to the Staff Director; Kevin McDermott, Senior
Labor Policy Advisor; Richard Miller, Director of Labor Policy;
Max Moore, Office Aide; Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director;
Banyon Vassar, Deputy Director of Information Technology;
Katelyn Walker, Counsel; Joshua Weisz, Communications Director;
Cyrus Artz, Minority Parliamentarian; Courtney Butcher,
Minority Director of Coalitions and Member Services; Akash
Chougule, Minority Professional Staff Member; Cate Dillon,
Minority Staff Assistant; Rob Green, Minority Director of
Workforce Policy; Bridget Handy, Minority Communications
Assistant; John Martin, Minority Workforce Policy Counsel;
Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of Operations; Carlton
Norwood, Minority Press Secretary; Brandon Renz, Minority Staff
Director; and Ben Ridder, Minority Legislative Assistant.
Chairwoman Wilson. The Subcommittee on Health, Employment,
Labor, and Pensions will come to order.
Welcome, everyone. I note that a quorum is present.
I note for the subcommittee that Congressman Dan Kildee of
Michigan, Congresswoman Abby Finkenauer of Iowa, Congressman
Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, and Congressman Ben Cline of
Virginia will be participating in today's hearing, with the
understanding that the questions will come only after all
members of the HELP Subcommittee and any members of the full
committee on both sides of the aisle who are present have had
an opportunity to question the witnesses.
The subcommittee is meeting today in a legislative hearing
to receive testimony on ``Standing with Public Servants:
Protecting the Right to Organize.''
Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), opening statements are
limited to the chair and the ranking member. This allows us to
hear from our witnesses sooner and provides all members with
adequate time to ask questions.
I recognize myself now for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Today, we are gathered for a legislative hearing to receive
testimony on the status of public-sector collective bargaining
and the legislative proposals which ensure State and local
government employees can exercise this right.
Labor unions have empowered generations of workers to
secure better wages and working conditions. They have been
essential to reducing income inequality. Collective bargaining
agreements are especially important in closing the gender and
racial wage gaps because labor agreements ensure equal pay for
comparably situated and educated individuals in the workplace.
Based upon personal experience, I know the benefits unions
provide for public employees. When I was a teacher in the
Miami-Dade County Public Schools system, I was also a member of
the United Teachers of Dade union. So I was very, very
disappointed to see Florida pass H.B. 7055, which singles out
teachers' unions, forcing them to conduct unnecessary elections
in an effort to weaken teachers' ability to advocate for
themselves.
Public-sector union benefits also extend beyond union
members to benefit nonunion members. Research shows that, since
the 1930's, workers' ability to unionize has corresponded to
lower income inequality.
Despite these widely enjoyed benefits, the Federal
Government does not ensure State and local government employees
consistent organizing rights nationwide. What we do know is
that as many as half of all nonunion workers would vote for a
union if given the opportunity.
As our witnesses will testify, State and local government
employees face an inconsistent patchwork of State labor laws
which leaves far too many public servants behind. And, in fact,
four States lack any regulation for public employees'
organizing rights, and many more have lackluster collective
bargaining regulations which do not compel employers to
negotiate with employees.
To make matters worse, last year, in the Janus v. AFSCME
decision, the Supreme Court ignored 4 decades of legal
precedent and 23 State laws to sabotage public-sector unions.
The Janus decision denies unions the right to collect fair-
share fees for services that they are legally required to
provide, which fundamentally undermines public service workers'
ability to collectively bargain.
Congress has both the power and responsibility to protect
the organizing and collective bargaining rights of all workers,
no matter where they live or work. This Congress, two bills
have been introduced--the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate
Act of 2019, H.R. 3463; and the Public Safety Employer-Employee
Cooperation Act, H.R. 1154--that will improve the lives of
public-sector employees employed at the State and local levels.
One legislative proposal that helps to protect public
servants is the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act of
2019, which guarantees public employees the right to negotiate
and unionize for better working conditions.
Specifically, the bill will create minimum standards for
collective bargaining rights that all States must meet, while
ensuring that States have flexibility in how that goal is
effectuated.
While the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act of 2019
cannot correct the Supreme Court's misreading of the
Constitution in Janus, it can lessen the consequences by
strengthening the rights of public service workers.
Another bill that will help public servants is the Public
Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, which similarly
protects first responders' right to organize by setting minimum
standards for collective bargaining.
On June 20, 2007, this bill was reported out of this
committee by a vote of 42 to 1. Let me repeat: This bill was
reported out of the Education and Labor Committee by a vote of
42 to 1. Then-Ranking Member Buck McKeon, whose portrait hangs
on the wall to my right, supported this legislation.
And when this bill came to the floor on July 17, 2007, it
was considered under suspension of rules and passed by a vote
of 314 to 97. Let me restate that point. It came to the floor
with broad, bipartisan support, and it was deemed
noncontroversial. And it passed with the support of over two-
thirds of the House of Representatives.
This historical note is important because it reinforces the
fact that backing up public employees' rights to collectively
bargain has been a bipartisan endeavor in the not-too-distant
past.
These two bills reflect our commitment to ensuring that
teachers can earn decent pay, police officers and firefighters
are compensated for their service, and public service workers
can continue to fulfill their vital roles in communities across
the country. The people who keep our communities safe, teach
our children, and risk their lives to save ours deserve the
same respect and protections as those employed in private
industry.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and the
discussion that will ensue.
I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Walberg, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Walberg, the esteemed Mr. Walberg, our ranking member.
[The statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions
Today, we are gathered for a legislative hearing to receive
testimony on the status of public sector collective bargaining and the
legislative proposals which ensure State and local government employees
can exercise this right. Labor unions have empowered generations of
workers to secure better wages and working conditions. They have been
essential to reducing income inequality.
Collective bargaining agreements are especially important in
closing the gender and racial wage gaps, because labor agreements
ensure equal pay for comparably situated individuals in the workplace.
Based upon personal experience, I know the benefits unions provide for
public employees. When I was a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public
Schools system I was also a member of the United Teachers of Dade
union. So, I was very disappointed to see Florida pass H.B. 7055, which
singles out teachers' unions, forcing them to conduct unnecessary
elections in an effort to weaken teachers' ability to advocate for
themselves.
Public sector union benefits extend beyond union members and also
benefit non-union members. Research shows that, since the 1930's,
workers' ability to unionize has corresponded to lower income
inequality. Despite these widely enjoyed benefits, the Federal
Government does not ensure State and local government employees'
consistent organizing rights nationwide. What we do know is that as
many as half of all non-union workers would vote for a union if given
the opportunity.
As our witnesses will testify, State and local government employees
face an inconsistent patchwork of State labor laws that leaves far too
many public servants behind. In fact, four States lack any regulation
for public employees' organizing rights and many more have lackluster
collective bargaining regulations that do not compel employers to
negotiate with employees.
To make matters worse, last year in the Janus v. AFSCME (AFF-SSS-
MEE) decision, the Supreme Court ignored four decades of legal
precedent and 23 State laws to sabotage public sector unions. The Janus
decision denies unions the right to collect ``fair share fees'' for
services they are legally required to provide, which fundamentally
undermines public service workers' ability to collectively bargain.
Congress has both the power and the responsibility to protect the
organizing and collective bargaining rights of all workers--no matter
where they live or work.
This Congress two bills have been introduced, the Public Service
Freedom to Negotiate Act of 2019 (H.R. 3463) and the Public Safety
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (H.R. 1154), that will improve the
lives of public sector workers employed at the State and local levels.
One legislative proposal that helps to protect public servants is
legislative proposals like the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act
of 2019, which guarantees public employees the right to unionize and
negotiate for better working conditions.
Specifically, the bill will create minimum standards for collective
bargaining rights that all States must meet, while ensuring that States
have flexibility in how that goal is effectuated.
While the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act of 2019 cannot
correct the Supreme Court's misreading of the Constitution in Janus, it
can lessen its consequences by strengthening the rights of public
sector workers.
Another bill that will help public servants is the Public Safety
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, which similarly protects first
responders' right to organize by setting minimum standards for
collective bargaining. On June 20, 2007, this bill was reported out of
this Committee by a vote of 42 to 1. Let me repeat that point: this
bill reported out of the Education and Labor Committee by a vote of 42
to 1.
Then Ranking Member Buck McKeon, whose portrait hangs on the wall
to my right, supported this legislation. And when this bill came to the
floor on July 17, 2007, it was considered under suspension of rules and
passed by a vote of 314 to 97.
Let me restate that point. It came to the floor with such broad,
bipartisan support that it was deemed non-controversial and it passed
with the support of over two-thirds of the House of Representatives.
This historical note is important because it reinforces the fact that
backing up public employees' right to collectively bargain has been a
bipartisan endeavor in the not too distant past.
These two bills reflect our commitment to ensuring that teachers
can earn decent pay, police officers and firefighters are compensated
for their service, and public service workers can continue to fulfill
their vital roles in communities across the country.
The people who keep our streets clean, teach our children, and risk
their lives to save ours, deserve the same respect and protections as
those employed in private industry. I look forward to hearing from out
witnesses today and the discussion that will ensue.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Walberg, for an opening
statement.
______
Mr. Walberg. Well, thank you, my friend and chairwoman, for
yielding to me on this beautiful day.
And those in the audience don't have the opportunity,
unless you turn your head, to see how beautiful it is around
Washington, DC. And as we get into this debate, I hope we
remember that things are still pretty good. But this is a
debate worth having.
The two pieces of legislation we are here to discuss today
are, I believe, another Democrat attempt to put the thumb on
the scale in favor of forced unionization. And they also show
no regard for the system of federalism on which this Nation was
founded.
H.R. 1154, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation
Act, and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, disregard
the will of the voters in every State by imposing a one-size-
fits-all labor relations mandate enforced by Federal
bureaucrats in Washington, DC. If there is one thing this
country doesn't need, it is more Federal overreach. We can be
better than that, and, as policymakers, shame on us if we are
not.
The Founding Fathers spent countless critical hours in
debate--and they did debate--deliberating a system of checks
and balances that would ensure that individual States were not
unreasonably controlled by the Federal Government. That is our
foundation.
Today, States have legitimate concerns with public-sector
collective bargaining, which is why even union-dominated States
place some limitations on this practice.
Rather than impose its will on individual States, Congress
should respect these differences of opinion among the States
and allow them to remain laboratories, as it were--especially
as we talk about education and labor--laboratories of democracy
in determining their own public employee labor law.
We should all know by now that government unions create
perverse incentives that do not exist in the private sector.
They can't exist in the private sector. Government unions are
an enormously powerful political force.
While all Americans are free to join together, and should
be--this side of the aisle would not reject that--free to join
together and engage in the political process, government unions
can essentially elect their own employer--in other words,
Governors and State and local lawmakers--with whom they
negotiate collective bargaining agreements.
These practices often force exorbitant, seemingly unlimited
cost on the taxpayers, the people who pay the bill and expect
the service, an unfortunate circumstance which is markedly
different than negotiating with companies over the use of
inherently limited profits, as private-sector unions do.
Moreover, when government unions strike, it imposes
undeserved hardship on the American people, the people we
serve, allegedly, by depriving basic public services they
expect and they paid for in their taxes from State or local
government.
It is for these reasons that, historically, lawmakers on
both ends of the spectrum have steered clear of instituting
collective bargaining in government. Even President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt and George Meany, former president of the AFL-
CIO, opposed collective bargaining in government. That is
historic.
Imposing collective bargaining on State and local
governments will likely result in a massive unfunded mandate on
taxpayers. Congress should therefore appropriately leave these
decisions to States, as our predecessors have done.
Not only do these bills undermine our Nation's system of
federalism, they are another attempt by committee Democrats to
advance union special interests at the expense of workers.
Democrats' top labor priority is H.R. 2474, the Protecting the
Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act, which deprives private-
sector workers of important workplace rights while giving labor
unions almost unlimited power to impose economic harm on
unsuspecting businesses.
I bring up H.R. 2474 not only to demonstrate where
committee Democrats' priorities lie, I believe, but also to
show that the goal of the Democrats is to promote forced
unionization throughout both the public and private sectors.
Exactly 1 year ago, the Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME
ruled that no public employee should be forced to pay union
dues as a condition of employment. I believe they ruled
constitutionally. Forced dues in government are particularly
egregious because collective bargaining impacts public policy
and is, thus, inherently political speech.
Rather than undermine these rights for public-and private-
sector workers alike, this committee should focus on issues
where we actually have jurisdiction, including protecting the
rights of workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act.
Private-sector workers should be allowed to make workplace
decisions for themselves, like the choice to join and pay a
union or not, share personal information with a union
organizer, or vote for a union in a secret ballot election. At
the same time, States should be free to determine public
employee labor laws for themselves without needless
intervention from the Federal Government.
This I believe strongly, and this, Madam Chairwoman, we
will debate today. It is a good debate.
And I thank you for allowing me this opportunity, and I
yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Walberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Walberg, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions
Thank you for yielding.
The two pieces of legislation we're here to discuss today are
another Democrat attempt to put the thumb on the scale in favor of
forced unionization and they also show no regard for the system of
federalism on which this Nation was founded.
H.R. 1154, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, and
the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act disregard the will of the
voters in every State by imposing a one-size-fits-all labor relations
mandate enforced by Federal bureaucrats in Washington. If there's one
thing this country doesn't need, it's more Federal overreach. We can be
better than that, and as policymakers, shame on us if we're not.
The founding fathers spent countless, critical hours in debate,
deliberating a system of checks and balances that would ensure that
individual States were not unreasonably controlled by the Federal
Government. Today, States have legitimate concerns with public sector
collective bargaining, which is why even union-dominated States place
some limitations on the practice. Rather than impose its will on
individual States, Congress should respect these differences of opinion
among the States and allow them to remain ``laboratories of democracy''
in determining their own public employee labor laws.
We should all know by now that government unions create perverse
incentives that do not exist in the private sector. Government unions
are an enormously powerful political force. While all Americans are
free to join together and engage in the political process, government
unions can essentially elect their own employer in other words,
Governors and State and local lawmakers with whom they negotiate
collective bargaining agreements. These practices often force
exorbitant, seemingly unlimited costs onto taxpayers, an unfortunate
circumstance which is markedly different than negotiating with
companies over the use of inherently limited profits, as private-sector
unions do. Moreover, when government unions strike, it imposes
undeserved hardship on the American people by depriving basic public
services they expect from their State or local government.
It is for these reasons that historically, lawmakers on both ends
of the spectrum have steered clear of instituting collective bargaining
in government. Even President Franklin Roosevelt and George Meany,
former president of the AFL-CIO, opposed collective bargaining in
government.
Imposing collective bargaining on State and local governments will
likely result in a massive unfunded mandate on taxpayers. Congress
should therefore appropriately leave these decisions to States as our
predecessors have done.
Not only do these bills undermine our Nation's system of
federalism, they are another attempt by Committee Democrats to advance
union special interests at the expense of workers.
Democrats' top labor priority is H.R. 2474, the Protecting the
Right to Organize Act, which deprives private sector workers of
important workplace rights while giving labor unions almost unlimited
power to impose economic harm on unsuspecting businesses.
I bring up H.R. 2474 not only to demonstrate where Committee
Democrats' priorities lie, but also to show that the goal of the
Democrats is to promote forced unionization throughout both the public
and private sectors.
Exactly 1 year ago, the Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME ruled that
no public employee should be forced to pay union dues as a condition of
employment. Forced dues in government are particularly egregious,
because collective bargaining impacts public policy and is thus
inherently political speech.
Rather than undermine these rights for public and private sector
workers alike, this Committee should focus on issues where we actually
have jurisdiction, including protecting the rights of workers covered
by the National Labor Relations Act. Private sector workers should be
allowed to make workplace decisions for themselves, like the choice to
join and pay a union or not, share personal information with a union
organizer, or vote for a union in a secret ballot election. At the same
time, States should be free to determine public-employee labor laws for
themselves, without needless intervention from the Federal Government.
Thank you, I yield back.
______
Chairwoman Wilson. Without objection, all other 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 o'clock p.m. on July 9, 2019.
I will now introduce the witnesses.
Ms. Tina Whitaker--Ms. Tina--is a social studies teacher
from Miami, Florida. I am so pleased to see Ms. Tina Whitaker
on today's panel because she is a current public school teacher
in Miami-Dade County, my hometown, and a member of the United
Teachers of Dade. I was glad she was able to accept my
invitation to testify today.
I also want to welcome Ms. Karla Hernandez, who is the
president of the United Teachers of Dade County. She is with us
in the audience.
Our next witness is Dr. Joseph Slater. He is the Eugene N.
Balk Professor of Law and Values at the University of Toledo
School of Law.
Welcome.
Mr. Bob Onder is a State senator from Missouri,
representing Missouri's District Two.
Thank you for coming.
Mr. Tom Brewer is the president of the Professional Fire
Fighters and Paramedics of North Carolina in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
Mr. Brewer, thank you.
Mr. William Messenger is an attorney with the National
Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in Springfield,
Virginia.
Welcome.
Mr. Teague Paterson is a deputy general counsel of the
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
in Washington, DC.
Thank you for coming.
We really appreciate all of the witnesses for being here
today, and we look forward to your testimony.
Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written
statements and they will appear in full in the hearing record.
Pursuant to committee rule and committee practice, each of you
is asked to limit your oral presentation to a 5-minute summary
of your written statement.
Let me also remind the witnesses that, pursuant to title 18
of the U.S. Code, section 101, it is illegal to knowingly and
willfully falsify any statement, representation, writing,
document, or material fact presented to Congress or otherwise
conceal or cover up a material fact.
Before you begin your testimony, please remember to press
the button on the microphone in front of you so that it will
turn on and the members can hear you.
As you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn
green. After 4 minutes, the light will then turn yellow to
signal that you have 1 minute remaining. When the light turns
red, your 5 minutes have expired, and we ask that you please
wrap it up so I won't have to gavel you, because I will.
We will let the entire panel make their presentations
before we move to member questions.
Remember, when answering a question, please remember to
once again turn your microphone on.
I will first recognize Ms. Whitaker.
STATEMENT OF TINA Y. WHITAKER, UNITED TEACHERS OF DADE,
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
Ms. Whitaker. Good morning, Chairman Scott and Ranking
Member Foxx. I would like to thank Chairwoman Wilson and
Ranking Member Walberg for the opportunity to testify before
this subcommittee.
My name is Tina Whitaker. I am a veteran teacher of 21
years in Miami-Dade County public schools, Florida, and a proud
member of United Teachers of Dade. I teach social studies at
Arthur & Polly Mays 6-through-12 Conservatory of the Arts.
I began my teaching career in May 1995 as a substitute
teacher in Scotland Neck, North Carolina, at Brawley Middle
School. Scotland Neck is in Halifax County, North Carolina, and
is currently ranked 90th in per capita income in the State. I
was excited not only was I giving back to the community in
which I was raised, but I had the opportunity to work with
teachers who had nurtured me as a student.
At the beginning of the following school year, I began
teaching North Carolina history and language arts to seventh-
graders. Still excited, I decorated my class for the new
adventure with the help of those same teachers who were now my
mentors.
After the completion of a successful year, unfortunately, I
was released from my teaching duties because I was told that I
had not fulfilled my obligation of getting my certification
within 2 years of employment. A month of being a substitute
teacher and 1 full year does not calculate to working for 2
years, but I had no one to advocate on my behalf since there
was not a union I could belong to in North Carolina. I realized
that I would have to navigate those waters alone.
I drove to Raleigh, North Carolina, and pleaded my case to
the North Carolina Department of Education. With hope in my
heart, I proceeded to go back to the human resources department
at the Halifax County School Board. I had no one to advocate on
my behalf. I had no union, no professional organization that
could fight for me.
Here I was, a product of the community and the county
school system who had beat the odds, but could not get anyone
to listen to my pleas. I wanted the students that lived in my
community to see that you can go off to college, get your
degree, and come back home and serve the community in which you
lived. I went from sadness and embarrassment to anger. I was
angry because I was let go unfairly and those who could help me
did not.
I was able eventually to find an educational lawyer that
took my case pro bono. Months later, I moved to Miami, Florida,
and started the process of gaining employment as a substitute
teacher and eventually an educator in Miami-Dade County Public
Schools system.
From my experiences in North Carolina, I learned what
happens when you don't have someone to advocate for you.
Therefore, I did not hesitate to join UTD after I became a
teacher. This union has helped me reach my full potential.
After coming from a place where my dreams were stifled and
where I was unable to help my community, I found my voice in
Miami because of a union that has helped me not only become a
better educator but a better professional.
UTD has afforded me opportunities that I otherwise would
not have had. The PD I have taken part in has given me tools
provided that I was chosen as Teacher of the Year and Social
Studies Teacher of the Year.
We are not just a union within the walls of our school
building. We participate in advocacy and activism.
With all that we do in our community, we have still had to
organize to combat bad legislation that adversely affects our
students and our work force. Yes, bad legislation does trickle
down into our classrooms. When bad legislation is passed, it
affects the morale and district funding which provide for
smaller classes, more mental and educational services, and
teacher salaries.
You must walk your talk. Your message must be one of
bringing togetherness in our communities. Healthy work forces
and bargaining capability build strong and active communities,
and strong communities build stronger economies.
I am Tina Whitaker, and as a proud public school teacher
and union member, I want public school teachers around the
country to have a right to collectively bargain. I hope that
Congress will soon pass this important legislation.
Again, thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward
to answering your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Whitaker follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7318.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7318.002
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you so much, Ms. Whitaker.
We will now recognize Dr. Slater.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH SLATER, J.D., PH.D., EUGENE N. BALK
PROFESSOR OF LAW AND VALUES AND DISTINGUISHED UNIVERSITY
PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO, TOLEDO, OHIO
Mr. Slater. Madam Chair Wilson, Ranking Member Walberg, and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today.
My name is Joseph Slater. I am a distinguished university
professor at the University of Toledo. And I am here to give
some background about how public-sector labor laws work and
have worked in the U.S. and explain why I support the Public
Service Freedom to Negotiate Act and the Public Safety
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.
First, the U.S. is very different than other comparable
countries. In other industrialized nations, public-sector
unions and private-sector unions have essentially the same
rights. In the U.S., while private-sector workers won the right
to bargain collectively in 1935 with the National Labor
Relations Act, public-sector unions did not begin to win
collective bargaining rights until the 1960's. And, even today,
8 States do not permit any public employees to bargain
collectively, and about another 12 States only allow 1 to 2
types of public employees to bargain collectively. Meanwhile,
international law views collective bargaining as a fundamental
human right.
Second, public-sector labor law is out of step with other
employment laws in the U.S. Many employment laws, many Federal
employment laws, in the U.S. cover public employees as well as
private employees. The wages and working conditions of public
employees affect commerce, which is why Congress has the power,
for example, to apply the Fair Labor Standards Act to public
employees as well as private employees.
Third, objections to public-sector collective bargaining
have been largely disproven by experience. One old objection
was that public officials would, for political reasons, cave to
union demands. Experience has shown that is not true. This is
partly because there are strong political pressures to the
contrary. The general public wants good public services, but it
also wants low costs for those services, and at the voting
booth the general public tends to swamp public employees. There
are also powerful and well-funded groups opposing public
employee interests, such as anti-tax groups and anti-union
groups. Meanwhile, public employees have legitimate interests
as employees, just as private employees do, that need
protection.
Further, public-sector collective bargaining rights
generally do not have any significant negative impact on public
budgets. Public employees are not overpaid compared to
comparable private-sector workers. The vast majority of studies
on the issue have shown that, if anything, public employees are
paid somewhat less than their comparable private-sector
counterparts.
Relatedly, there is no correlation between State budget
deficits in States that grant collective bargaining rights to
public employees. Researchers from UC-Berkeley found, quote,
``no statistically significant correlation between union
density, union strength, and the size of State budgets.'' As
Congressman Mike Quigley once observed, States allowing public-
sector collective bargaining, on average, have a 14 percent
budget deficit, while States that bar collective bargaining
have, on average, a 16.5 percent deficit.
Fourth, public-sector collective bargaining laws do a lot
of good. They promote labor peace, reducing the number of
illegal public-sector strikes. When my State of Ohio passed its
public-sector law in the early 1980's, the number of strikes in
the public-sector decreased dramatically. This was despite the
fact that the Ohio law not only allowed collective bargaining
rights for public employees but it allowed some public
employees to strike under some circumstances. But yet the
number of strikes went down. The same thing happened when
Illinois passed its collective bargaining law in the 1980's.
The reason this happens is because given bargaining rights
to workers and effective alternatives to strikes means workers
don't have to use illegal strikes as their only option to
address their concerns. Indeed, a leading study found that
public-sector strikes were most likely to occur in States that
did not allow collective bargaining for public employees. For
example, the teachers' strikes in 2018 took place in six
States, none of which permitted collective bargaining by
teachers.
Fifth, collective bargaining rights help with retention and
recruitment of employees. We should encourage talented people
to go into the public service and stay there. Opponents of
collective bargaining rights of unions often make arguments
about corporate executive pay along the lines of, well, you
need to pay these people a lot of money to get good people in
the jobs and keep them there. Well, that is also true; we need
to have good pay and benefits if we want talented people in the
public service, if we want good teachers, firefighters, and
police officers.
Sixth, a number of studies show that unions increase
efficiency and productivity. This is because union members know
how to do their jobs. A series of studies demonstrate that.
Finally, unions help the economy as a whole, in part
because they help bolster the middle class. Collective
bargaining has historically served to increase consumer
purchasing power, assure a voice in the work force, and provide
checks and balances in society.
For these reasons, I support the Public Service Freedom to
Negotiate Act.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Slater follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Slater.
We will now recognize Mr. Onder, our State senator.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT F. ONDER, M.D., STATE
SENATOR, MISSOURI GENERAL ASSEMBLY, JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI
Dr. Onder. Thank you.
Chairwoman Wilson, Ranking Member Walberg, members of the
committee, for the record, I am Bob Onder, State senator
representing Missouri's Second Senatorial District. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today.
I was elected to the Missouri Senate in 2014, and, since
then, I have chaired the committee that has handled most of
Missouri's labor bills, including Missouri's Government Worker
Protection Act, House Bill 1413, a comprehensive labor reform
bill signed into law last year.
Today, I appear before you to testify in favor of the
rights of States and their political subdivisions to set their
own public-sector labor policies, and, as such, I testify in
opposition to the two bills before you today.
Private-sector collective bargaining has been governed by
Federal law since President Franklin Roosevelt signed the
Wagner Act in 1935. Congress has long recognized the
distinction between public-sector collective bargaining and the
private sector and has allowed States and local governments,
accordingly, to set their own laws, their own policies in the
latter.
FDR himself recognized this distinction when he Stated,
``All government employees should recognize that the process of
collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be
transplanted into the public service.''
It is important to recognize, as did your predecessors, the
fundamental differences between government and private-sector
unions.
In the private sector, employers are private companies or
individuals. Government and, by extension, the people are the
employers of public-sector employees.
Government unions through aggressive political activity
often end up electing their own bosses, potentially leading to
conflicts between the interests of citizens and taxpayers and
that of the unions.
In the private sector, there are natural checks and
balances on the power of unions. If union demands make a
company uncompetitive, everyone suffers. Witness the U.S. auto
industry. These checks and balances are lacking with government
unions.
If we look at States with the worst fiscal conditions and
the highest taxes, such as Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut,
what they all have in common is very strong government unions.
I believe that if there is one thing we can agree on here,
it is that different States have very different approaches to
labor policies--for example, whether collective bargaining is
allowed for police, firefighters, and teachers. Most allow it.
Some mandate it, some ban it, and some allow it to be decided
at the local level. And whether these workers should be allowed
to strike.
These varying policies have evolved over decades. Missouri
has allowed public-sector collective bargaining since 1965. And
since then, policy has been modified from time to time by
statute, by decisions of two government agencies, and by
hundreds of political subdivisions.
Congress has no business centralizing all of this power in
the Federal Labor Relations Authority. It would be an enormous
Federal overreach and a violation of the principle of
federalism to do so. And it would also require a massive
expansion of the Federal Labor Relations Authority to
micromanage labor policy in 50 States and thousands of
political subdivision across our country.
Finally, Federalization of public-sector labor law would
preclude reform measures that protect both workers and
taxpayers. Examples of such reforms include the provisions of
House Bill 1413 passed in Missouri last year. With this bill,
we codified the certification process; we gave workers the
right to vote every 3 years as to whether they wanted to
continue to be represented by a union; gave the workers the
right to annually opt in or out of financial payment to unions;
and promoted financial transparency similar to Federal LM
reporting. These protections would be nullified by Federal
legislation.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 9 that the
proposed Constitution ``leaves to States' possession certain
exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power.'' Our
current system of State control of public-sector labor
relations allows States to use that sovereign power to balance
the interests of public employees and unions, citizens, and
taxpayers.
I urge this committee to reject Federal takeover of these
very important State functions.
Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Onder follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Onder.
We will now recognize Mr. Brewer.
STATEMENT OF TOM BREWER, PRESIDENT, CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA
FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 660 AND NORTH CAROLINA FIREFIGHTERS'
ASSOCIATION, MOORESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Brewer. Good morning, Chairwoman Wilson, Ranking Member
Walberg, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name
is Tom Brewer, and I am the president of the Professional Fire
Fighters and Paramedics of North Carolina.
I appear before you today on behalf of the International
Association of Fire Fighters, our general president, Harold
Schaitberger, and the over 316,000 professional firefighters
and emergency medical personnel who comprise our union.
I began my career in public service nearly 23 years ago,
and today I serve the citizens of Charlotte, North Carolina, as
a frontline firefighter and captain. I also serve as the
president of my local union, IAFF Local 660. My coworkers and I
strive every day to protect our community and its citizens.
At its core, the right to organize and collectively bargain
is about establishing a mechanism to enable labor and
management to work together for their mutual benefit.
In States and localities with strong laws, collective
bargaining has produced measurable improvements in training,
staffing, equipment, and health and safety, resulting in
improved local emergency response capabilities, safer
communities, and safer firefighters.
The people that we serve expect the very best from their
firefighters, and we work hard every day to meet these
expectations. But, many times, we are being asked to do our
jobs with one hand tied behind our backs, because, even as
highly trained experts, we cannot consistently convey basic
workplace needs to our employers.
Today's fire service operates on multiple governmental
levels. Firefighters regularly respond beyond their own
jurisdictions to incidents involving hazardous materials,
active shooters, wildland fires, and other local and national
security threats, all of which can impact communities not just
throughout a State but across a region.
Fire departments must work together in partnership to meet
threats facing communities. Without an effective local
response, homeland security is almost inevitably impaired. The
Federal Government, therefore, has a responsibility to ensure
that emergency response at the local level is as effective as
possible.
As public-sector workers, we are banned in my home State
from collective bargaining. This means we cannot meet with our
employer in a good-faith structured exchange. Instead, we plead
with our local governments to try and get what we need to do
our jobs effectively.
As a result, both workers and communities experience
inadequate protections. There are many communities in North
Carolina where fire apparatus are dangerously understaffed.
When responding to a fire, they must literally wait until a
second apparatus arrives before engaging in suppression
activities.
Understaffing also hinders responses to other incidents
such as car accidents, where insufficient personnel slows
extrication duties and lifesaving procedures such as CPR. This
not only endangers firefighters but it puts citizens at risk.
Time and time again, firefighters in these communities have
asked their city councils to increase staffing to meet these
necessary safety standards, and time and time again they have
been shut out. With collective bargaining, both parties would
have a structured process that would allow for this necessary
conversation to occur, helping fix this serious public safety
problem.
Consider my hometown of Charlotte. For the past 20 years,
we have pleaded with the city to provide us with firefighter
physicals, including cancer screenings. Finally, after years of
dead-end requests, the city relented, and this is the first
year they are being administered. Had we been able to sit down
with our employer and present our case, how many dollars and,
more importantly, how many lives may have been saved?
Thankfully, there is a solution. The Public Safety
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act will provide a basic set of
collective bargaining rights for firefighters and other public
safety workers while protecting the rights of States that
currently provide these protections.
Collective bargaining is overwhelmingly used as a mechanism
to enable labor and management to work together for their
mutual benefit. The Cooperation Act represents a conversation
between public safety employers and employees--a process, not
an outcome.
Nowhere is this relationship more important than when lives
and property are at stake. Having a voice in the workplace is a
fundamental right for firefighters, just as the public has a
fundamental right to rely on effective emergency services.
In conclusion, when workers have a meaningful role and
effective voice in the decisionmaking process, everyone is
better off: Firefighters are safer, and communities are safer.
Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any of your
questions.
[The statement of Mr. Brewer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Brewer.
We will now recognize Mr. Messenger.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM L. MESSENGER, J.D., STAFF ATTORNEY,
NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, SPRINGFIELD,
VIRGINIA
Mr. Messenger. Chairwoman Wilson, Ranking Member Walberg,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
I practice labor and constitutional law for the National
Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, advocating for
individual employees in both the private sector and the public
sector. And that includes representing Mark Janus in his case,
Janus v. AFSCME, before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Janus, the Supreme Court held it was unconstitutional
under the First Amendment for the government to compel
employees to subsidize a union's speech without their consent.
As a result of Janus, an estimated 5 million public employees
were freed from forced fee requirements and now have the right
to choose whether or not to support a union.
But while public-sector workers now enjoy this freedom,
many private-sector workers do not. In particular, those
private-sector workers not fortunate enough to work in the
Nation's 27 right-to-work States can still be forced to support
a union against their will even though their public-sector
brethren cannot.
Now, this inequity could be rectified by Congress passing
the National Right To Work Act, which would extend right-to-
work protections to all employees. With the National Right to
Work Act, both public-sector employees and private-sector
employees would enjoy the freedom to choose whether to support
a union.
Unfortunately, some propose to make an inequitable
situation even worse by stripping private-sector employees who
enjoy right-to-work protections of those protections. A prime
example is the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, H.R. 2474,
which will permit unions to force private-sector workers to pay
compulsory fees notwithstanding State right-to-work laws to the
contrary. That act represents a step backwards. In the wake of
Congress, Congress should seek to expand worker freedoms, not
to curtail them.
But while Janus freed public-sector workers from forced fee
requirements, many are still subject to forced representation
requirements. Under monopoly bargaining laws, workers are
required to accept a union as their exclusive representative
for speaking and contracting with the government over certain
public policies irrespective of whether the individual employee
approves or not.
In other words, the government is dictating who speaks for
employees in their relations with government. And, as a result,
the individual worker is stripped of his ability to speak for
himself or through other associations of his or her choice.
Now, the Supreme Court in Janus recognized that this form
of government-compelled association ``substantially restricts
non-members' rights'' and, quote, ``causes significant
impingement on associational freedoms.''
And, in fact, it turns the democratic process on its head.
Under monopoly bargaining laws, instead of citizens choosing
their representatives in government, the government is choosing
representatives to speak for its citizens.
Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who enacted the National
Labor Relations Act, opposed public-sector monopoly bargaining.
But, at a minimum, monopoly bargaining is a fundamentally
flawed idea that Congress should leave up to the States of
whether or not they should politically collectivize their own
employees.
Currently, State labor relations are governed not by
Federal law but by State law. And some States, such as Virginia
and North Carolina, do not allow monopoly bargaining at all.
And several other States, after suffering the negative
consequences of handing union officials too much artificial
political power, have been moving to reform their laws. As
these States are moving to correct the situation, Congress
should stay out of the way and not make their job harder.
And, in fact, the Tenth Amendment requires that Congress
respect State sovereignty on this matter. Under the Tenth
Amendment, the Federal Government cannot interfere with State
governance by dictating both that States regiment their
employees into mandatory advocacy groups and formulate their
public policies based upon bargaining with those advocacy
groups. Such interference with how States formulate their own
public policies would violate basic principles of federalism
and would not survive a legal challenge in the courts.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Messenger follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Messenger.
We will now recognize Mr. Paterson.
STATEMENT OF TEAGUE P. PATERSON, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL,
AFSCME, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Paterson. Thank you, Chairwoman Wilson, members of the
committee. My name is Teague Paterson. I am deputy general
counsel for the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees, or AFSCME.
I want to thank Chairwoman Wilson and Ranking Member
Walberg for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. I also
thank Congressman Cartwright and Senator Hirono for sponsoring
the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, and also Chairman
Scott and the many other members of this committee for
cosponsoring this important legislation.
AFSCME members provide the vital services that make America
happen. In major cities and in small towns across the United
States, AFSCME members work in hundreds of occupations
dedicated to serving the public, including in the fields of
justice, education, healthcare, transportation, public works,
and many, many others.
Why do working people join unions? Simply so that they can
productively address their working conditions, gain economic
security, and improve the work they do for their communities.
Notably, low-and middle-wage workers gain the most from
unions, reducing economic inequality and gender and racial wage
gaps, while also providing a means to address other forms of
discrimination faced by women, people of color, LGBTQ-plus
individuals, and the disabled.
Public service unions also benefit communities. Union
members use their collective voice to advocate for better
public services, like ensuring that 911 call centers have the
staff necessary to quickly answer calls and dispatch help and
also to make sure that schools hire staff necessary for
students to succeed.
Surveys and experience show that unions are more popular
than ever, and when public employees have a meaningful right to
bargain, they are choosing to express that right by forming and
joining unions. It is, in fact, a right that is guaranteed by
the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
This bill is needed because, in many States and
communities, public servants have been denied a meaningful
opportunity to exercise this fundamental right. What is more,
organized anti-union forces are working to further undermine
unions, dismantling protections for public service workers who
wish to exercise this important right. We have heard from some
of them today.
In fact, we just now heard from Mr. Onder regarding his
bill in Missouri, H.B. 1413, which he described as a step
forward. But, this past March, a Missouri judge issued an
injunction halting that law. Here is how the judge described
it, and I quote: ``a blatant attempt to subjugate employees to
the whims and caprices of management, free from the obligation
to act in good faith.''
The judge also Stated it renders collective bargaining,
quote, ``a farce,'' and it also, quote, ``impermissibly reaches
deep into the mechanics of self-governance and dictates the
terms and circumstances under which unions are permitted to
express their political voice and opinion.''
So it is laws like this in Missouri and other States that
make this act necessary.
The Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act empowers the
Federal Labor Relations Authority to protect the right of
public service employees to join a union, to collectively
bargain, to access dispute-resolution mechanisms, and to be
free from the imposition of rigged recertification elections.
And it is drafted with the powers, rights, and limitations
granted by the Constitution in mind.
Private-sector labor relations have been regulated under
the NLRA for more than 80 years. Because public-sector
employer-employee relations affect commerce in the same way and
to the same degree as in the private sector, Congress assuredly
has the authority to enact equivalent protections in the public
sector.
But this act does so in a way that ensures local control
and does not go beyond the requirements of the Commerce Clause
and is in keeping with principles of federalism. It guarantees
that States can design their own solutions while completely
exempting the smallest municipalities altogether. But for
States that do not do that, it protects their rights of public
service workers while providing a means to cooperatively and
productively resolve disputes.
In conclusion, this legislation will help level the playing
field and ensure that dedicated public service employees can
negotiate for fair wages, hours, and working conditions and
improved public services for our communities.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. It is a
privilege and honor to appear before this committee, and I am
happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Paterson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you so much, Mr. Paterson.
And let me welcome again, all the way from Miami, Ms. Karla
Hernandez-Mats, who is the president of the United Teachers of
Dade. I am so happy that she is with us today.
Under committee rule 8(a), we will now question witnesses
under the 5-minute rule.
I will now yield myself 5 minutes.
Ms. Whitaker, in 2018, Florida passed House Bill 7055, an
education bill containing a thinly veiled attack on teacher
unions. The law represents a 180-degree reversal of Florida's
past 50 years of public-sector collective bargaining law.
In 1962, Florida interpreted its constitution to provide
public employees with the right to join or refrain from joining
an employee organization, like a labor union, without fear of
losing their jobs. And in 1968, the constitution was rewritten
to explicitly include a protection for public employees'
collective bargaining rights.
However, as of 2018, this right is being eroded by
requiring teacher unions to report their dues-paying membership
data to the State, data which is then being used to trigger
elections if dues-paying membership is less than 50 percent.
This reform makes no sense, creates no solution to any problem,
and, instead, burdens teachers and their unions with
unnecessary regulations.
In your testimony, you describe the impacts of bad
legislation on teacher morale. How has H.B. 7055 impacted you
and your colleagues? And how are you and other teachers
resisting this targeted attack?
Ms. Whitaker. Thank you, Chairwoman Wilson.
In our school buildings, our teachers are constantly
worrying about whether or not our rights and privileges will be
taken away. Our morale is already low because of the attack
from our legislature, and once they started with the
decertification bill, now everyone is on edge.
It has taken our union away from lobbying for our children
with our school board, making sure that the items that they
pass benefit all students and not just top management. Also,
this legislation has provided a way to eventually take the
union out of the process.
Not too long ago, they took away tenure for teachers. How
can you ensure that you have an operating education system if
you don't have tenure for teachers? New teachers are now coming
into the system and not knowing whether or not they have a job
from year to year, because each year they go back to being an
annual contract teacher.
So the morale has been very low. The funding has been low
from our legislature. And teachers in our union are now--we are
constantly fighting that battle. And it feels as if it is us
against them, and that is not how it should be. We should be
working together to resolve issues.
Teachers should be at the table when legislation is
proposed. And with United Teachers of Dade, they have been on
the forefront because the teachers could not be there. We had
to work. It was our responsibility to educate our children.
That is what we are there for.
And with our children in the buildings, they are worried
now whether or not they are going have teachers from year to
year, because there is a major shortage in the State of
Florida. Right now, we are at 2,000. And if the teachers that
are close to retirement, if they retire, that number will go
higher.
So that bill was basically put forth to further break
United Teachers of Dade, I feel.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Paterson, your testimony mentioned some of the
inconsistencies within the gamut of State laws that govern
public employees' collective bargaining. I want you to tell us,
how are these inconsistencies--how do they harm workers, and
why is there a need for a Federal standard?
Mr. Paterson. Thank you for that question.
Look, some variation State by State is healthy, and we have
that. But the problem is, where States do not provide for the
effective or the meaningful exercise of the right to join a
union and to collectively bargain is where this bill becomes
necessary.
In terms of establishing a basic floor, this bill
establishes terms that have been shown to be tried and true and
effective in ameliorating disruptive activity and ensuring a
cooperative and productive labor relations system.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you.
I now recognize Ranking Member Walberg for his round of
questions--the esteemed ranking member.
Mr. Walberg. You flatter me. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I
appreciate that, and I appreciate the panel being here today.
As I said earlier, it is an important discussion.
Mr. Messenger, we would certainly, together, agree that
workers should have a right to secret-ballot elections and
should be free to decide for themselves whether to join and pay
into a union or to share personal information with a union
organizer or not.
Democrats insist these basic protections threaten the right
to organize. I don't see that. They indicate that it threatens
the protections to propose or deny all of them legislative
protection, as well, currently pending before this committee.
However, I guess I would ask you this question. Do right-
to-work, secret-ballot elections or employee privacy impact
workers' rights to organize? And, second, why are these
protections so important for workers?
Mr. Messenger. Thank you for the questions.
To answer them in reverse order, the reason they are so
important is the First Amendment guarantees every individual
the choice to choose with whom they associate. So the
government shouldn't be in the business of forcing any
individual to associate with a union or any other advocacy
group against their will.
And to the extent the government does decide to force
individuals to submit to monopoly representation, at the very
least, it should be done pursuant to a democratic process in
which the individuals are guaranteed the right to a secret-
ballot vote, where they can make their choice in the privacy of
a voting booth as opposed to being forced to make that choice
in the presence of a union organizer.
And that goes to the second question with respect to giving
out employees' confidential information. The information that
some of these bills seek to require disclosure of is personal
to those employees. It is personal email addresses, personal
phone numbers. It is a violation of that individual employee's
privacy to compel the disclosure of that information to a third
party that individual may not want anything to have to do with.
And then, when you couple them together, the disclosure of
information and the lack of secret-ballot protections, you are
putting together a very coercive process.
Mr. Walberg. It takes away their choice.
Dr. Onder, thanks for being here. Thanks for the work you
do in the senate. Thanks for being willing to experience the
impact of a judge and a court decision--
Dr. Onder. Yes.
Mr. Walberg [continuing]. even as on the other side with
Janus, there was a court decision.
Dr. Onder. Yes.
Mr. Walberg. And there was disagreement, of course. There
is disagreement here. And we will see how it all turns out. I
personally hope it turns out well for you.
Dr. Onder. Yes.
Mr. Walberg. As a State legislator, we understand--at least
we ought to--the primacy of the States is what makes our
federalism really work. And, sadly, we have moved away from
that.
The legislation that you passed requires public employers
to receive annual authorization from employees before deducting
union dues from their paychecks. Based on your experience, why
do you think this paycheck protection provision is an important
policy for workers?
Dr. Onder. Yes, I think it is very important because
workers not only make the decision whether to join or to opt
out of the union but they should be able to decide whether they
want their dues withheld or whether they want to opt out.
And I think what happens all too often--we know that only 5
percent, fewer than 5 percent, of Missouri government union
workers have ever had a chance to vote on their union. These
unions were certified as having monopoly control over
workplaces decades ago.
So regularly offering employees the option to continue to
have dues withheld or to potentially stop having dues withheld
and leave union membership, I think that is a fundamental
worker right as well, as well as the right to periodically vote
whether that worker wants to continue monopoly representation
by a given union in that workplace.
Mr. Walberg. You also indicated in your legislation that
collective bargaining negotiations must be open to the public.
Why is that important?
Dr. Onder. Well, because the public has an interest in what
goes on in those meetings. Public money is being spent; public
policy is being made right now in behind-closed-doors meetings.
And I noticed that one of these bills would actually
exclude management from these negotiations and only give the
final say to the governing board of that political subdivision.
So I think more transparency, more ability of the public to
see how their money is being spent is important.
Mr. Walberg. Okay.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Wilson. Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Chairman Wilson, for holding this
important hearing; to all our witnesses for being here today.
In my district of Rochester and throughout all of New York
State, we have long stood behind our workers' right to organize
and collectively bargain. We are a union State. We understand
that a strong union means effective workplace safety, higher
wages, reliable benefits, and improved quality of life for all
of our employees.
I saw the benefits firsthand while growing up in a union
household. My dad was a proud member of the Plumbers and
Pipefitters Union Local 13, United Association, and I worked to
defend these rights throughout my 28 years as a member of the
New York State Assembly serving as its majority leader. And I
am proud to be part of this subcommittee and the majority party
as we fight to protect and promote strong labor standards and
the rights our workers deserve.
The Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Janus was yet another
in a long history of attacks on labor unions in this country,
and such decisions are consistent with the sentiments expressed
by the Trump administration and what I believe is their steady
campaign to undermine the ability of labor unions to
collectively bargain and ensure strong labor standards, fair
and livable wages, and better benefits for all employees.
My home State was one of the first to respond to Janus, in
the court case, to ensure our unions and workers knew the State
was behind them and giving them full-throated support.
Today's hearing, however, remains as imperative as ever.
Employees in too many States across the country are robbed of
the support by misleading right-to-work laws. It is our
responsibility to continue the fight for workers' rights to
organize and collectively bargain to ensure fairer standards
for all, including taxpayers.
So I wanted to just ask you, Mr. Paterson. I would like
your perspective on this. In my opinion, the diverse and
divergent legal regime that currently governs State and local
employees' ability to collectively bargain and join a union is
insufficient, and we have seen example after example of the
poor outcomes that result from the prohibition of collective
bargaining.
Given what the ranking member, Mr. Walberg, said, and I
have had some, as I said, a long history as a State legislator,
why, in your opinion, does it fall to Congress to create a
minimum standard instead of--what do you think the best
argument is instead of leaving it to for essentially a State-
by-State decisionmaking?
Mr. Paterson. Thank you for that question. And the answer
is really for the same reasons that 80-plus years ago, Congress
enacted the Wagner Act, which is that unstable labor relations
where the right of workers who organize to productively resolve
their grievances and disputes and to negotiate over wages, if
they aren't given that productive opportunity, it overflows
into the economy.
The public sector is a huge segment of the American
economy, and we have seen what happens when workers don't have
a productive means of expressing that right. And we have seen a
number of strikes in different States, particularly in States
that don't afford a meaningful right to bargain. So we see this
kind of activity where there isn't a productive process to
reach terms and conditions of employment. And so really, it is
for those same reasons that this bill is necessary.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
Mr. Brewer, I am just curious. I often know that people who
are rank-and-file workers are those who come up with the most
effective reforms about how to do things more effectively, more
efficiently. In your department, for instance, how challenging
is it for rank-and-file members to get their employers to
consider those proposals, to really look at how do we improve
the functioning of a fire department or a police department?
Could you just talk about that and any experiences you might
have had or that members have had?
Mr. Brewer. Absolutely. And thank you very much. To put it
just bluntly, it is incredibly difficult for employees to make
suggestions and have their voices heard. In my testimony, I
brought up physicals. This is something that, before I was even
hired on the Charlotte Fire Department, our home local, Local
660, was advocating for annual firefighter physicals, which is
kind of the industry standard, and this went on for over 20
years before we finally got them.
As part of these physicals, there are some cancer tests in
there, cancer detection tests. As a lot of you know, cancer has
been a scourge in the fire service. From 2014 to 2016, in the
Charlotte Fire Department alone, we have 41 documented cases of
cancer. We had three firefighters die within a 3-month period
of time. And I am not saying that these physicals would have
caught them, but there is a great possibility that they would
have. But if we would have had the means to simply sit down
with our employer and say, hey, we want these physicals to
protect our members to get these tests, it would have been a
lot easier than having to go to politicians and asking them to
do it.
Mr. Morelle. Very good.
Madam Chair, thank you again for this hearing. I appreciate
it very much, and I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you.
And now the distinguished Dr. Roe.
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Madam Chair. And a full disclosure.
I've served as a city commissioner and mayor of my local
community before I was elected. And, Mr. Brewer, thank you for
your service in the Air Force.
I also want to thank the Charlotte EMT folks. I found
myself one morning in the floor of the Charlotte airport doing
CPR on a gentleman who had a cardiac arrest, and they were able
to come and assist, and this gentleman survived and did well.
So I thank you for that.
I want to get straight to some questions about secret
ballot. And by the way, I am a huge fan, being the mayor, of
our fire and police department. In Tennessee where I am in our
local community in Johnson City, we have an NSO rating of one.
We do not have a--we are not unionized there, and our police
officers--I had to put on a scrub suit to go to work every day.
They had to put on a Kevlar vest. And I have incredible
respect. And EMTs I worked with as a physician in my local
community, and I've seen that service improve dramatically
across the country from when I started the practice of
medicine. So I want to just say that personally.
I have a very strong feeling. I put on a uniform and left
this country to go to Southeast Asia over 40 years ago to
protect your right to have a secret ballot. I think it is one
of the most sacrosanct rights we have in America is to be able
to go behind a screen, and I say this as a joke, and people,
many have heard it. I don't even know whether my wife votes for
me or not, because it is a secret ballot. I think it is that
important.
And I found it hypocritical that when we developed the
USMCA, that we had people on this committee right here insist
that part of the MCA agreement that workers in Mexico had a
right to a secret ballot, which I totally agree with, but we
are trying to take that right away from an American citizen. I
don't understand that.
And I would like anyone, Mr. Paterson or anybody, to answer
why you don't think a secret ballot is a good idea when I go to
vote. For me, every person on this dais was elected by a secret
ballot.
Mr. Paterson. Well, the act that is under consideration
does provide for secret ballots, and it also allows States to
have laws which afford voluntary recognition on the basis of
the majority showing of interest.
Mr. Roe. You would support a secret ballot in union
elections, then, across the board?
Mr. Paterson. I would support employee free choice if that
free choice is exercised in a manner that is not coercive and
it meets the same requirements that public elections in this
country--
Mr. Roe. The way you have a noncoercive--the way it is
noncoercive is you pull the curtain and you get to vote in a
secret ballot. That is the way. And, look, if you want to have
a union, you should be able to vote for it and have it if you
want to. If not, the people who are in that--and the other one,
I would like to have a question. Mr. Messenger, you may know
this. What happened in--because I don't. What happened in
Wisconsin when the laws were changed there, and the Governor
there changed the law? There was a lot of turmoil about whether
you had to pay or not to be in a union. Did people opt out or
did they stay in? Did they see value from their membership, I
guess, is what I am asking?
Mr. Messenger. A large number of employees decided to drop
out once they had the opportunity to actually make that choice.
Prior to Act 10, and it was also prior to Janus, you know,
employees in Wisconsin didn't have a choice of whether or not
they wanted to support a union. Once they were given that
choice, a large number decided to opt out. Now, some decided to
stay. That is also their free choice, but the most important
thing is that each individual was allowed to choose.
And if I could also go back to answer your first question
with respect to secret ballot elections. You know, another
important part of a secret ballot is that the result is
respected of that election. Under H.R. 2474, the PRO Act, it
gives the NLRB the authority, if employees vote against union
representation, to overturn that result if the NLRB believes it
doesn't reflect employee free choice, and impose the union on
those employees that they just rejected.
And so I think that the PRO Act, you know, in that way,
even though employees were given the right to vote, it means
little if their voice isn't ultimately respected.
Mr. Roe. Dr. Onder, and not only do States and local
governments have ideological preferences, they also have unique
needs when it comes to prioritization budgeting, as I know and
you know as a State legislator, and other decisions governments
make. Based on your experience as a legislator, why is
flexibility important for State and local lawmakers, and what
impact would the bills before us today have on the flexibility
of that State and local governments they currently enjoy to
make important financial decisions?
Dr. Onder. Yes. It is the very essence of our system of
democratic governance that we elect officials who then make
decisions. The people exercise their sovereignty through their
elected officials. And when that sovereignty is replaced by
behind closed-door negotiations between politicians and union
officials, that violates that sovereignty, and that is very
important.
And I agree with you on secret ballots. Voluntary
recognition with a card check, voluntary showing of recognition
and, of course, those cards are obtained out in the open with a
union organizer pressuring employees to sign them, that is the
very antithesis of the principle of the secret ballot.
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Wilson. Mr. Courtney of Connecticut.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you to
all the witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Brewer, I just want to sort of foot stomp a point you
made in your testimony about a practical public benefit of
collective bargaining which is the apparatus staffing that you
described where only two are--again, the system that you have
in the area that you are working. As a member of an
international, I mean, you are obviously able to compare notes
with other jurisdictions that do have collective bargaining
where issues like staffing actually are negotiated. And maybe
if you could just sort of describe that sort of side by side
of, you know, colleagues that are in States that recognize
collective bargaining and the benefits to the public of
adequate staffing versus nonunion jurisdictions like your own
where it sounds like you almost have to wait for another
vehicle or truck to show up before you can actually start doing
your job.
Mr. Brewer. Yes. Thank you. Yes, absolutely. We do have
communities in North Carolina that are severely understaffed,
places like Boone, North Carolina, for example, you know, where
there is a major university. They will have trucks with two
individuals, with two firefighters on those trucks, and it has,
you know, the possibility to hinder operations.
Studies show, for example, that four-person CPR is the most
effective. When it comes to fighting fire, there is like a two-
in, two-out rule. And, you know, if you show up with just two
people on an apparatus and the house is burning, they will have
no means to go in until another apparatus arrives.
And so what we believe is, with this legislation, we would
be able to sit down with our employer, and again, not just the
safety of the firefighters, because it does put firefighters at
risk, we are talking about the safety of the citizens to talk
about that safety for adequate staffing.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
Professor Slater, Mr. Messenger in his remarks described
that the legislation we are considering today runs afoul of the
10th Amendment. I am sure this is something that you have
thought about and possibly written about. I was wondering if
you could comment on that constitutional issue.
Mr. Slater. Well, there are two issues involved here. The
first is the straight 10th Amendment issue. When Congress
extended employment laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act
and various antidiscrimination laws to public employees, there
was a brief dispute in the courts in the 1970's and 1980's
about whether the 10th Amendment barred that. But ever since I
was in law school, which was a long time ago, the courts have
rejected 10th Amendment claims. The Fair Labor Standards Act,
antidiscrimination laws apply to public employees as well as
private employees.
There is an 11th Amendment issue coming from the case of
Alden v. Maine that would only apply to State employees where
States have limited immunity for private suits for money
damages, but that wouldn't be a problem under this law because
it is enforced by a Federal agency, the Federal Labor Relations
Authority.
Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you for clarifying that point.
And, Mr. Paterson, again, we heard about Wisconsin's
experience after it changed its labor laws. The fact of the
matter is the Bureau of Labor Statistics in January reported
that union membership among State and local government
employees actually held steady in the wake of Janus. I was
wondering if you could comment on that and, you know, in terms
of obviously you are a union that is all across the country in
terms of what you are seeing. Also, in terms of what we are
seeing in terms of efforts in the wake of Janus to, again, get
folks to opt out and yet, nonetheless, the statistics are
showing that it has actually held quite steady.
Mr. Paterson. Yes, you are right. And I understood that to
be sort of two questions, so let me try to take them in reverse
order.
There are currently dozens of corporate finance groups that
have committed to spending $40 million to $50 million in
campaigns to try to dissuade public sector workers to quit
their union. These are glossy brochures that say things like
quit your union, lose nothing. The union still has to represent
you. This is quite literally the message they are sending, and
it hasn't worked.
Why hasn't it worked? Because members know when they are
being sold a bill of goods. They know what is at stake. Our
members know that their union is just that. It is their union,
and if they quit it, they know what they lose. And so these
campaigns just haven't worked. They have fallen flat.
And some are really gimmicky, like, this actually happened.
One of these corporate-backed operatives was dressed like Santa
Claus handing out union resignation letters around Christmas
saying give yourself a pay raise. Those kinds of things don't
work with our members, because the most powerful thing is an
educated, empowered worker, and that is what unions do.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you.
Mr. Allen of Georgia.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And again, this is
a great debate that we are having here today.
You know, after hearing in this Congress my friends on the
other side of the aisle continue to promote this Federal one-
size-fits-all policy on States and localities, and this hearing
today seems not to be an exception to that. Of course, we have
talked about the Supreme Court decision last year which righted
the ship as far as a significant win for workers rights and the
First Amendment. Based on what I have studied, the PRO Act
would undermine the rights of workers in States.
In my State of Georgia, we have been named the best State
to do business for 6 years running. We are a right-to-work
State, and of course, the reason that our business and our
economy is growing is that the first priority of every
business, public or private, is a skilled work force.
Yes, there are many unions working in the State of Georgia.
In fact, I at one time was a part of one of those, but however,
the people in Georgia want a choice, and that is the reason our
laws are written the way they are.
And Mr. Messenger, the Supreme Court held decades ago that
workers cannot be required to pay a political portion of union
dues. As far as the H.R. 2474 is concerned, it would ban State
right-to-work laws, forcing millions of private sector
employees to pay union dues or lose their job.
Are private sector unions' dues being used for political
purposes and speech to accomplish just that very thing?
Mr. Messenger. Yes, I believe that they are. A portion of
union dues, even in the private sector, are used for political
expenses. Employees do have some rights to object to paying for
that political portion. However, private sector employees,
absent a right-to-work law, can be forced to support other
union speech and advocacy. For example, their speech vis-`-vis
their employer. And as you mentioned, H.R. 2474 would strip
employees of their right-to-work protections, such as in
Georgia, and allow unions to force them to pay fees as a
condition of their employment.
Mr. Allen. Currently, we have--and, you know, this, I
guess, could be debated, but obviously the economy is doing
well, and I think it is the best in the world. You know, we
have got more jobs than we have got job seekers, and of course,
that is why we have teacher shortages. That is why we are
looking for people to work in the public sector and private
areas. But the thing that--one of the concerns that I have is
that union leadership in the public and private sector alike
have a long history of corruption, embezzlement, and other
wrongdoings when they are left unaccountable to rank-and-file
workers.
And, in fact, I looked it up. For the record, about $16
million went to Members of Congress from public sector--
political contributions, public sector unions. Ninety percent
went to one specific party.
And so, Mr. Messenger, did any public sector bills being
discussed today help prevent instances of fraud and corruption
that might go on that--you know, here we are talking about the
taxpayers, okay. I represent the taxpayers. And what do you see
out there as far as instances of government and union
corruption negatively impacting our taxpayers?
Mr. Messenger. Yes. I didn't see anything in H.R. 2474 that
would prevent union corruption. In fact, by reinstituting
forced fee requirements and overriding State right-to-work
laws, H.R. 2474 would facilitate that kind of corruption.
Because when employees have the choice to decide whether or not
to support a union, they can hold the union and its leadership
accountable by withdrawing their financial support if the union
is mismanaging the assets. However--
Mr. Allen. The State senator wanted to say something, and I
have got 5 seconds. Go ahead, sir.
Dr. Onder. That is an excellent point. And when corruption
is uncovered, it is because of Federal LM reporting
requirements in the private sector. Most States do not have the
equivalent in the public sector.
Mr. Allen. Thank you very much. I am sorry. Out of time. I
yield back.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you.
Ms. Fudge of Ohio, with the red scarf.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thought you
were going to introduce me as distinguished too. So let me see
if I can distinguish myself today.
It is just so pleasant to hear my colleague, Mr. Allen,
talk about--
Chairwoman Wilson. Prestigious.
Ms. Fudge [continuing]. supporting choice. I hope maybe 1
day you all will support a woman's right to choose what she
wants to do with her own body.
Mr. Paterson, so happy to see you here. You know, my mother
is a retiree of AFSCME. She is still very, very involved in her
union. And I grew up in a household that made me know early on
what unions can do for people, so thank you for being here.
Ms. Whitaker, it is a pleasure to meet you as well. I
understand you are one of my sorority sisters, so welcome.
I have a question for you, Ms. Whitaker. We are in the
midst of a national teacher shortage. We have lost more than
26,000 just African American teachers over the last 8 to 10
years. Can you tell me why you think that is happening? I mean,
I understand we have got some poor working conditions and low
pay, but tell me why you think that is happening.
Ms. Whitaker. We tend to lose African American teachers
yearly. The main reason African American teachers are not
staying, not just the pay, the working conditions. If you are
not afforded the proper books, the materials that you would
need to educate your children, and pay, it makes for a rough
day. Our children need to see African Americans in the
classroom.
Also, we need male teachers, African American male
teachers. Every male in here would like to be able to provide
for his family. And males, they are not coming. If they come,
they are only there for a short period of time. So in Miami,
you can barely afford to live where you work.
Ms. Fudge. Well, is it true that one in five teachers have
a second job?
Ms. Whitaker. Yes, ma'am, we do.
Ms. Fudge. So the economy is not as great as they say?
Ms. Whitaker. No, it is not.
Ms. Fudge. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Slater. Last
year's teachers' strikes marked a four-decade high in strikes
in the United States, and most of them occurred in States where
collective bargaining rights were not there to protect
teachers. Can you tell me why this was inevitable, where we
find ourselves today?
Mr. Slater. From the 1960's through the present, the one
thing that we know from experience is that strikes in the
public sector are most common where there are no collective
bargaining rights for public workers. And as you say, that was
true in almost all or essentially all the States where there
were teacher strikes last year.
The reason is that workers feel, often justifiably, that
they have no other options to get their employer to listen to
their concerns, to really take them under consideration.
In contrast, in my State of Ohio, which not only grants--in
your State of Ohio, which not only grants collective bargaining
rights to teachers but permits them to strike in some
circumstances, there are very few teacher strikes. There is an
average, as I am sure you know, of about one strike in all the
public sector every year in Ohio because there are
alternatives. There is fact finding. There is mediation. There
is what we call interest arbitration. There are realistic
alternatives where workers can feel they can get their voices
heard in these States, unlike States without collective
bargaining rights where strikes are, unfortunately, a frequent
last resort.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you. It seems to me, as I have listened to
the testimony, that those who find themselves not able to be
protected by unions find their jobs much more difficult, and
even some of them who are that are in States that do not
support and believe in the fundamental right to collectively
bargain, they are being mistreated in ways that we have been
looking at for many, many, many years.
People know that it is labor unions who created the middle
class in this country. That is why we have a 5-day workweek.
That is why we have sick time, paid sick time, vacation time,
because of labor.
So what I am hearing from my colleagues is that they don't
want any of that. You know, they just want to save money
instead of deal with people. Money is not everything, but
clearly, if we can't pay our teachers who teach our children a
decent wage, there is something wrong in this country. So that
is just my point of view.
I hope I have distinguished myself, Madam Chair. I yield
back.
Chairwoman Wilson. You did with putting on that red scarf.
Thank you. We wear red on Wednesdays for the Chibok girls, and
that is why you see red on the audience, and even Mr. Walberg
wears red every Wednesday. You see him? The distinguished Mr.
Walberg. Thank you so much.
And now, Mr. Banks of Indiana.
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As one of the co-authors of the Indiana right-to-work law,
I have had some experience with this particular topic, and I
just want to note today how radical some of these proposals are
that we are debating.
Democrats are seeking to impose their will on the American
people by subverting the collective bargaining laws passed by
their own State governments. I want to make something very
clear. Washington, DC, has no business telling Hoosiers how to
run their own State government.
Indiana's collective bargaining rules have been in place
since 2005, and we have been a right-to-work State since 2012.
The choice of whether to change those laws rests with Hoosier
voters, not the Democrats on this committee.
Senator Onder, I want to start with you, and I want to
commend you for the work that you have done on this particular
issue in Missouri. Could you talk for a minute about how the
Federal Government takeover of collective bargaining rules
would specifically hurt your State? And specifically, can you
talk for a little bit about how it would undermine workers'
rights regarding agency fees and transparency of union
expenditures?
Dr. Onder. Yes. I think that is a very good point. And what
I would add is not only would these two bills undermine the
principle of federalism, the right of States, Indiana,
Missouri, to set their own public sector labor policy, but even
undermine the ability of political subdivisions, school boards
and fire boards and cities and counties, to negotiate with
their workers and set their labor policies.
But I think that transparency is extraordinarily important.
When we have uncovered instances of union misuse of fees and
corruption, it has almost always been in the private sector
because of Federal LM reporting that has been required since
1959 in the private sector union arena. So that is why House
Bill 1413 in Missouri required that similar disclosure of the
use of union dues.
We also in 1413 extended to workers the right to vote
whether or not they want to be part of a monopoly
representation work force controlled by unions. Not every
worker wants that. Some of the testimony by some of the
witnesses alluded to the political activity of their various
unions. Not all workers want to be part of that political
activity.
So these bills are a massive Federal overreach. They are a
huge violation of the parent principle of federalism. And, you
know, I commend your work in Indiana and on this committee in
fighting for the rights of States and of the people expressed
through their elected officials.
Mr. Banks. Thank you for that.
Mr. Messenger, the recent Janus decision allowed government
workers in non-right-to-work States to opt out of forced union
dues. Is there any data on how many workers in those States
have actually chosen to not pay those agency fees?
Mr. Messenger. Well, we know one thing is that all the
forced fee payers, which were individuals who were not union
members who were being forced to pay these compulsory fees
against their will, were almost all entirely freed in the wake
of Janus, because Janus was unequivocal that the government
could not take these individuals' money for union fees without
their affirmative consent.
But the next question becomes how many individuals who are
union members because they now have the right to choose whether
to support a union decided to drop out? And the numbers on that
are still really undetermined. They are just rolling in.
Tomorrow is the 1-year anniversary of Janus, so there are
really not hard numbers yet on how many exercised that choice.
But I want to emphasize, the most important thing isn't how
many exercised that choice to be union members or nonmembers,
but the fact they have that choice. You know, prior to Janus,
they didn't have the right to choose whether to support a
union. The government and union officials forced them whether
they wanted to or not, and now they have that choice. And even
if few exercise it, it is still a very important principle.
Mr. Banks. Thank you for that.
With that, I will yield back.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you.
And now, Dr. Shalala of Florida, former Secretary of HHS.
Ms. Shalala. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I did wear
red today, I want to point out.
Mr. Paterson, we are having a debate about federalism.
This, in fact, is a debate about federalism. I agree with my
colleagues. But federalism also allows us as Members of
Congress to identify when there is a national interest in
minimum standards and human rights, for example, in civil
rights. And it is a debate about how workers ought to be
treated and what are the mechanism by which they will get fair
treatment.
So could you talk a little about what is the national
interest that justifies the kind of legislation that we are
talking about?
Mr. Paterson. Yes, I would be happy to, and I think it
touches on what I was saying before about how it is the same
interest for which Congress passed the National Labor Relations
Act. And this bill is not unique in the sense that Congress
would be enacting provisions governing employer and employee
relations and terms in public employment. There is a litany of
examples where Congress has done that, and it has worked well,
and also in conformity with principles of federalism.
So I mean, I could rattle off a number of acts like the
Fair Labor Standards Act or the ADA. The ADA actually requires
public employers to sit down and engage in a collaborative
process with employees to reach accommodations when they have
disabilities. So that is one example where Congress has found
that the Commerce Clause authority is significant, and the
effects on commerce are significant enough to establish a
minimum standard.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Equal Pay Act.
Recently in 2008, the GINA, the Genetic Information
Nondisclosure Act. USERRA which governs our veterans. So
important to preserve their rights in terms of their employment
relations in State and local employment.
This act that is before you today is just one example of
the many ways in which the recognition of this important sector
of the economy should be leveled and should have a level
standard that applies to all public servants, whether they are
a nurse in a hospital or working in a correctional facility or
any number of occupations and industries that have a very
important effect on commerce and are actually integral to the
fabric of our economy.
Ms. Shalala. Thank you.
I want to welcome Tina Whitaker from Miami, Florida. We are
happy to have you here.
Collective bargaining helps, not just the teachers and
students, but also the whole community. Could you talk a little
about your experience with UTD, how having a union supported
your school's broader Miami-Dade community?
Ms. Whitaker. As a union, we are all over Miami-Dade
County. We are in our communities. We are not just a union
within our school building or at a headquarters at United
Teachers of Dade. Our communities see us there. They call and
we are there. We are at book fairs, parades. We are at
community events where our children are. We are at churches. A
lot of us do attend our churches and synagogues, so they see us
often. Even when there was a government shutdown, United
Teachers of Dade was there for the community.
We are not a selfish union. We provide school supplies for
those students that cannot afford them. Even the pre-K
teachers. We provide school supplies for them, because
unfortunately, the funding that the teachers are given for
supplies, the pre-K teachers are not included.
United Teachers of Dade, we are a family, and we look out
for our community. We are out there. Yes, we do advocacy and
activism, but that is what you are supposed to do. You are
supposed to look out for those that are next door to you,
regardless of whether you are a teacher, a firefighter, a
professor, a Senator, a Congress person. You are supposed to
look out for the people that are in your community.
I always tell my students, learn to lobby for yourself.
Learn to advocate for you. And I always tell them--I said,
listen, I start my year out, and I want you to be able to
understand. I go back to when I have to teach the Holocaust,
but I would start early. When they came for the socialists, I
said nothing. When they came for the trade unionists, I said
nothing. When they came for me, no one was there to speak for
me.
United Teachers of Dade, we speak for our community, not
just the teachers, but we are there for everyone in our
community.
Ms. Shalala. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you.
And now, Mr.--or Dr. Foxx, our ranking member of the entire
committee.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to thank our
witnesses all for being here today.
Mr. Messenger, Democrats' labor agenda this Congress has
been about imposing the will of union bosses on unwitting
States, employers, employees, and others in order to reverse
the decades-long decline in union membership. Why might it be
in the interest of union bosses to undermine right to work,
secret ballots, and employee privacy? How do these proposals
relate to the original intent of the National Labor Relations
Act?
Mr. Messenger. Well, all three of those issues, the
compulsory unionism with compulsory fees, the taking away of
the secret ballot election, and the disclosure of private
information, are all intended to facilitate allowing union
officials to exert their power over individuals who may not
want to associate with that union. And it perverts the original
intent of the National Labor Relations Act or of the--as
amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, I should say, which was to
facilitate employee free choice, not to have a one-sided, pro-
union type agenda. In fact, you could see that through the
legislative history.
When it was originally enacted, the National Labor
Relations Act was rather one-sided, but Congress corrected that
in 1947 with the Taft-Hartley Act to provide that employees
have the right to refrain from supporting a union and to
protect them from unfair labor practices caused by union and
union officials. And so there is some balance at present within
the structure of the National Labor Relations Act. But bills,
you know, like the PRO Act, are meant to upset that balance and
very much skew things back against individual employers.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. That is the way it seems to us, and we
appreciate your point of view.
Dr. or Senator Onder, thank you for being here. I would say
you are a good example of what Ms. Whitaker says about giving
back to the community.
Dr. Onder. Thank you.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much. My home State of North
Carolina is one of just three States that has no government
union collective bargaining. It is also one of the fiscally
healthiest States in the country, as evidenced by several
massive revenue surpluses in recent years.
Based on your experience as a State lawmaker, do you
believe North Carolina's fiscal strength can be tied to the
absence of collective bargaining in government? How might
imposing government union collective bargaining in North
Carolina risk the State's fiscal condition?
Dr. Onder. Well, a very good question. I think it very well
may. And conversely, I think the poor fiscal health of some
other States, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, California,
can be traced to the collective bargaining agreements that have
been reached over the years between government and unions.
If we look at pension liabilities, in New Jersey, every
man, woman, and child in the State of New Jersey owes $26,000.
If we look at Connecticut, $33,000. And those pension
liabilities are the product of decades of negotiations between
public sector collective bargaining, representatives, and
politicians.
Now, I am not here today to say that the Federal Government
should preempt all that. I believe New Jersey and Connecticut
and California and Illinois have to get their own house in
order, but I am saying quite the opposite; that it is up to
North Carolina, to Missouri, to Georgia to decide what we want
our public sector policy to be that is important to the
principle of federalism and even to the sovereignty of the
voters who elect us.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Messenger, Democrats seek to impose binding arbitration
on both public and private sector collective bargaining
negotiations, essentially empowering unaccountable bureaucrats
to determine workers' contracts and employers' costs. What
problems might this create for employers' financial stability
as well as the unique needs of employees?
Mr. Messenger. Well, there are two issues, the first of
which is that, you know, going through the binding interest
arbitration process could result in terms that are disastrous
for the employer. Under current collective bargaining law, an
employer does not have to agree to any particular terms. It has
to bargain to impasse but doesn't have to agree to them. If you
go to binding arbitration, suddenly the arbitrator is in
control of importing company policies that may control the fate
of that company. And also, binding arbitration may upset the
constitutional basis on which the National Labor Relations Act
was upheld.
When it was originally passed, one of the reasons it
survived constitutional challenge is because it didn't force
employers to enter into agreements with unions that bind their
employees. The arbitration would, of course, change that and
potentially open the act up to legal challenge.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Levin from Michigan.
Mr. Levin. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman. Thanks for
having this important, important hearing.
I want to start by just going to much more fundamentals
than we have talked about. All this talk about compulsory,
mandatory unionism, which simply means when workers as a group
choose to form a union, it binds the group. Like many other
democratic decisions, this horrifies Mr. Messenger, who is part
of an industry that seeks to do nothing other than destroy
collective bargaining in the United States.
The United States is not in compliance with fundamental
international human rights norms when workers like Ms. Whitaker
and Mr. Brewer do not have the freedom of association at work.
ILO conventions, 1987 and 1998, which, to our shame, the United
States has not ratified, require all workers in society,
including public sector workers, to have the freedom of
association. It is a fundamental human right which is denied.
The idea that we are having this hearing and having people
and the minority talk about how great it is that we are denying
a fundamental human right to millions of American workers is
not something that would happen in virtually any other country
in the world. In the world. And it is a shame on our country
that we are even having this discussion.
And I am here to get us there, somehow to get this country
to the point where we recognize workers' rights to have freedom
of association at work, to get the kind of basic things that
Mr. Brewer has talked about: Safety for firefighters,
effectiveness for firefighters, basic rights for teachers in
Florida and other States.
I want to ask you a couple questions, Dr. Slater, about the
laws that States have been passing to make it harder and harder
for workers to organize at the State and local level. Some
States have required, for example, periodic decertification
elections. I don't see them requiring election--you know,
procedures for businesses to be able to, you know, destroy
their local chamber of commerce or something. It is just unique
anti-unionism in this country in the public sector.
But I want to have you explain how these laws are designed
to undermine unions and whether they also have the effect of
undermining or hurting government operations.
Mr. Slater. Yes. Well, two things in response. First, you
are absolutely right that the United States is in violation of
the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
International Labor Organization Declaration of Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work in terms of collective bargaining
for all employees, including public employees, being a
fundamental human right. In fact, both Human Rights Watch and
Amnesty International have Stated that U.S. laws in this area
and some States violate international law.
As for the decertification laws, a few States, Wisconsin
and Iowa that I can think of off the top of my head, you talked
earlier about Florida, mandatory recertification elections
every year whether anybody wants it or not. The way labor law
has traditionally worked, both in the public and private
sectors in this country, is you have--you can have
recertification elections maybe every three--at a minimum,
every 3 years if 30 percent of the workers want it. And that is
still true in all the States that provide collective bargaining
laws. These States that require mandatory recertification laws,
whether no one wants it or not, it is clearly an attempt to
destabilize labor relations.
Unions have to constantly be in a reelection mode whether
anybody wants them to be or not. Employers don't know how long
they have to sign a contract for. Employees don't know what
their rights and wages and obligations will be at work. The
average union contract lasts about 3 years. That provides for
stability and predictability for both parties. I don't think
any of the Governors who signed these laws into effect would
want themselves to be up for reelection every single year
because that would create political instability. Same thing for
unions.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. And how has the broader attack on
basic rights of public sector workers to have collective
bargaining affected the operations of local or State
governments?
Mr. Slater. It has destabilized them. It has created a lot
of people who have left public employment. In Wisconsin, for
example, there is a lot of people who fled public employment.
And more generally, weakening unions increases wage inequality.
Mr. Levin. Thank you.
And my time has expired, Madam Chairwoman. I just want to
thank you again for your tremendous leadership in this effort,
and emphasize the need for us to pass these bills. Thanks, and
I yield back.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Mr. Wright from Texas.
Mr. Wright. Thank you.
Mr. Messenger, are you horrified, because you don't look
horrified to me?
Mr. Messenger. I am not, sir.
Mr. Wright. I didn't think so.
I am glad that we are discussing fundamental rights
because, to me, the right to work is rather fundamental. And
other fundamental rights are enshrined in the Bill of Rights,
one of which includes the 10th Amendment. And that is a very
important amendment. A lot of people want to ignore it, but it
is there for a very important reason.
And when the Constitution was written, Mr. Messenger,
correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't it the States that created the
Federal Government, or was it the other way around?
Mr. Messenger. States created the Federal Government.
Mr. Wright. And that is why we have a 10th Amendment, isn't
it?
Mr. Messenger. Yes.
Mr. Wright. I am from Arlington, Texas, and I used to serve
on the city council there for 8 years. And Texas, of course, is
a right-to-work State. It is one of the fastest growing States,
and people, workers, and companies, are literally flocking to
Texas, and have been for 20 years, from overregulated States,
and they are doing that for a reason. That is because we still
have freedom and opportunity in Texas, partly because we are a
right-to-work State.
Now, when I was on the city council, we had a very robust
police association, firefighter association, and the city
council worked with them routinely. And if they wanted
something and the council didn't give it to them, they could go
to the people. They could go to the people. And if they could
get a petition to put something on the ballot, they could, and
they did, and succeeded.
Also, after I was on the city council, I was a county
official, Tarrant County, which is the 15th largest county in
America. It is large. A lot of employees. It is also one of the
highest paid of any county in Texas. Tarrant County pays its
workers higher than other urban counties in Texas that are
larger.
Now, Tarrant County, by the way, is majority Republican on
commissioner's court. They are the ones that decide what the
budget is and how much people are going to be paid. And our
workers get paid more than like Dallas County, which is
controlled by Democrats, Bexar County, which is controlled by
Democrats, and I can go on and on.
My point is this: This notion that there has to be
collective bargaining or workers aren't going to be paid enough
or workers are going to be underpaid compared to everybody else
is absolute nonsense, at least in Texas. That is not true at
all. And we are a right-to-work State, and it works.
I wanted to ask you, Senator, do you see the same kind of
results in Missouri?
Dr. Onder. Yes, we do. And in fact, in Missouri, we have
had public sector collective bargaining since 1965, but for
police and teachers, we have only had it since 2007. And in
between police and teachers, Fraternal Order of Police, the
Missouri State Teachers Association, would get together and
meet and confer sessions with management, with the local
political subdivision leaders, and the system worked well. We
didn't have this one-size-fit-all federally mandated regime
that these two bills advocate.
So, yes, I agree with you that labor and management can
work together without imposing a Federal structure on our
cities and our counties and our school boards.
Mr. Wright. Right. Thank you. I think what is before us
today does not expand freedom or opportunity. In fact, I think
it is horribly oppressive on the States.
And I am going to yield the remainder of my time to the
ranking member.
Mr. Walberg. I thank the gentleman. And I thank you for
your history lesson there of Texas.
Mr. Messenger, one of the reforms included in Missouri's
collective bargaining reform is a requirement that unions stand
for periodic recertification elections, as we have talked
about. To your knowledge, does any such requirement currently
exist for private sector workers under NLRA?
Mr. Messenger. It does not exist. In fact, most private
sector workers have never had the opportunity to vote on union
representation. I believe a recent study showed that over 90
percent have actually never voted for the union that currently
represented them because the union was voted in or card checked
in many, many years ago, sometimes even decades ago, and there
has never been an election. Because under the National Labor
Relations Act, unless employees can affirmatively put together
a 30 percent petition within a very narrow period of time, they
are precluded from demanding an election. And there is a
variety of tactics that are used such as merging bargaining
units and such that make it extremely difficult for employees
to decertify, making the need for recertification elections
that much more apparent.
Mr. Walberg. I thank you, and yield back to Mr. Wright.
Mr. Wright. I yield back.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you.
Mr. Norcross from New Jersey.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
I heard when I was out of the room that my State was
garnering some attention. We are rather unique. We have
something called public officials with a union label. We have
members, rank-and-file members from different parts of the
State who have run for public office. See, we think it is a
good idea to have somebody who understands day in and day out
what the average worker goes through. Because one thing we
understand, if you are not at the table, you are on the menu.
And the suggestions that I have heard today certainly make
that absolutely clear. I hear about strikes and shutdowns that
if public employees had more power would happen. If I recall
correctly, didn't we sort of have a strike here when we shut
down government? That is a different story. We will leave that
for another day.
Certainly, the recertification--let's be clear here. You
can decertify a union. That is available to any member at any
day by putting that together, so don't confuse the issues here
by talking about that. It is about balance. It is about
fairness. You don't want it one side or the other. You want a
cooperative working relationship, something we certainly could
use here in Congress, that at the end of the day, when you have
those discussions, it becomes a better workplace.
In my career prior to coming here to Washington, I was an
electrician, construction electrician, and one of the most
important things in collective bargaining is safety. Safety on
the job. During my period of working out in the field, I
experienced three horrible days when somebody on my job was
killed. Something you will never forget.
So when they talk about overreach of government, OSHA has
saved thousands of lives, or in the State they called it POSHA.
That is the sort of regulation that you want, that you work
together. And quite often as part of the collective bargaining
agreement are those safety committees that are put together.
But it is the bargaining table where this should take
place. The idea of allowing the States to have the same set of
basic foundation for those employees who want--it is their
choice if they want to join a union. But when they don't have
the fundamental right to do it, that is where we are having a
problem.
So, Mr. Paterson, I have seen and I have talked about the
failure to protect workers. Talk to me about those safety
conditions that might be talked about or written into a
collective bargaining agreement and how there is either an
advantage or disadvantage for doing that.
Mr. Paterson. Health and safety. When you talk to workers
about one of their most pressing concerns, the answer is--often
health and safety is at the top of the list. And frankly,
workers are the people who know what the risks are, and they
know what can be done to mitigate or eliminate those risks. And
frankly, they are the ones that suffer if that is not done.
The process of collective bargaining has and does and has
always included bargaining over safety standards and protocols
and the give-and-take of ensuring the employer commits adequate
resources to ensuring worker safety. And not just worker safety
but the safety of customers and other people who might be on
the job site.
When collective bargaining laws are eliminated or at least
dramatically curtailed like, for instance, in Iowa recently,
then workers and their unions do not have that ability, and
things can quickly go by the wayside. After the Iowa law, HF
291 was passed, sometime after that, we had a member who was
actually--Tina Suckow, who was actually a mental health
hospital worker in Independence, Iowa, was injured severely on
the job by one of the patients in that facility who was having
an episode. And the reason is because the safety harness was
new and was not one that the workers had sufficient training
in, and she was hospitalized.
But what is worse than that is that, not only was she
hospitalized as a result of this extremely dire physical
attack, was that while in the hospital, she used all her leave,
and the employer fired her. Now, if we had still had robust
collective bargaining rights in Iowa, then the union could have
negotiated over the leave. The employees could have gotten
together and pooled their leave so that she would have the
leave to get well, and they could have grieved her discipline.
But all of these basic fundamental collective bargaining rights
were eliminated.
Thank you.
Mr. Norcross. We are running out of time. Again, I want to
thank the committee for putting this hearing together.
Together, working together in a cooperative relationship, we
really can get this done.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Norcross.
And now, Ms. Underwood of Illinois.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am so pleased that we are having this hearing today. You
know, Janus was an Illinois case, and so this is particularly
important to many of my constituents.
I am also pleased that Ms. Whitaker is here. I thank you
for your many years of service to the children in your
community. And we have talked with the Illinois Federation of
Teachers and our friends at AFSCME Council 31 to prepare for
the hearing today, and so I am just really delighted.
You know, part of the benefits of union membership are
ensuring that we have equal pay. And one of the things that we
did at the beginning of this Congress was, on this committee,
was we passed the Paycheck Fairness Act. And when we think
about equal pay for all workers, workers of color, for women,
unions have led the way and particularly in the public sector.
And so I think it is critically important to reference the
historic leadership role that public sector unions have played
with respect to paycheck fairness and equal pay.
My question is for Mr. Brewer and Mr. Paterson. It is
related to public health. I am a nurse, and I spent my career
as a public health nurse working to expand coverage around the
country. And so what would you say to those who argue that
unionization of public safety officials and firefighters would
have an adverse impact on public health?
Mr. Paterson. Well, I will address the nurses. You can
address the firefighters. Thank you.
Look, there is a tremendous amount of research done by
higher education institutions in the nursing field, by
epidemiologists, by sociologists, by public health experts,
that shows where nurses have a voice on the job and have a
representative who can amplify that voice and bring that voice
to the bargaining table, that patient outcomes improve. And I
could go on, but the evidence is out there and it is a clear
dynamic. And so collective bargaining improves, not only
working conditions, but patient outcomes in that field.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
Mr. Brewer.
Mr. Brewer. And I would add to that, as our jobs as
firefighters have evolved over the years, you know, we are at
the point now where not only are you fighting fires, responding
to national--natural disasters, we are also medics and we are
EMTs. So any time there is a car accident, any time an
ambulance is dispatched somewhere, firefighters are responding.
You know, we work with different agencies to show the
effectiveness of four-person CPR. You know, so when you look at
the save rates at places like Charlotte--and it was even
brought up here today--you know, those studies show that where
the union is involved and where we can advocate for these
things, where we can advocate for, you know, four on a truck,
you know, for four-person CPR, for car accidents where we are
going to have to do patient care and extrication at the same
time, all of this has a major impact on the public and the
public health.
Ms. Underwood. And when we think about current priorities
and challenges that we struggle with as a Nation, like the
opioid epidemic, all right, we know that many of our
firefighters are on the front line in every community in this
country combating, and I know that your union has been active
in preparing your members for responding to that public health
emergency. Would you like to speak on that?
Mr. Brewer. Absolutely, yes. And a lot of times, a lot of
these conversations today we have centered around pay in that
we are going to bargain for pay, but we bargain for a lot more
than pay. It is about health and safety. It is about how can we
provide better care for the public, how can we provide better
care for our members.
And, you know, the opioid epidemic, we have done numerous
public announcements, training at a lot of our conferences and
stuff, and then we take that back from the international and,
you know, disperse it at a State level and on a local level.
So, you know, we always say that we are on the front lines for
everything, and firefighters are throughout this country, no
matter what the situation, we are called a lot of times and we
are glad to serve, but it would make it a lot easier if we
could sit down with our employer and talk about what we need
and how we can make it even better.
Ms. Underwood. Well, I thank you so much for the work that
you do in your communities. And thank you for being here to
share your stories with the committee today.
I yield back my time, Madam Chairwoman. I yield my time to
Mr. Scott.
Chairwoman Wilson. You yield your time to Mr. Scott?
Ms. Underwood. Yes.
Chairwoman Wilson. You don't have--you have--
Ms. Underwood. I yield back. I yield it back.
Chairwoman Wilson. Okay. Mr. Scott has his own time. Thank
you so much. We appreciate that.
This is our distinguished chairperson of the Education and
Labor Committee, Dr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Paterson, could you tell us what obligation you have to
represent nonmembers of the union when there is a union?
Mr. Paterson. Yes, I can. I think what you are referring to
is the--what is known under the law as the duty of fair
representation, which is that when a union represents workers,
it is not just representing its members or its dues-paying
members, it is representing the entire collective bargaining
unit that elected it to represent them. And so the duty of fair
representation requires that the union fairly represent, as it
indicates, everyone, not just the members, but also nonmembers.
Mr. Scott. And if an individual nondues-paying member has
an individualized case and you represent others in
individualized cases, would you have an obligation to represent
that person, notwithstanding the fact they are not paying dues?
Mr. Paterson. That is correct. We absolutely do have that
obligation, yes.
Mr. Scott. And in a fair-share situation where nonmembers
have to pay a fair share, what are they paying for?
Mr. Paterson. Well, in the private sector, which currently
does permit the employer and the union to negotiate a fair-
share system, it doesn't actually impose it as a matter of law,
but they can negotiate in the contract, and most unions do,
precisely because the union is obligated to represent the
entire bargaining unit, and it does so, but that comes at a
financial cost.
Mr. Scott. Now, the fair share that is imposed, is that the
full union dues or just a portion of it?
Mr. Paterson. No. The nonmembers' fair-share fee is limited
to the cost of representation. It does not include political or
ideological expenditures or other things like, you know,
members' parties and things like that. It is purely the cost of
representation.
Mr. Scott. That you are obligated to perform?
Mr. Paterson. That is correct, under the law.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Dr. Slater, you had mentioned international standards.
Where would we see these international standards realized?
Would it be in treaties and trade agreements and things like
that? Where would we see the international standards for labor
rights?
Mr. Slater. The international standards I referenced
earlier would be in trade agreements and treaties, as you say,
but also in the laws of the member countries. So in the laws of
France, laws of Germany, laws of other Western European
countries, you would see guarantees for rights of all
employees, including public sector workers, to bargain
collectively.
Mr. Scott. And based on those international standards, did
I understand you to say that many States don't come up to those
minimum standards?
Mr. Slater. Well, it depends how you mean ``many.'' I mean,
one thing that should be clear is this bill would not affect
the majority of States. The bill provides that we would--the
FLRA, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, would review State
laws to see if they met certain minimums. And I can say
confidently that a clear majority of States do meet those
minimums, but in--there is about eight States that don't
provide any public employees the right to collectively bargain,
about a dozen more that provide collective bargaining rights
only to one or two types of employees. And in those States,
yes, we are not in compliance with international law.
Mr. Scott. And if a country had those provisions, is it
likely that we wouldn't do a trade agreement with them?
Mr. Paterson. If a country had provisions--
Mr. Scott. If a country didn't have those minimum labor
rights, is it likely that we wouldn't do a trade agreement with
them? Don't we usually have--
Mr. Paterson. Oh, yes. Yes, we do look--I think our--the
better policy is to look at whether other countries have
certain minimum labor standards before we do treaties with
them, yes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Senator Onder, in Senate Bill 1413, can you--do you have a
provision in there that requires a union recertification, that
requires an absolute majority vote, whether voting or not,
which essentially means that a no vote, a nonvote is counted as
a no vote? Is that part of that bill?
Dr. Onder. So, under 1413, every 3 years there would be a
recertification election, and recertification would require a
majority of all those members of the bargaining unit to vote
yes.
And, you know, because these voters are all found within
the workplace, within the bargaining unit, this has not proved
to be an overly burdensome procedure. In Iowa, well over 95
percent, I believe, of the bargaining units did recertify under
Iowa's law.
Mr. Scott. You and I would be in trouble if we had to run
an election like that.
What is the status of the bill at this point?
Dr. Onder. So, in March, as was mentioned earlier, a judge
in St. Louis County enjoined the entire bill, which is, I
believe, an act of judicial overreach of the highest order. The
judge did not even consider provision by provision but enjoined
the entire bill. It is awaiting trial in January.
Mr. Scott. I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor from Texas.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this
hearing and appreciate the witnesses.
And I served in the State legislature in Texas for 8 years,
and I happen to represent--I live in the highest per capita
income city in North America. There is over a quarter million
people, and as businesses come--and they primarily come from
union States--and when they cite reasons they come, they talk
about how Plano has great schools, how we are investing in
roads, how we have a low tax burden. But another thing that is
very consistently mentioned is we are a right-to-work State.
And I think the success of my community, certainly the high per
capita income is great, but also just looking at the employment
numbers, since January 2017, we have created 620,000 jobs in
Texas, and we have a 3-1/2 percent unemployment rate, which is
the lowest it has ever been.
So clearly, what has worked for Texas, what has worked for
my community, I hope that Congress can leave well enough alone
and say, hey, they have got a right and they are doing a good
job.
And, Senator, thank you for being here. I appreciate your
service, and I know what it means to be a senator. It is great
that your being here. I never had to do that extra duty. So
thank you for taking the time to be here--
Dr. Onder. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor [continuing]. from The Show-Me State.
And, Mr. Messenger, I am just going to ask you a very
technical question about H.R. 1154. And it imposes--without
imposing a penalty that strikes are illegal for public safety
officers only when they, quote, will meet or measurably disrupt
the delivery of emergency services, closed quote, and are,
quote, designed to compel an employer to agree to terms of the
contract, closed quote.
Based on your reading, does anything in H.R. 1154 prevent a
government unit from striking over a political or a legislative
issue? I mean, is there anything to stop them from--striking--
nothing to do with work but they can strike over some political
issue or legislative issue.
Mr. Messenger. I have noticed no such restriction in the
law requiring or, you know, limiting when strikes can be over
and preventing them, you know, with respect to political type
issues.
Mr. Taylor. Right. So, like, I mean, an example would be--
you know, I am sure myriad examples. But obviously, that
creates a whole other level which has nothing to do with work,
right? I mean, I think we generally think of unions as being
about work environment, pay, conditions, hours, things like
that, and a lot of the benefits we have discussed today have
been about those things precisely, but this allows, you know,
quote/unquote, politics to be involved and strikes to go based
on politics.
Mr. Messenger. Yes. And as the Supreme Court recognized in
Janus, you know, all collective bargaining in the public sector
is political. I mean, ultimately the union is trying to
influence governmental policies, and even things like wages and
such ultimately effect the public fisc and public services that
can be provided.
So in the public sector, all collective bargaining is
political, which is one of the reasons the Supreme Court in
Janus held employees couldn't be forced to subsidize that
advocacy.
Mr. Taylor. So I guess what you are saying is you could see
a strike that was purely political in nature and has nothing to
do with actual work or the work conditions or the employer or
hour or pay or anything like that. I mean, it could just be
purely political, and then the employee, the union member is
then kind of forced to go on a strike that in a political cause
they wouldn't even want to be a part of.
Mr. Messenger. Yes. And some of the testimony today I
believe supports that. You know, there has been the argument
that collective bargaining, you know, affects public safety. I
think that is one of the justifications, you know, for the bill
which we are talking about. So we are talking about something
that is political ultimately, something that affects public
safety, even in the opinion of those who advocate, you know,
for this bill. And so, yes, it is all political.
Mr. Taylor. Well, and so I think when we think about our
constitutional rights and something that the Bill of Rights is
something very important I think to every American. You know,
in the First Amendment, we have the right to freedom of speech,
right to freedom of association, three other rights. But
compelling people to be part of an organization they don't want
to be part of and, worse, compelling them to participate in
political speech, which something that may be an anathema to
them, I think is a disturbing strike at the core of our
democracy, at the core of this idea of fundamental free speech
that we can say what we think and we don't have to worry about
someone telling us what we are going to say and forcing us to
go on a strike about a political cause that we don't support.
Mr. Messenger. I agree. I mean, monopoly bargaining in the
public sector involves the government mandating that a
particular organization, a union, speaks for a group of
workers, whether they approve or not. And in my opinion, that
infringes, you know, on their freedom of association, including
even if there is a secret ballot election. You know, the
Supreme Court said in West Virginia v. Barnette, the First
Amendment exists to protect certain liberties from majority
rule, and those liberties cannot be subjected to a majority
vote.
And so if each individual has the right to decide who
represents them, who speaks for them in their relations with
government, which they certainly do under the First Amendment,
it is unconstitutional, in my opinion, to force individuals to
accept a representative even pursuant to a majority vote.
Mr. Taylor. All right. Thank you.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you.
Mr. Watkins--
Mr. Watkins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Wilson.--from Kansas.
Mr. Watkins. Thank you.
In 2018, my home State of Kansas marked its 60th
anniversary of becoming a right-to-work State. Kansans felt so
strongly about this that, in 1958, they voted in favor of
adding a right-to-work amendment to our State's Constitution.
Twenty-seven States, including Kansas, have now passed laws
that prohibit a worker from being forced to join a union. And a
Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the union membership rate was
only 10.5 percent in 2018. This is down .2 percent from 2017.
Senator Onder, you are a neighbor in Missouri, and in your
State, your State went to the polls to vote on a proposition to
enact a right to work, but the measure was defeated. We have
heard a considerable amount today extolling the virtues of
government union bargaining privileges. You yourself are from a
State in which government employees have such privileges.
Dr. Onder. I do.
Mr. Watkins. In your opinion, as a State lawmaker, do any
of the benefits of government union bargaining justify Congress
imposing it onto State and local governments, or would it make
more sense to advocate--to advocates to have this debate in
State capitals?
Dr. Onder. I believe that it does make sense to have this
debate in State capitals. I think there is no question that
States have very different labor policies regarding public
sector unionization, Wisconsin versus New Jersey, Kansas versus
California. And I think our principles of federalism, our
principles of democratic self-governance dictate that remain
the case.
One of the members emphasized the freedom of association at
work being a fundamental human right. I would agree with that.
Doesn't that include the right of that worker to decide whether
he or she wants to join or support a union? Doesn't it include
the right of that worker to periodically vote whether or not he
wants to continue monopoly representation by a union?
So I believe that our current system of federalism serves
us well. The needs of New Jersey might be different than the
needs of Kansas, but to impose a one-size-fits-all tyrannical
regime from Washington, I think, is the wrong approach.
Mr. Watkins. Thank you, Senator.
And I yield the remainder of my time, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you. Thank you so much.
And now, we want to welcome Ms. Finkenauer, who does not
serve on our committee but is a sponsor of the bill.
Ms. Finkenauer of Iowa.
Ms. Finkenauer. Thank you, Chairwoman Wilson.
And also, thank you, Chairman Scott, for allowing me to be
here today and be part of this discussion which is very
personal to me.
I have to tell you it has been an interesting, you know,
few moments here on this committee listening to some of the
testimony today, and frustrated and disappointed by some of the
rhetoric that I have heard spewed that is anti-union and
antiworker.
You know, State Senator Onder, you are a neighbor to my
home State of Iowa. I was a former State legislator myself for
4 years in Iowa, and I have to tell you, I have done some
research while I have been up here and, again, your rhetoric
that you have been spewing against unions and also your record
against working families is disappointing and, quite frankly,
offensive.
You see, this is personal to me. And I grew up a daughter
of a union pipefitter/welder in Iowa. My mom was a public
school secretary. Heck, my grandfather was a lieutenant
firefighter who helped advocate for Iowa's bipartisan
collective bargaining law back in the seventies. It is a law
that has worked well in my State, and it is a law that, sadly,
I saw destroyed during my time in the State House.
You see, I will never forget February of 2017, standing on
that State House floor after days of hearing testimony from my
friends, my family, and my neighbors in my home State who are
just working their tails off to provide for their families,
folks like our teachers, our corrections officers, our bus
drivers, who aren't asking for a whole heck of a lot but were
asking to be treated with dignity and with respect.
And there we were standing on that State House floor, and I
looked up into that gallery as my Republican colleagues in the
State of Iowa were about to vote yes to gut their rights. And I
looked up and I saw tears in many of their eyes, and I had
tears in my own, thinking to myself in that moment that is not
how we treat people in my State or in my country and I was
going to do whatever I could to get it back.
So here I am in Congress, right now, working with my
colleagues, trying to fight like heck for my friends, my
family, and my neighbors who I saw the State of Iowa let down.
You see, we have got a lot of issues since that gutting of
collective bargaining happened in the State of Iowa. And, heck,
since 2011, actually, we have lost a thousand public employees
in the State. These staffing shortages now that we have seen
since the gutting of collective bargaining has resulted in a
failure to train employees on vital safety measures, which have
literally put their lives on the line. And in one State mental
health facility in my own district, four employees have been
attacked in the last 10 months. It is unconscionable. And,
again, this is not how you treat people in my State or in my
country.
The law also quite literally created a system that was
rigged against working people, forcing unions to go through a
costly and burdensome recertification process that was designed
to make them fail, but they didn't. As you said, 95 percent of
them were recertified, because they worked their tails off and
they appreciate their unions who step up for them, who have
their backs every single day.
And I have to tell you, I am proud to represent my friends,
my family, and my neighbors. I was proud to represent them in
the State House, and I am proud every day to represent them in
Congress. And I am also proud to now be a sponsor of the Public
Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, again, with my colleagues
here today. It prevents States from attacking public employees'
collective bargaining rights like they did in Iowa, ensuring
that they can negotiate for fair pay and safer workplaces.
I am grateful for all of you being here today. But I would
really like to focus on these last few minutes of this
committee, if Mr. Paterson and Dr. Slater can walk us through
how this legislation that I mentioned, that Public Service
Freedom to Negotiate Act, will help workers in States like
Iowa, like mine, and like those across the country, who have
seen their rights already undermined.
Mr. Paterson. Well, in the short time--thank you and thank
you for supporting this bill and sponsoring it. We are very
grateful. The--and I see I only have a few seconds, so let me
just say that the bill essentially does three things. It
ensures that a major sector of the work force can actually
exercise the constitutional right to form and join a union. It
ensures that employers have to sit down and talk to the union
and negotiate with the union that the workers have elected. And
then if they can't reach an agreement, it applies objective
processes to make sure that those disputes don't boil over,
that the parties don't resort to brinkmanship or other
existential type of tactics and, instead, work productively to
reach a solution and for the better of everyone in the economy.
Thank you.
Ms. Finkenauer. Thank you very much.
And I yield back.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you so much.
You can put that into the record for us in writing, the
answer.
That would be for Ms. Finkenauer and other members of the
committee.
Thank you, Mr. Paterson.
I remind my colleagues that, pursuant to committee
practice, materials for submission for the hearing record must
be submitted to the committee clerk within 14 days following
the last day of the hearing, preferably in Microsoft Word
format. The materials submitted must address the subject matter
of the hearing. Only a member of the committee or an invited
witness may submit materials for inclusion in the hearing
record. Documents are limited to 50 pages each. Documents
longer than 50 pages will be incorporated into the record via
an internet link that you must provide to the committee clerk
within the required timeframe, but please recognize that years
from now that link may no longer work.
Again, I want to thank the witnesses for their
participation today. What we have heard is very, very valuable.
Members of the committee may have some additional questions for
you, and we ask the witnesses to please respond to those
questions in writing. The hearing record will be open for 14
days in order to receive those responses.
I remind my colleagues that, pursuant to committee
practices, witness questions for the hearing record must be
submitted to the majority committee staff or committee clerk
within 7 days. The questions submitted must address the subject
matter of the hearing.
Before recognizing the ranking member for his closing
statement, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the
following materials: Letters from the Service Employees
International Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights, and the International Federation of Professional
and Technical Engineers in support of the Public Service
Freedom to Negotiate Act of 2019, H.R. 3463; and a letter from
the National Association of Police Organizations, Incorporated,
in support of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation
Act, H.R. 1154.
I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
statement from Senator Mazie Hirono, who has championed the
Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act in the Senate.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Wilson. I now recognize the distinguished
ranking member for his closing statement.
Mr. Walberg. I thank the gentlelady and our Chairman, and
thank you for running the Committee the way you have. I
appreciate that.
And I thank all of the witnesses who have been here today.
The panel has been valuable to us. I especially want to thank
Ms. Whitaker and Captain Brewer for being here as evidences of
the public sector employees that this legislation would
definitely deal with.
Being a son of a schoolteacher, a nephew of three
schoolteachers, a father-in-law of one schoolteacher, I
appreciate the work you do, Ms. Whitaker.
And being the son-in-law of a firefighter, I appreciate
what you do.
And I appreciate the fact that, oftentimes, when we get
into legislation like this or we get into votes about public
sector, unionization, and benefits, we always put forward the
first responders and the teachers, because that pulls the
heartstrings, as it ought to, of our citizens. I am not
denigrating public employees that aren't first responders or
schoolteachers, but you folks are on the front lines doing
things that some of us can't do or won't do, and we appreciate
your efforts.
The comments that have been made today, the questions and
the answers that have been given have been helpful. One set of
comments and indications that I heard, though, did cause me
concern. We are not any other nation in the world. Can I make
that clear? And I think many of us believe that. I hope all of
us believe that. We are not any other Nation in the world.
There is an international community. The United States of
America is separate from any other nation in the world, and it
ought to be.
We started out as a Nation that broke away from
international regulations on us that we would not accept. We
fought a revolutionary war to be unique. And what was that
uniqueness? Freedom. Personal liberty.
We are endowed with certain unalienable rights given to us
by our Creator, as the Declaration of Independence says,
namely, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. And we are talking about liberty and the pursuit of
happiness here in this discussion today. We are talking about
the freedom to make choices, significant choices.
I appreciate the sponsor of the bill pointing out that
after the law was changed in Iowa, there has been a 95 percent
recertification by people who had that choice and made that
choice.
I don't think anyone on this side of the aisle, regardless
of what has been said by some of our friends and colleagues on
the other side, a few who indicated very clearly that we oppose
unions and collective bargaining. No, we don't. I was a union
member and benefited from my father being a union member and
helping to organize steel unions or steel mills in Chicago. My
working conditions were far better than his were because of
what the union did.
We are not against that, but we are saying there ought to
be choice, that free citizens in a free country, unique and
separate from any other nation in the world that has the
highest standard of living, is a manufacturing nation of the
world, leads in every other way, and wants to continue. And I
come from a State that still people say you have got to be
kidding. Is Michigan a right-to-work State? They can't believe
that, and yet it is. And Michigan has more jobs coming back
now, jobs that we lost before, more security in the work force,
better pay. A middle class is coming back. Great cities like
Detroit that are reemerging as a result of freedom and choice.
That is what we are asking for.
But I also state, in this particular issue with public
sector employees, it is different. I don't have tenure. I have
to go to the ballot box every year. I have to recertify every
year myself because I am a public servant, and public servants
take on that role, whether it is in teaching and firefighting
and in law enforcement or in doing the bureaucratic work that
is necessary to run a system of government that meets the needs
of people.
But we are different. We want to make sure that our
citizens, the taxpayers, are represented well and are given a
chance and not simply run over by a political system that
unionizes for that purpose and purpose alone and doesn't give
the choice to their employees.
So, Madam Chairperson, thank you for giving me the
opportunity to make this statement. The differences in State
government are unique and beautiful things. That is the
undergirding of this great democracy, a Republican form of
democracy, a constitutional democracy, but it started at the
behest of the States. So to denigrate the powers of the States
and the rights of the States by taking those away that they
give to us as the Federal Government, not the other way around,
is the wrong way to go.
Let's continue to communicate to work together, but let's
enforce the freedom that comes from individual States being
laboratories of success or failure, but in the end,
laboratories that ultimately produce better success.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Wilson. Thank you.
I now recognize myself for the purpose of making my closing
statement.
Thank you again to all of the witnesses for your
testimonies today.
Today, we heard about the status of public sector
collective bargaining and the legislative proposals which
ensure State and local government employees can exercise this
right. These bills create minimum standards for collective
bargaining rights that all States must meet to secure public
servants' right to collectively bargain.
We heard from Ms. Whitaker how what the difference between
not having a union and having one meant to her as a teacher,
and how these rights are now under attack in my State of
Florida. We heard from Mr. Brewer on how collective bargaining
protects the safety of both our first responders and the public
at large. We will stand with both of them and with all public
servants to assure that they have respect and dignity on the
job.
I was a teacher before the United Teachers of Dade was
organized in Miami, and when it was organized, oh, boy, what a
difference did it make in my life and the life of my family. I
had healthcare, not only for me but my family, and a great
middle-class salary.
We can't go back. We won't go back. And as our witnesses
have made clear, Congress must pass the Public Service Freedom
to Negotiate Act and the Public Safety Employer-Employee
Cooperation Act to protect public servants' rights to organize
and collectively bargain.
Once again, I thank the witnesses for being here, thank the
audience for staying through this long hearing, and I thank my
colleagues for a constructive Health Subcommittee hearing.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
committee stands adjourned.
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 12:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]