[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                                 ______


 
                      SAFEGUARDING WORKERS' RIGHTS
                             AND LIBERTIES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               Before The

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                                 of the

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

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________



           HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 30, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-29

                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce
    
    
    
    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
    
    


        Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
        
        
        
                             _______  
	
	             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 56-070 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2025
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

               VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman

JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania             Virginia,
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                  Ranking Member
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
JIM BANKS, Indiana                     Northern Mariana Islands
JAMES COMER, Kentucky                FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  MARK TAKANO, California
BOB GOOD, Virginia                   ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
LISA McCLAIN, Michigan               MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MARY MILLER, Illinois                DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MICHELLE STEEL, California           PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
RON ESTES, Kansas                    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              LUCY McBATH, Georgia
KEVIN KILEY, California              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
AARON BEAN, Florida                  ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri              HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York           JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana

                       Cyrus Artz, Staff Director
              Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                      BOB GOOD, Virginia, Chairman

JOE WILSON, South Carolina           MARK DeSAULNIER, California,
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                  Ranking Member
RICK ALLEN, Georgia                  JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
JIM BANKS, Indiana                   DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
JAMES COMER, Kentucky                SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
MICHELLE STEEL, California           PRAMILA, JAYAPAL, Washington
AARON BEAN, Florida                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on November 30, 2023................................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

    Good, Hon. Bob, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 
      Labor, and Pensions........................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    DeSaulnier, Hon. Mark, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
      Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions....................     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     7

                               WITNESSES

    Mix, Mark, President, National Right To Work Committee.......     9
        Prepared statement of....................................    16
    Vargas, Brunilda, Assistant Defender, Defender Association of 
      Philadelphia...............................................    21
        Prepared statement of....................................    24
    Calemine, Jody, Director, Labor and Employment Policy, 
      Century Foundation.........................................    26
        Prepared statement of....................................    29
    Geary, Jeannette, Registered Nurse, Philadelphia.............    40
        Prepared statement of....................................    42

                         ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

    Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of North Carolina:
        Article from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)...    11
        Union security clause from a UAW contract................    14
        Letter dated October 16, 2023, from Associated Builders 
          and Contractors........................................    90
    Burlison, Hon. Eric, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Missouri:
        Union Security Agreements and Agency Fee Objections......    67


                      SAFEGUARDING WORKERS' RIGHTS



                             AND LIBERTIES

                              ----------                              


                      Thursday, November 30, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and 
                                          Pensions,
                  Committee on Education and the Workforce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m. 
2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Good (Chairman of 
the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Good, Wilson, Walberg, Allen, 
Banks, Bean, Burlison, Houchin, Foxx, DeSaulnier, Courtney, 
Norcross, Wild, McBath, Hayes, and Scott.
    Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Nick Barley, 
Deputy Communications Director; Mindy Barry, General Counsel; 
Jackson Berryman, Speechwriter; Michael Davis, Legislative 
Assistant; Isabel Foster, Press Assistant; Daniel Fuenzalida, 
Staff Assistant; Sheila Havenner, Director of Information 
Technology; Paxton Henderson, Intern; Taylor Hittle, 
Professional Staff Member; Alex Knorr, Legislative Assistant; 
Trey Kovacs, Professional Staff Member; Andrew Kuzy, Press 
Assistant; Marek Laco, Professional Staff Member; Georgie 
Littlefair, Clerk; John Martin, Deputy Director of Workforce 
Policy/Counsel; Hannah Matesic, Deputy Staff Director; Audra 
McGeorge, Communications Director; Kevin O'Keefe, Professional 
Staff Member; Mike Patterson, Oversight Investigative Counsel; 
Rebecca Powell, Staff Assistant; Kelly Tyroler, Professional 
Staff Member; Seth Waugh, Director of Workforce Policy; Maura 
Williams, Director of Operations; Nekea Brown, Minority 
Director of Operations; Ilana Brunner, Minority General 
Counsel; Joan Hoyte, Minority NLRB Detailee; Stephanie Lalle, 
Minority Communications Director; Raiyana Malone, Minority 
Press Secretary; Kevin McDermott, Minority Director of Labor 
Policy; Olivia McDonald, Minority Staff Assistant; Kota 
Mizutani, Minority Deputy Communications Director; Veronique 
Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; Jessica Schieder, Minority 
Economic Policy Advisor; Dhrtvan Sherman, Minority Committee 
Research Assistant; Banyon Vassar, Minority IT Administrator.
    Chairman Good. The Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 
Labor, and Pensions will come to order. I note that a quorum is 
present and without objection, the Chair is authorized to call 
a recess at any time. The right to work in this country, free 
from coercion by the government, is a right enshrined in our 
founding documents.
    While State right to work legislation is a product of the 
20th Century, its fundamental tenets of liberty, freedom, and 
self-determination are timeless and enduring. Representative 
Joe Wilson's National Right to Work Act embodies these core 
American values. It is such that no man or woman should be 
forced to finance a union as a term of his or her employment.
    Unfortunately, however, in 24 states the law is actually 
the opposite of this principle. Employees in these states have 
two options--pay union dues or be fired. This threat is a 
violation of the God given right for Americans to determine how 
they spend their hard-earned paychecks.
    The Heritage Foundation estimates that 94 percent of 
workers did not vote for their inherited union representation, 
meaning that only 6 percent of workers have consented to the 
union that negotiates on behalf of 100 percent of their 
coworkers. This means that new employee's interests are not 
necessarily represented in negotiations, resulting in their 
being denied fair representation in the future.
    The 94 percent deserve a choice, and polls indicate that 75 
percent of Americans agree that workers should be able to 
decide whether to join or leave a labor union. This is not 
surprising considering that right to work states have increased 
manufacturing employment, productivity, and personal income. In 
fact, during the 40-year period between 1978 and 2017, 
employment in right to work states grew by 105 percent compared 
to just 49 percent among non-right to work states.
    Nevertheless, democrats in the Biden administration are 
working hard to strip all workers of their right to choose. The 
anti-choice democrat goal is to force everyone to join a union, 
by upending independent contractors' livelihoods, overturning 
NLRB election precedents, and passing the disastrous anti-right 
to work PRO Act.
    We hear complaints from the other side about the so-called 
free rider problem that right to work laws permit non-dues 
paying employees to benefit from collective bargaining 
agreements, but this critique omits a key detail. No union is 
compelled to cover every employee in the workplace.
    The Supreme Court has affirmed and reaffirmed many times 
the right of unions to negotiate members only contracts. The 
truth and the catch is that unions enjoy monopolistic control 
over the workplace. Members only unions would increase 
competition, which is the enemy of unpopular unions.
    Democrats often serve as the policy arm for big labor 
activists while republicans are comfortable letting the free 
market operate unencumbered by Washington bureaucrats. The 
National Right to Work Act only repeals statutes; it does not 
add one letter to Federal law. Let us give workers the right to 
work and let us end compulsory union membership. Let us make 
every State a right to work State and require unions to prove 
their value to the people they claim to represent.
    I look forward to the prepared testimony of our witnesses 
today, and I yield to the Ranking Member for his opening 
statement.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Good follows:]
    
    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
 

    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
our witnesses for your testimoneys today. Thank you for being 
with us. In the face of wealth inequality and global pandemic 
that has pushed working families to the brink, workers are 
increasingly turning to collective action to secure safer 
workplaces, livable wages, and increased opportunities for 
them, their families, and their communities.
    The corresponding rise in unionization has meant higher pay 
and better benefits for workers and their families. In the 
first 9 months of 2023, unions secured an average 6.6 percent 
first year raise for workers, the highest wage increase in 
unions' contracts in over 30 years.
    This year alone, almost 900,000--900,000 workers have won 
immediate pay raises at 10 percent or more through their unions 
and collective bargaining. One of the most recent union success 
stories is the United Auto Workers ratification of contracts 
covering 150,000 workers at Ford, General Motors, and 
Stellantis.
    These contracts included significant wage increases, the 
right to strike over plant closures, and improved retirement 
security. Union victories are not just limited to unionized 
workplaces. They frequently result in wage increases in non-
union workplaces as well, so that employers can compete in the 
job market.
    For example, shortly after UAW announced its contract 
agreements, Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota voluntarily announced 
wage increases for non-unionized workers. Recognizing that 
union victories benefit all workers, it is imperative to 
capitalize on this momentum of worker empowerment and help our 
economy continue to grow from the bottom up and the middle out 
for everyone.
    This Congress, Committee Democrats have consistently put 
forth legislation that builds upon President Biden's pro-
worker, pro-union, pro-community agenda, including bills to 
raise wages, improve worker's benefits, and create safer 
workplaces for Americans.
    Unfortunately, none of these bills have been considered by 
the majority. Instead, Republicans are championing the National 
Right to Work Act here today, which would make it harder for 
workers to form unions, cut workers collective bargaining 
power, and further the imbalance in favor of large corporations 
and capital versus wages of day-to-day workers.
    Historically, the so-called Right to Work movement was 
borne in part out of southern segregationist efforts in the 
1940's to stop labor unions from organizing Black workers and 
fighting for racial inequality. Now corporations and special 
interests back so-called right to work laws because they are 
designed to weaken labor unions and worker's bargaining 
strength in order to maximize profits, already at historic 
inequality levels.
    So-called right to work laws silence workers' voices, 
driving their wages down, and suppressing their economic well-
being. As our witness today, the democratic witness today on 
the panel, has written in his testimony, so-called right to 
work laws are detrimental to workers and create a race to the 
bottom, accounting for State level economic differences and 
cost of living.
    Workers in so-called right to work states earn 3 percent, 
3.1 percent less, have 2.6 percent lower rates of employer-
sponsored health insurance, and nearly 5 percent lower rates of 
receiving a pension than their free bargaining State 
counterparts.
    These restrictive anti-work laws have been found to raise 
executive compensation and make workplaces more dangerous. So-
called right to work states have 50 percent more on-the-job 
fatalities per 100,000 workers. Rather than promoting policies 
that stifle workers, I would urge my colleagues to join 
President Biden and congressional Democrats in support of the 
bipartisan Protecting the Right to Organize, the PRO Act.
    The PRO Act protects the fundamental right to join a union 
by empowering workers to exercise their right to organize, 
holding employers accountable for violating worker's rights, 
and securing free, fair, and safe union elections. When workers 
do better, businesses do better, and ultimately so does the 
economy.
    As I have mentioned many times in this Subcommittee and the 
Full Committee, one of my favorite quotes from President 
Eisenhower when this economy, the U.S. economy was growing at 
its greatest rate for everyone during his administration when 
we had the highest levels of union members in this country, 
President Eisenhower said, ``Only a fool would try to stop an 
American man or woman from trying to organize.''
    With that, I will be happy to yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member DeSaulnier 
follows:]
 GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT



    Chairman Good. Thank you to the Ranking Member. Pursuant to 
Committee Rule 8-C, all members who wish to insert written 
statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the 
Committee Clerk electronically, in Microsoft Word format by 5 
p.m, 14 days after the date of this hearing, which is December 
14, 2023.
    Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 
14 days, to allow such statements and other extraneous material 
references during the hearing to be submitted for the official 
hearing record.
    I will now turn to the introduction of our distinguished 
witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Mark Mix, who is the 
President of the National Right to Work Committee, which is 
located in Springfield, Virginia. He also serves as President 
of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
    Our second witness is Ms. Brunilda Vargas, who is 
testifying on her behalf. She is an Assistant Defender, with 
the Defender Association of Philadelphia, which is located in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ms. Vargas joined the association 
initially as a social worker in the juvenile department.
    In 1996 Ms. Vargas became an Assistant Defender assigned to 
the major trial division and has tried countless jury trials. 
She is currently assigned to the mental health civil division.
    Our third witness is Mr. Jody Calemine, who is the Director 
of Labor and Employment Policy at the Century Foundation, which 
is located in Washington, DC.
    Our final witness is Ms. Jeanette Geary, thank you, who is 
licensed as a registered nurse in Pennsylvania, but has retired 
from the profession. She is located in Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, and is testifying on her own behalf.
    We thank all the witnesses for being here today and look 
forward to your testimony. Pursuant to Committee rules, I would 
ask that you each limit your oral presentation to a 5-minute 
summary of your written statement, and I would like to remind 
the witnesses to be aware of their responsibility to provide 
accurate information to the Subcommittee. I will first 
recognize Mr. Mix for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF MR. MARK MIX, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK 
                COMMITTEE, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA

    Mr. Mix. Thank you, Congressman. It is a privilege to be 
with you today to talk about H.R. 1200. First of all, I want to 
call out Congressman Joe Wilson for adhering to the Paper 
Reduction Act by introducing a bill that is simply one page. As 
Congressman Good said, this bill does not add a single word to 
Federal law.
    It simply repeals those provisions in the 1935 National 
Labor Relations Act confirmed and upheld by the U.S. Supreme 
Court in 1937, of the provisions that authorize compulsory 
forced unionism. Nothing in this law, as President Eisenhower 
would say, you would be a fool to get in the way of union 
organizing. Nothing in this bill would damage or stop any union 
organizing at all.
    The fact of the matter is the right to work issue is a 
battle between workers and union officials. There are no other 
parties to this battle because union officials believe that if 
workers are given the choice to decide whether or not to 
financially support a labor union they might leave, and that is 
the problem with the issue of forced unionism.
    I want to bring to your attention--you mentioned the Ford 
contract that just came up, but I want to talk with you about 
the language on page 2 of that contract, which is the most 
important element of the contract according to the United Auto 
Workers. Here is what it says, ``Employees covered by this 
agreement at this time become effective, and who are members of 
the union at the time shall be required as a condition of a 
continued--excuse me, a condition of continued employment, to 
continue membership in the union for the duration of this 
agreement.
    Employees covered by this agreement who are not members of 
the union at the time that this agreement becomes effective, 
shall be required as a condition of continued employment to 
become members of the union on or within 10 days of the 
effectiveness date of this contract.''
    As an individual employee reading that, and a union 
official coming to you saying you have to pay union dues as a 
condition of getting or keeping your job, you have to be a 
member of the union, what would an ordinary person say about 
that language? It basically wreaks of compulsion.
    When we talk about the National Labor Relations Act, 
Section 7 rights talk about the employees shall have the right 
to self-organization to form, join, or assist labor relations, 
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own 
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activity for the 
purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or 
protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any 
or all such activity.
    If Congress were to put a period there, we would not be 
having this discussion today because the compulsion would not 
be there, and voluntary unions and the right to refrain would 
be there. It went on to say except to the extent that the right 
may have been affected by an agreement requiring membership in 
a labor organization as a condition of employment, is 
authorized by Section 158 A-3 of this title.
    That is where the compulsion comes from. That is what right 
to work is all about. There is no block on union organizing, 
that right is protected under Federal law, has been, will be 
and should be. In fact, the NLRB puts out a 21 may nots by 
employers as it relates to employers as to what they can or 
cannot do when there is a union organization drive.
    I would ask that this be included in the record if we can 
do that, Congressman Good.
    Chairman Good. Without objection.
    [The information of Mr. Mix follows:]
     GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

    
    Mr. Mix. Yes, as well as the union security clause from the 
UAW contract. I would like to have that in the record as well.
    Chairman Good. Without objection.
    [The information of Mr. Mix follows:]
     GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

    
    Mr. Mix. Here is a statement from the Bricklayers and 
Allied Craftsmen Workers, about union security, which is the 
clause that is the first clause negotiated in a contract. Here 
is what it says, ``Union security is the primary objective of 
most unions. It involves compulsory membership as a condition 
of employment. This area of collective bargaining can be the 
most controversial, yet necessary requirement to establish and 
maintain stability within the union structure.
    The objectives of this clause are to protect against worker 
leaving--workers leaving, and rival unions raiding the union.'' 
That's the importance of union security. What our bill does is 
simply go into the National Labor Relations Act and says the 
bias in favor of compulsion in Federal law should be removed, 
the bias should be in favor of voluntary unionism.
    It does not do anything to stop the right to associate. It 
does not do anything from stopping a worker from joining or 
organizing a worker. It does not do anything from allowing a 
worker to give their entire paycheck to a labor union if they 
choose to do so, and Lord knows, based on the Ranking Member 
statement they ought to be interested in joining a union, and 
they should be because unions can maybe improve their life.
    We should not be imposing forced unionism on anyone here, 
and you will hear stories about folks that disagreed with what 
the union did. We have lots of stories, the Legal Defense 
Foundation we have represented literally tens of thousands of 
employees who have objections, not to unions per se, but to 
compulsory unionism.
    The use of their money for ideological and other causes 
they may disagree with. The idea of compulsion is wrong. It is 
wrong anywhere. We as citizens of our government give you the 
right to use force, the government. We give that in a limited 
way, but we should not give it to any private organization, and 
labor unions are private organizations.
    If they are really good at what they do, according to the 
Ranking Member, why would the workers not want to join them? 
Why would they not do that voluntarily? Unions do not deserve 
compulsion. They should operate just like any other private 
organization. If they are interested in adherence to their 
cause, then they should give up their compulsion and sell a 
product that workers want. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mix follows:]
     GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT


    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Mix. I would like to 
recognize Ms. Vargas for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MS. BRUNILDA VARGAS, ASSISTANT DEFENDER, DEFENDER 
    ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

    Ms. Vargas. Good morning. My name is Brunilda Vargas, and I 
am an attorney at the Defender Association of Philadelphia. I 
have been employed as an Assistant Defender for about 27 years. 
Recently, the attorneys in my office voted to unionize and 
become a newly created chapter of the United Autoworkers Union, 
known as Local Chapter 5502.
    Our employer in Local 5502 subsequently entered into a 
collective bargaining agreement. Several of my colleagues and I 
who were opposed to the unionization effort, emailed the local 
chapter President Mary Hinen, regarding our concerns about 
union membership and the payment of union dues.
    I was surprised and disappointed with the lack of a direct 
response to our concerns. In summary, her email stated that 
paying union dues, via automatic deduction from our paycheck 
was a condition of our employment. I informed Ms. Hinen that a 
few other attorneys and I would be filing a Beck objection so 
that we could refrain from joining the union and pay reduced 
fees that exclude union political expenditures.
    I followed the procedure outlined by the UAW International 
to become an objector. I found that the international's Beck 
procedure is not readily available and places the onus on the 
individual. Despite having properly invoked my rights as a Beck 
objector, Mary Hinen was not satisfied. Further emails we 
received from her focused only on obtaining our signatures on 
the dues deduction card.
    These emails continued for several months. Local 5502 made 
no effort to calculate or provide us with the amount of the 
reduced Beck fee despite receiving the percentage from 
international. Instead, we continued to receive emails that 
went so far as to threaten our employment and threaten to seek 
a claw back of our salary increase if we did not sign the card.
    It was at this point that I contacted the National Right to 
Work Foundation for legal assistance, addressing the union's 
threats. I worked with one of their staff attorneys, Byron 
Anders, who filed an unfair labor practice charge on my behalf 
against the union with the NLRB.
    I received a favorable finding from the NLRB, and the union 
quickly settled the matter. One of the conditions of the 
settlement was that the union send a notice to all of my 
colleagues stating that it would no longer threaten employees 
who did not want to authorize automatic dues deductions. It was 
only after the NLRB finding that my colleagues and I received 
notice of the calculation of the reduced Beck fee.
    None of this would have happened if we had been given a 
choice to refuse to pay any money at all, which is the 
cornerstone of the National Rights to Work Act. The pressure 
the union exerted on us regarding the loss of our employment 
and salary decrease was abominable.
    As public defenders, we are under pressure and stress 
daily. The guidance, assistance, and encouragement that the 
National Right to Work attorney, Byron Anders provided, was 
invaluable in alleviating the concerns we had in dealing with 
an area of law with which we are not familiar.
    As attorneys, we do have a level of sophistication when it 
comes to the law and legal processes, however I cannot imagine 
a lay person having to face this type of pressure. I believe 
that most people sign union memberships and authorization cards 
because they believe they have no choice, and they are often 
told that. If we had the protections offered by the National 
Right to Work Act, we would not have had to endure the 
harassment we faced.
    I do not believe any employee should be compelled to pay 
fees of any kind to a union. Unions argue that non-members may 
benefit from being represented by a union, and therefore in 
fairness should pay. However, the simple response to that 
argument is the decision should be left up to the individual to 
decide if she or he is benefited by the union.
    If the individual decides they want the benefit of 
representation by a union, then they can voluntarily pay. If 
not, they should not have to pay. They should also be able to 
choose to directly negotiate with their employer. This may 
foster a higher level of productivity, and more responsiveness 
on the part of the union.
    Compulsory payment for compulsory representation between an 
employer and an employee denies individual choice, and can 
intrude in, and interfere with, and create strained 
relationships between employer and employee. Compulsory 
payments and turning management into a collection agency for 
the union creates a closer relationship between the union 
officials and management.
    This relationship creates a conflict of interest between 
the union and its membership and non-union members. The choice 
of both joining and paying money to a union should belong to 
the individual. It is for these reasons that I ask you to 
support the National Right to Work Act, and I thank you for 
your time.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Vargus follows:]
   GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
 
    

    Chairman Good. Thank you, Ms. Vargas, and I would now like 
to recognize Mr. Calemine for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF MR. JODY CALEMINE, DIRECTOR OF LABOR AND 
    EMPLOYMENT POLICY, CENTURY FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Calemine. Chairman Good, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 
testify. To point out the obvious, H.R. 1200 is an attack on 
labor unions. It is designed to weaken them, and that is bad 
for the country.
    The minimum wage has not been raised since 2009. The United 
States is the only country in the industrialized world that 
does not have a paid family medical leave program. Student loan 
debt continues to hamper young workers. Issues of concern to 
millions of working people remain untackled by this Congress.
    A growing number of working people have taken matters into 
their own hands by organizing unions and collectively 
bargaining. Here is what workers and their unions have 
accomplished just this year. Auto workers and their unions won 
pay raises of 25 percent, along with cost-of-living adjustments 
for 150,000 workers at the Big Three.
    They forced one of the companies to reopen a closed plant. 
Healthcare workers and their unions at Kaiser Permanente went 
on strike and won a 21 percent pay increase for 85,000 working 
people. The Teamsters threatened to strike at UPS and won a 
contract covering 340,000 workers. They won average pay raises 
for part-time workers of 48 percent, an average top rate for 
full-time employees of $49.00 per hour, and a guarantee that 
the company will add 7,500 more jobs and fill 22,500 positions, 
open positions.
    Airline pilots pressed their case at bargaining tables. At 
United, American, and Air Wisconsin, they won pay raises 
ranging from 34 to 54 percent. Nurses, and their union at 
Providence Portland Hospital went on strike and won pay raises 
of between 17 and 27 percent, with the wage scale that tops out 
at over $70.00 per hour.
    They won more hours of paid leave. They won staffing 
commitments. Striking Hollywood writers and their union won a 
12.5 percent pay increase and a 76 percent increase in foreign 
streaming residuals, and they won historic rules protecting 
their jobs from artificial intelligence. Striking actors and 
their union won a contract that increases wages twice in the 
first year and a new compensation stream for actors and 
streaming services.
    They also won new rights on artificial intelligence. All 
totaled, close to 900,000 Americans so far this year received 
pay raises of over 10 percent directly thanks to collective 
bargaining through their unions. That is not counting any of 
the spillover effects. Each of these wins puts upward pressure 
on millions of other Americans' wage rates.
    After the UAW's win for example, non-union foreign car 
makers like Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai with plants in right to 
work states, raised their wages in response. None of those 
raises would have happened without the UAW strike victory. None 
of these victories would have happened without union resources. 
Union contracts do not come for free.
    When workers join together, form a union, and start their 
campaign for a contract, their success depends upon their own 
solidarity and the support they can gather around them. They 
and their union need to hire staff. Staff reps to help conduct 
bargaining, lawyers and researchers to support them by 
reviewing language or costing out proposals.
    There are logistical expenses like travel, lodging, and 
meeting space. A union needs to hire people to handle 
communications with members and the broader public. If you want 
to build leverage, organizers are needed to help coordinate job 
actions and public events, for which you also need to pay for 
space, sound systems, signs, and so on.
    If you strike, all of these staff and more will be needed 
to support the strike, and you will need funds to support the 
strikers and their families week in and week out. Winning the 
contract is just the start. Then you need to enforce it. The 
union must pay to train shop stewards on how to enforce the 
contract, staff representatives and lawyers to assist with 
grievances.
    Take a grievance to arbitration, in which case the union 
will need to pay its half of the arbitrators and court 
reporters' fees. You end up needing administrative help, like 
any organization does. The hearing today examines the bill, 
H.R. 1200, that is intended to cut the union's resources to do 
this work. It is already the law of the land that no one can be 
compelled to join a union as a condition of employment, yet a 
union is required under Federal law to represent everyone in 
the bargaining unit, member and non-member alike.
    A non-member gets the same raises and benefits that a 
member gets. The same representation in a grievance proceeding 
that a member gets. It is only fair that even if you do not 
join the union, you at least pay your fair share of the cost of 
winning and enforcing these contracts from which you benefit.
    Under H.R. 1200, you would not have to pay your fair share. 
You would not have to pay anything at all. You could just 
receive these services for free and let your coworkers pay for 
all the efforts that win you your pay raise, your healthcare, 
your pension, your paid time off, your just cause employment, 
and so on.
    Right to work is not an actual right to work. It is a way 
of depleting union resources in order to weaken unions, to make 
it harder to win the kinds of life-changing victories we've 
been seeing lately. While Congress itself is not acting to 
raise wages, it should not now jump in the way of workers 
joining together to raise their wages on their own.
    Instead of trying to stop them, the Committee should try to 
help them. Instead of H.R. 1200, I recommend that the Committee 
pass the PRO Act to restore workers' rights to organize and 
collectively bargain. After all, unions are the most effective 
private sector solution for combatting poverty and income 
inequality, ensuring access to healthcare and retirement 
security, and all of the other things that make for a decent 
job in this country.
    Thank you, and I am happy to answer questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Calemine follows:]
     GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

    

    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Calemine. I would now like to 
recognize Ms. Geary for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF MS. JEANNETTE GEARY, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

    Ms. Geary. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members, thank 
you for the opportunity to testify today in favor of the 
National Right to Work Act. My name is Jeannette Geary. I am a 
nurse by profession. I have spent my entire career in direct 
patient care, always devoted to my patients.
    Many years ago when I was working at the Kent Hospital in 
Warwick, Rhode Island, there existed a nurses union called the 
United Nurses and Allied Professionals, UNAP. I initially 
supported that union. Events I witnessed quickly soured me on 
the union.
    First, at one of the union's wine and dine recruitment 
events, a high union official stated that the union's goal was 
to be able to walk into any healthcare institution in America, 
find the administrators, and declare they were representing the 
employees with no election.
    This would remove the ability of every nurse to talk with 
their managers and administrators regarding their own jobs. 
Additionally, I witnessed that UNAP representatives and 
officers were allowed to freely roam the hospital and push the 
union's political and social agenda, which was not the nurse's 
agenda. These union officials let opponents of the union know 
that any grievances they filed would be ignored, and that 
difficult work assignments would be given to those who oppose 
the union.
    As I evolved to become an opponent of this union, I was 
only allowed a small corner in the hospital cafeteria during 
non-cafeteria hours, and on my own time to give nurses another 
point of view. I eventually learned of my rights under the 
Supreme Court's Beck decision, but not from UNAP, which had no 
incentive to tell employees what their true legal rights were.
    When I finally became a non-member of UNAP and invoked my 
Beck rights, the union refused to acknowledge me, belittled me, 
and refused to provide any audited financial disclosure about 
what it did with the compulsory dues it forcibly extracted from 
my salary on pain of discharge.
    Having nowhere to turn, I found the National Right to Work 
Legal Defense Foundation, which agreed to represent me to 
ensure my Beck rights were protected. Little did we know this 
would end up being a 12-year legal battle that was litigated up 
and down the National Labor Relations Board chain, and in two 
separate United States Court of Appeals Circuits, just to 
secure the proper dues reduction that I was owed in accordance 
with Supreme Court precedent.
    As my written testimony details, my litigation against this 
union took over 12 years and two separate United States Court 
of Appeals. After I resigned my membership and objected to pay 
for the union's political and non-representational activities 
under the Beck decision, the union refused to give us audited 
financial disclosure of how it spent our dues, and in fact, 
spent our forced dues money lobbying the Rhode Island and 
Vermont legislatures.
    With the foundation's representation, I initiated an unfair 
labor practice charge against UNAP with the NLRB on November 
23d, 2009. That began my 12-year odyssey to protect my rights. 
My 12 years of litigation proves that the Beck objection system 
is broken and does not protect employees' rights to refrain 
from funding union politics, and union endorsed politicians.
    Unions do not tell employees about their rights because 
they have no incentive to do so, and regular employees like me 
cannot afford to take on these legal battles by themselves. 
Without lawyers, like the National Right to Work Legal 
Foundation, we are left to fend for ourselves against unions 
that have no regard for the law or Supreme Court precedent.
    For all of these reasons, I wholeheartedly support the 
National Right to Work Act, so that no employee will be forced 
to pay his or her hard-earned money to a private and 
unaccountable organization they do not support. This is 
America, and membership in a union and payment of dues should 
be strictly voluntary.
    Employees can make their own decisions about whether they 
are benefited or harmed by the union that has been installed in 
their workplace. Thank you for your attention.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Geary follows:]
     GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

    

    Chairman Good. Thank you, Ms. Geary, and thank you again to 
all of our witnesses for being here today and giving your time 
to help us with this hearing. Under Committee Rule 9, we will 
now question witnesses--I am sorry, witnesses members under the 
5-minute rule. I will wait to ask my questions and therefore 
recognize Mr. Wilson from South Carolina for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Chairman Robert Good, and 
we appreciate all the witnesses being here today, and of course 
we particularly appreciate Ms. Vargas and Ms. Geary for your 
courage to promote freedom of choice, which is beneficial to 
every worker across our country, and in particular I am very 
familiar with that in my home State of South Carolina, and I 
will let you know what the benefit of right to work is.
    We still have one condo for everybody there at Hilton Head, 
so please come on down. Indeed, I am grateful to sponsor the 
Right to Work Act with 115 co-sponsors, and I want to give 
credit to the Right to Work Committee that has been so 
effective in its years of commitment on behalf of the American 
worker.
    This legislation is critical for creating jobs and ending 
forced automatic unionization for the American people. Every 
American and their employer has a right to negotiate the terms 
of their employment and creating jobs, and the right to work 
states it has been nearly doubled that of the forced 
unionization. Unionism states in the last decade, and 
manufacturing growth in particular, has been five times higher.
    In South Carolina, I particularly appreciate it, and that 
we have the manufacturing facilities where South Carolina now 
produces more tires than any other State in the union, exports 
more tires than any State in the union. I was present with 
Governor Jim Edwards for the groundbreaking of Michelin in my 
home community of Lexington, now that is the largest Michelin 
manufacturing facility in the world.
    Right down I-20 in the district I represent is Bridgestone, 
Japanese, and then on the other side of I-20 is Continental of 
Germany, and then you go up I-77 and it is JT of Continental, 
excuse me--from Singapore.
    Over and over again we see the benefit of right to work. 
South Carolina is the leading exporter of cars, and so I was so 
glad to see references to cars because I was there for the 
groundbreaking with Governor Carol Campell for the BMW facility 
in Spartanburg, South Carolina, and I know Chairman Good will 
be shocked, but they were making fun of us that they were going 
to have to change the name of Bavarian Motor Works to Bava 
Motor Works.
    Well, now that is the largest BMW manufacturing facility in 
the world. I love as I travel, I was in Europe at a meeting 
last week in Frankfurt, to see X-5's. I know where they are 
made, in South Carolina. Additionally, we are just grateful to 
have Volvo cars built in South Carolina, and Mercedes vans, and 
so we are No. 1 in export, and just because of the right to 
work law.
    Then, I want to give credit to Governor Nikki Haley. There 
was an effort by the unions to close the Boeing facility, 
building 787 jetliners in South Carolina, but Governor Haley 
was successful with Lindsey Graham, Tim Scott, our Attorney 
General Allan Wilson, even a local Congress person, me. We were 
able to keep Boeing alive.
    There are 8,000 jobs, despite the fact of the efforts of 
the NLRB to illegally stop it. Then I am also grateful for 
every effort that has been made back at Boeing. Saudi Arabia 
just agreed to purchase 39 billion dollars-worth of aircraft, 
and so that means more jobs. With that, Mr. Mix, I want to 
thank you for your success in what you do to advance the 
essential protection for every American.
    We have seen the expansive job growth in South Carolina as 
I cited it has just been incredible, but we still have room to 
grow. With that, also a majority of the states now have passed 
right to work laws, and the workers have the freedom to choose 
how to spend their hard-earned money, and hey, let us get to 
it. The dues going to different political candidates. It has a 
consequence.
    Influence, which is all legitimate, but gosh, the influence 
is extraordinary. Mr. Mix, what has been your experience of 
companies wanting to relocate into right to work states?
    Mr. Mix. Yes. Congressman Wilson, thank you for that 
question, and congratulations on the growth of South Carolina. 
Right to work is part of that equation for attracting new 
manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing job growth from the last 
decade from 2012 to 2022 was basically five times greater in 
right to work states than non-right to work states.
    Private sector job growth was nearly double that in right 
to work states versus non-right to work states. Obviously, it 
is not the panacea that determines everything, but those 
policies, the types of policies that allow investment capital, 
relocation, expansion, those things are important.
    Right to work, we know is an important part of that. When 
you talk to site selection experts, consultants that are 
consulting with companies looking to expand or grow, they say 
nearly 75 percent of all the companies will use the lack of a 
right to work law as initial kickout as a decisionmaking for 
locating, expanding and investing in capital in a particular 
State.
    We know it is important, and it is important because it 
gives the employer the confidence they can deal with their 
employees directly, and certainly from a union official 
standpoint when you got to a State that the revenue stream is 
not guaranteed, after you win a certification election, it 
makes the decision about union organizing a little different.
    They end up in California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, 
Connecticut, Rhode Island, but they do not end up in South 
Carolina, even though the ability for workers to organize in 
right to work states is protected by Federal law. We all know 
that. It is written in the law, and nothing stops workers in 
South Carolina from organizing unions if they choose to do so.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Now we 
will recognize Mr. Courtney from Connecticut.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to the witnesses for being here today. Yesterday a poll was 
released asking the American people whether they approve of 
this Congress, and the poll came back with a whopping 14 
percent approval and 69 percent disapproval.
    In my opinion, there is a very good reason why the American 
people are just completely turned off by what they see here in 
Washington, DC, is because this is probably the least 
productive Congress, in memory, in terms of just the output of 
legislation.
    To be more specific, we have enacted a whopping 22 bills 
over the last 11 months in this Congress, 14 are House bills. 
It is not because members are not trying to introduce bills or 
to advance bills, there actually have been over 6,000 bills 
that have been introduced. Rather than trying to sort of 
identify measures that have bipartisan support, that actually 
will help American workers.
    For example, the Workplace Violence Prevention Act, to help 
health care and social workers, which is a bipartisan bill that 
we passed with almost 250 votes in the last Congress, despite 
the fact that we are seeing frightening levels of workplace 
violence for health care workers.
    Just a couple weeks ago a home health aide in Willimantic, 
Connecticut, in my district, was stabbed to death on a home 
visit with a registered sex offender. Never should have 
happened. We should have had OSHA standards that are well ready 
to go in terms of trying to identify high-risk patients and not 
send workers alone into situations like that.
    That is exactly what this bill would provide for, but 
rather than taking up meaningful legislation that has 
bipartisan support, we are seeing here today a bill, which with 
all due respect to the witnesses here advocating for it, has 
absolutely zero chance of becoming law. We are really just 
having really, a talk session, a kabuki play.
    I would just say what is striking about the poll in 
Congress that came out yesterday. It is 14 percent approval, 69 
percent disapproval. If you look at Gallup Poll's annual 
polling that they do on whether Americans approve of labor 
unions, it is actually the reverse.
    70 percent of Americans approve of labor unions, and again, 
Gallop has been doing this since the 1930's, and again there 
have been periods of time where that number has dipped to much 
lower levels, below 50 percent. Today, because a lot of the 
conditions which Jody, who used to work here on our Committee, 
described is why again unions now are something that American 
people support.
    You described some of the great contracts that have been 
signed just in the last year or so. In my district, in Eastern 
Connecticut, the Metal Trades Council and Electric Boat 
Shipyard just came to a deal that was passed 2 to 1 for a 5-
year contract that will result in a 21 percent increase overall 
in terms of wages, boosting the retirement program, enhancing 
the health benefits.
    What was most interesting was, is that the biggest wage 
increases are concentrated at the entry level workers, so you 
know the notion that we heard here at the outset that somehow 
unions really do not care or do not protect new employees, and 
they are sort of, you know, left with the burden of paying for 
dues that they never benefited from, that actually is the 
opposite.
    Again, the testimony regarding UPS that the part-time 
employees are getting a 48 percent increase, who again, were 
the most exploited at UPS, is a perfect example of where this 
narrative that unions leave behind, you know, the newer 
employees, is really just totally again with recent events 
demonstrated to be false.
    Mr. Calemine, I just want to ask about--I mean what we are 
talking about here again is a bill that if you look at the 
history of right to work, it really has aligned with a 
reduction in union participation and unionized workforce, and 
maybe you could just sort of talk about that at a time when 70 
percent of the American people support unions, we are talking 
about a bill today that is actually going to make it even 
worse, in terms of trying to fix that total misalignment right 
now, in terms of Federal law and workplace.
    Mr. Calemine. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. Right 
to work is designed to reduce the unionization rate in any 
particular State. If you reduce unionization rate, you reduce 
the union difference. People will not make as much money, they 
will not have as much access to health care plans, to pensions, 
and so forth, so it does reduce your chances of having a decent 
life, a decent job.
    It is not about workers, it is about business as we heard 
from Congressman Wilson. I went to the State of South 
Carolina's website in preparation for this hearing, found a 
Department of Commerce website, a page attracting businesses by 
saying in big letters, business friendly right to work State, 
with no explanation because everybody knows it's a signal, we 
are anti-union. You will not have to negotiate with workers in 
this State.
    You go to the South Carolina Department of Labor's website, 
do a search for the phrase right to work, it is not there. It 
means nothing to the workers. It means everything to business. 
It means everything to business.
    Chairman Good. Members will be reminded to pose their 
questions in time for the witness to answer so we can stay 
within our 5 minutes. Now I will recognize Mr. Walberg for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to change 
the terminology a little bit. I think Mr. Mix will understand 
it. Earlier this year the democrat-controlled legislature in 
Michigan repealed Michigan's Employee Free Choice Act. Now the 
unions do not want us to use that terminology. They cannot 
unionize well if we give employees the right to choose. You 
want to put the thumb on the scale, tell the big stories, and 
yet employees are the ones who decide whether they want to be 
unionized and represented by a union.
    I was a union steel worker. I am not opposed to unions. We 
want to have choices. Anyway, the democrat-controlled 
legislature jumped in, ran through a law limiting the freedom 
of choice for Michigan's workers. In addition, the legislature 
also removed the financial penalty for using force, 
intimidation, or threats to compel employees to join a union.
    That is un-American. I think it is important to note that 
Michigan became an employee free choice State in 2012. After 
voters overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly rejected a referendum 
that would have placed collective bargaining rights in the 
State Constitution. Why there? Because they would not have a 
choice after that.
    However, the legislature sought to make the new law 
referendum proof so that Michigan voters cannot have a say on 
this issue in the future. That is un-American. This, despite 
more recent polls, showing the Michigan voters opposed 
repealing employee free choice in Michigan. It had to be done 
heavy handed by a democrat State legislature, a small majority 
that rammed it through. We will see if they pay in the next 
election.
    Mr. Mix, you have been involved in the right to work 
movement for many years and have discussed the individuals with 
individuals, and elected officials in numerous states, 
including Michigan. Can you tell us where the American public 
stands on the issue of right to work?
    Mr. Mix. Yes, sure. I mean we have already heard references 
through the Gallop poll about union favorability at 71 percent, 
now down to about 68 percent in the latest poll. In that same 
poll where Gallop said that 71 percent of Americans support the 
idea of labor unions, the second question, or maybe not the 
second question, but another question that we will ask non-
union members, are you interesting in joining a union.
    58 percent of non-union members said they had no interest 
in joining a labor union. The idea of unionization may be 
favorable as far as the public opinion is concerned, but the 
idea of workers wanting to join a union and looking to get in 
is just not there, and Gallop shows that.
    Gallop did a poll in 2014 asking a very simple question. Do 
you believe that a worker should be forced to pay union dues or 
fees in order to get or keep a job? 74 percent of the workers--
or the response in that poll said no. They supported unions. 
The support for unionization was relatively high, above 50 
percent in that same poll, but the idea of right to work was 
very, very popular.
    We conducted a poll in 2020 by Survey USA, 87 percent of 
the people that were polled by that independent polling agency 
said they oppose workers being forced to pay union dues as a 
condition of getting or keeping a job. Unionism may be popular 
but forced unionism is a real stinker from a public policy 
standpoint.
    Mr. Walberg. That is the key is it not?
    Mr. Mix. Yes.
    Mr. Walberg. If you want a union, vote for one, join one. 
It is simple, but I have never heard any union negotiation 
trying to run rough shot over workers themselves, anything said 
about the customer. Have any of you heard? No. The customer is 
last in line, and we will see that with the auto industry after 
what the UAW did.
    Mr. Mix, union bosses often deride right to work or 
employee free choice laws saying that employees in free choice 
states are paid less and have less opportunity than similar 
employees in states that are not free choice states. Is this 
accurate?
    Mr. Mix. Not at all. It is a--when you look at cost of 
living adjustments, and Representative Burlison will be 
interested in this. The Missouri Economic Research Institute 
Center Information Center does a cost-of-living study I think 
every quarter. This is a government agency in Missouri, and 
they put a cost-of-living index on what it costs to live in a 
State.
    When you apply cost of living to wages, we find that 
workers in right to work states have up to $3,000.00 more to 
spend in disposable income. When you just say that a plumber in 
New York City who is making $95.00 an hour is unionized, and a 
plumber in Provo, Utah is making $65.00 and not unionized, 
somehow they turn that into a $30.00 union benefit.
    Well, the fact of the matter is a $65.00 an hour plumber in 
Utah is probably a whole lot better off than a $95.00 an hour 
plumber in New York City.
    Mr. Walberg. I hate moving out my workers to South 
Carolina, no matter what I think of this guy. I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Walberg. I will now recognize 
the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, for 
holding this hearing. People will do the right thing. We hear 
this all over today. Everybody loves America. If there was no 
requirement that you had to pay taxes, I am sure everybody here 
would just send money right into the government saying you are 
doing the right thing.
    We understand this. Let us cut through the BS. It is real 
simple, the right to work, and we just heard a few moments ago 
from Mr. Calemine, is that this is about businesses moving to 
areas where they control the workers, they pay them less 
benefits and less pay. It is clear this is why this is taking 
place.
    Now, I am actually shocked why they would want to do this 
nationwide, because after hearing what is going on in South 
Carolina, they have the monopoly. Come to us, why do you not 
want to do it everywhere? We are getting those jobs. We know 
why this is going on, so I wish everybody would stop BS'ing us 
and just cut--it is about cutting the voice of working men and 
women.
    It is that clear. Your 12-year journey is just remarkable. 
I am going to guess it did not come out of your pocket 
completely. You had plenty of help. People came around, whether 
it was the right to work or otherwise. That is why it is 
incredibly important this system that we have set up in this 
country that has been here for so many years, that we give 
companies a tax break to hire union busting outfits.
    Well gee, that does not seem right. I am a taxpayer. Why am 
I encouraging companies to hire for tax break these anti-union 
busting companies? Why do we do that? For the workers, and I am 
an electrician by trade. When I first started out, when I went 
out and bought my tools that I needed to do my job, they were 
tax deductible.
    I was a working schmuck making only a few bucks, so that 
was a working man's tax break. They took it away from us. You 
know what? I am really glad that there is somebody lobbying 
Congress to bring back real workers' tax breaks. We give a 
gazillion dollars away in tax incentives in this facility all 
the time. To the little guy just trying to keep himself going, 
they took that tax break away.
    The mileage driving to work for construction workers. To my 
friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, do we ever 
talk about the customer? Absolutely. We understand. Workers, 
the owners, the customers are in a relationship together and 
when you improve that it is good for everyone. We absolutely 
take into account not only the worker's well-being, but the 
company and who we are working for.
    That is fundamental. That is smart business. That is what 
we do each and every day. It is also when you do not have a 
union, safety rates on-the-job plummet. Injuries occur. Mr. 
Calemine, as I ask you a question. Collective bargaining, one 
major issue quite often is safety. Can you talk a little bit 
about including not only issues of job site safety as 
bargaining, but the different committees the unions might put 
together, work with management to make it a safer location to 
work?
    Mr. Calemine. Thank you for the question. It is a very 
common issue at the bargaining table and then a common 
provision in collective bargaining agreements that you have a 
health and safety committee, where workers are involved in 
policing the workplace and making sure safety protocols are 
being followed, that there are not hazards in the workplace, 
and making sure the people who come to work get to go home at 
the end of the day.
    The important thing about having a union, and union 
representative, or union representation is that a worker knows 
somebody has got their back when they do complain about a 
safety issue, when they do blow the whistle, that somebody is 
going to help them blow that whistle. They are not going to get 
retaliated against or fired for having done so because they 
have just cause employment and union representation.
    Generally speaking, union workplaces are safer than the 
equivalent non-union workplaces. I do want to point out that 
studies have been done just in relation to the question of 
wages and so forth, right to work versus non-right to work 
states. Studies have been done to control a variety of 
variables, including cost of living, and the right to work 
states have 3.1 percent lower wage rates than the free 
bargaining states per those studies, with the most controlled 
variables.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Mr. Allen 
from Georgia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
important hearing. Again, I come from the business community. 
My first job was with a union company, and I actually became 
the Secretary Treasurer of the Augusta Contractors Association 
and negotiated the agreements and that sort of thing.
    Frankly, back then yes, we had people standing in line 
trying to get a job. It was totally different. I mean you could 
get as many workers, whatever you wanted. This modern workforce 
is very different. It is very entrepreneurial. Companies--the 
workforce is very competitive.
    I mean you have got to go find the workers, and you have 
got to compete. Georgia has been very good with that. We are 
the best State to do business in 10 years in a row. We have got 
a lot of union members who are moving to Georgia. Now, are they 
moving to become workers? No. They are moving there to have 
their own concrete businesses, to have their own sheetrock 
businesses, to have their own painting companies, and they are 
entrepreneurs. It is totally different.
    We used to self-perform 60 percent of our work. Today we 
self-perform maybe 5 percent of our work. Again, we are in an 
entrepreneurial modern workforce. Mr. Mix, a majority of 
states, including my home State of Georgia, have passed and 
have long-standing right to work laws, meaning that--and that 
the simple fact here is if you wanted to find that, what that 
means is you do not have to--to hold a job you do not have to 
pay union dues.
    It is just that simple. That is freedom. These laws provide 
workers with freedom to choose how to spend their hard-earned 
paychecks. Many companies express interest in operating in 
right to work states, so why--Mr. Mix, can you tell us why 
these companies want to move to right to work states, and hire 
great workers in our states and train them?
    Mr. Mix. Well Congressman, Georgia, as you mentioned, has 
been the top State for business for many years, I think a 
decade going. According to CNBC and others, the folks that 
manage that, it is because of your policies. One of those 
policies is right to work. We know, as I mentioned earlier, the 
idea of people looking to expand to invest, consider right to 
work as a primary kickout if you do not have it in the State.
    That is why we see manufacturing growth five times greater 
than forced unionism states, and private sectors growth nearly 
doubled.
    Mr. Allen. Talk about safety! We have the lowest worker's 
comp rate in the country. Okay.
    Mr. Mix. I will take your word for it.
    Mr. Allen. Yes. No. Really. Obviously, the Biden NLRB has 
issued numerous decisions that undermine employee free choice 
and strengthen the labor unions' ability to forced 
representation on every worker.
    Mr. Mix. Yes.
    Mr. Allen. The big labor and union bosses will stop at 
nothing to coerce American workers into unionization, and 
obviously that is what this administration is trying to push. 
In fact, the PRO Act would do away with right to work laws in 
every State. In other words, you are going to equalize every 
state's ability to compete for business.
    What other labor reforms can Congress consider to promote 
individual employees--of course, I introduced the Truth and 
Employment Act.
    Mr. Mix. Yes.
    Mr. Allen. What other legislation can the Congress put 
forward to since this Congress is not doing anything, what can 
we do to help the worker?
    Mr. Mix. Well, Congressman, certainly there are probably 
plenty of things to do because it is the Federal Government 
that imposes this regime of forced unionism on the states. If 
we remember correctly, when they upheld the Wagner Act in 1937, 
that imposed forced unionism on all the states across the 
country.
    It was not until 1947, when Congress came back in and said 
you know we probably should do something about this. We gave 
union officials dramatic powers over workers across the Nation 
and imposed it on every State, so they allowed them to pass 
right to work laws, and 27 states have done that.
    Michigan has already been mentioned--will lose their right 
to work law in February. The idea of going into the National 
Labor Relations Act, if the Federal Government is going to 
control private sector labor management relations, which they 
do now, and the states used to be experiments in policy as it 
related to employment and work policies.
    I would think that the National Labor Relations Act in 
general has to be looked at, and let the states compete for 
workers and jobs and investment and cash by allowing them to 
take different ideas about it, as opposed to having them pre-
empted by the Federal law that forces this compulsory regime 
down on the states.
    Mr. Allen. Yes. Exactly, and that is why I introduced the 
Employee Rights Act, which includes a provision to ensure 
employees political protection. I wanted to yield some time to 
my friend, Mr. Wilson, but I am out of time and I yield back.
    Chairman Good. I will recognize now Ms. Wild from 
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.--my colleague across 
the aisle, Mr. Allen just acknowledged that this Congress does 
not seem to have gotten anything accomplished. I just want to 
note for the record this is a GOP-controlled majority Congress 
and I would agree with him, unfortunately.
    Mr. Mix, I have some questions for you. This is--my preface 
is for all of you. I represent Pennsylvania 7. It is a 
community with one of the richest legacies of organized labor 
anywhere in the country. It is home of Mack Trucks and 
Bethlehem Steel, and in Pennsylvania 7 we know that strong 
unions are the key to a strong economy where people can work 
hard and get ahead, and can support their families.
    Mr. Mix, you testified in favor of H.R. 1200, a law that if 
implemented, would force every State in the Nation to adopt so-
called right to work laws. In your testimony, you claimed that 
union negotiated contracts often work against the interests of 
the employees. My question to you, and I have spent a lot of 
time with unionized employees in my district, is it against the 
interests of workers to have wages that are on average 11.2 
percent higher than their non-union counterparts according to 
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics?
    Mr. Mix. No.
    Ms. Wild. Is it against the interests of workers to have 
better access to paid leave and pensions, two more benefits 
that again unionized workplaces are much more likely to offer?
    Mr. Mix. I would say no. I mean the idea of those benefits 
being available, why would you not rely on voluntarism? Why do 
you need compulsion? Why do union officials need compulsion in 
law to force workers to associate with them and pay dues and 
fees?
    If they are doing this great work that you have all talked 
about, then people would join them voluntarily.
    Ms. Wild. Well, we will have to invite you when we have a 
hearing on what management tactics take place to discourage 
people from joining unions, but I reclaim my time. We know that 
a 2021 report on the construction industry, one of the most 
dangerous industries in the United States, found that 
nationally unionized work sites are 19 percent less likely to 
have a safety and health violation than their non-union 
counterparts.
    I am sure we can agree that that is in the interest of all 
workers. Correct? Have a safe, healthier workplace?
    Mr. Mix. Yes. You know, if you are doing those great 
things, why would people not want to join voluntarily? Why do 
you need compulsion?
    Ms. Wild. Thank you. I am going to move on to Mr. Jody 
Calemine and let me just say that based on data that I reviewed 
from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average median 
union worker is paid approximately 20 percent more than the 
median non-union worker. In the private sector, union workers 
are 26 percent more likely to be offered health insurance 
through work, 12 percent more likely to have access to paid 
sick leave, and 53 percent more likely to have to find benefit 
pension plans than their non-union counterparts.
    I could go on and on, but I do not ever have enough time 
for that, but the data is crystal clear in my view. Workers are 
better off when they have the right to organize. I am going to 
ask you sir, based on your experience, can you expand on how 
union contracts provide more freedom to workers? If you could 
incorporate, excuse me, into your answer, is it fair to say 
that right to work is a misleading term, and these laws 
actually take away rights from workers to freely join a union. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Calemine. Yes. Thank you for the question. With respect 
to the first question. When you have a union contract and you 
have union representation, and you are living your life. A 
union contract sets up a kind of rule of law of the shop, and 
if the contract says you are entitled to a week's vacation, and 
you need to use that vacation to go see your sick mother in 
another State, you can be ensured that you will have time, you 
will have that time, and you will not be retaliated against or 
lose some sort of a benefit because you decided to partake in 
that benefit.
    It is all about having that support as you exercise, you 
know, engage in you know, receiving benefits and so forth at 
work, you are protected with your union contract. That provides 
for a lot more freedom in a person's life. They can go about 
their life with a lot more confidence on how things will turn 
out more predictably.
    You are not operating at the whim of a boss who can engage 
in arbitrary actions. With respect to right to work itself, it 
is--I lay out in my testimony, times running out, but I layout 
in my testimony all the ways in which it is not about worker 
liberty at all, it is more about giving the employer the 
ability to control the workplace. Absolutely, it is better 
termed right to work for less.
    Mr. Allen. Mr. Chairman, I need to ask to correct the 
record here. I did not say----
    Chairman Good. You are recognized for 1 minute.
    Mr. Allen. I did not say that this was a do-nothing 
Congress. I said it has been said that this is a do-nothing 
Congress. It did not come from this side. You might want to 
talk to the----
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Now we will recognize 
Mr. Bean from Florida for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bean. Good morning, and thank you very much Mr. 
Chairman, and to all and to all of our Committee members. Thank 
you for being here. I was at a Walmart not too long ago. I 
counted in the shampoo aisle 27 different versions of shampoo. 
Americans want choice, yes, right. Americans want choice, 
whether it is their shampoo, fast food, ice cream, or so many 
things in life.
    To me, having a right to work, and I am proud to be from 
the free State of Florida is a choice that you can join a union 
or not join a union. Am I missing something? Mr. Mix, am I 
missing that? Is that what this all comes down to?
    Mr. Mix. It really is that simple, Congressman, and thank 
you for making it simple because the right to work laws in the 
states that have them are that simple, literally, you have the 
ability to choose whether or not to join or associate 
financially with a labor union, that is it. It does not stop 
anyone from joining, participating, paying the union if they 
choose to do so.
    Mr. Bean. If I want to, I could still in the free State of 
Florida, or where other free states. I could join if I want to, 
and just pay if I want to. Is that correct?
    Mr. Mix. Yes. Indeed. There are several right to work 
states that have higher union density than states that do not 
have right to work laws. It is a fact.
    Mr. Bean. Very good. Ms. Geary, I see you there. I have got 
a question for you. You were a part of the union that made you 
pay dues, but some of those dues went to political and lobbying 
activities that you disagreed with, or at least challenged 
them. You actually filed a lawsuit in your testimony, to say 
this is not right. Tell us about that. What you were forced to 
do.
    Ms. Geary. Yes. Thank you very much. We had no idea. We 
were innocent healthcare employees. Healthcare employees really 
are not attorneys. We are really not cognizant of this type of 
information. The union came in and wined and dined us. You have 
to understand the nursing culture.
    We work very hard. We work 12-hour shifts, often times back 
and forth. We are denied vacations. Lots of times you do not 
get breaks. When a union came in and had parties for us, and 
served alcohol, which frankly I do not drink, but I did eat the 
cookies, and desserts, and promised us the world, and then 
passed out cards saying to sign these just to show interest, 
which I later found out where not just about showing interest.
    Nurses became interested in the union, as you can 
understand.
    Mr. Bean. Then they went on, and I hate to go to the end of 
the story because the clock's up, it is ticking, but the end of 
the story is you disagreed with what they were spending the 
money on.
    Ms. Geary. Oh, I definitely did.
    Mr. Bean. You said--No, you filed suit. Where is this at--
is that suit? Did you win or lose? Is it still going on?
    Ms. Geary. No. My case was won. My case was definitely won.
    Mr. Bean. Fantastic. That is good news, so because also you 
want choice, and you do not want to have your money go to 
things you do not believe in, or whatnot, so.
    Ms. Geary. Well, more fundamentally than that, my feeling 
is that every citizen in the United States, according to the 
Constitution, has choice and liberty. Unions that come into 
healthcare institutions tell you, you no longer have choice or 
liberty, none. It makes no sense to me.
    If 90 percent of the nurses wanted the union, that is fine. 
If 10 percent do not, why should they have to sign up.
    Mr. Bean. There you go.
    Ms. Geary. It makes absolutely no sense.
    Mr. Bean. Nailed it right there, Ms. Geary. That is what 
you did. You just nailed it: choice. Mr. Mix, I saw you shaking 
your head when somebody on the other side said something about 
the companies just want to bypass the rules and take advantage 
of labor you shook your head. I was watching you. You shook 
your head.
    Please elaborate on why you shook your head.
    Mr. Mix. Yes. Protecting the ability to organize a union is 
written into Federal law. The NLRB enforces it. I pointed out 
in my original testimony that 21 cannot do's by employers to 
interfere with an individual employee's right to try and 
organize a union. I mean the laws are very clear.
    If an employer does that, there are unfair labor practice 
charges, and now under this new regime at the NLRB, if you are 
even accused of an unfair labor practice charge, you may be 
looking at a bargaining order without any election by your 
employees.
    The Sem X decision back in August of this year basically 
takes away the secret ballot election, it takes away the card 
check election, and it says the union official walks into your 
office and says I represent your employees, and now it is up to 
the employer to prove that they do not by filing what is called 
a majority election. If there is an unfair labor practice taint 
if you will, we have a case right now where a regional director 
sent it to the NLRB because they thought that the unfair labor 
practice charge might need a bargaining order, without any 
vote, or any show of support by workers. It is outrageous.
    Mr. Bean. Ten-four, thank you all for being here today. Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Mrs. McBath 
from Georgia, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you Chairman Good, and I want to thank 
Ranking Member DeSaulnier, who had to step out, and I want to 
thank our staff today, and of course our witnesses for being 
here. I too represent the right to work State of Georgia, and I 
do honestly have to say that I think the biggest boost that we 
saw in the confidence in our unions has come through recently 
coming through COVID.
    A record number of individuals, and definitely employees 
have recognized that they needed the protections of the unions, 
so I just wanted to be able to say that, but also this 
misguided targeting of labor unions over the past few decades 
continues to have a very detrimental impact on our workforce 
system.
    There is no reason why our employers and unions cannot work 
together to create opportunities that work better for all of 
our businesses and for the American workers. As I have stated 
many times in this Committee, and other instances, the Federal 
Government spends far less on workforce development today than 
we did in 2001, and is one of the contributing factors to the 
skill shortages that we continue to see all across the country.
    Employers and unions have stepped up to fill in that gap, 
and spend millions of dollars on skill development programs 
like registered apprenticeships, which I highly believe in. 
They spend money, millions of dollars every single year on 
these kinds of skilled training opportunities, however they 
cannot be expected to take on this monumental task alone by 
themselves.
    We are only making our workforce problems worse by 
attacking and trying to weaken these organizations who have 
filled in the gap continuously and taken it upon themselves to 
train the workers that we need for our economy to continue to 
thrive and grow.
    A portion of union dues goes into a general training fund, 
which is often used to help cover a large portion of those 
expenses and those costs, the cost of running a joint union 
employer apprenticeship program. As union membership has 
unfortunately declined, so has the amount of resources that are 
also available for general training funds, making it far more 
difficult for programs like registered apprenticeships to equip 
our workers with the skills that are country needs--needs them 
to have.
    Involving a union and a registered apprenticeship has 
consistently shown significantly better program completion 
rates, larger capacity to administer those programs and less 
worker turnover.
    My questions, I will start with Mr. Calemine. In your 
testimony, you referenced a recent report that goes over the 
benefits of allowing free collective bargaining as opposed to 
the implementing policies that aren't as friendly to workers, 
along with providing tangible benefits for employees and their 
families, there were also some major benefits for businesses 
and State workforce systems.
    Workers are proven to be more productive, turnover 
decreases, and employers have great access to the skilled labor 
that they need for their various industries in states with a 
strong union presence. The study also specifically mentions 
that states with strong unions have 13--excuse me, 31 percent 
more registered apprentices per 100,000 workers than states 
without them.
    Can you please talk to us today about why that is, and the 
important role that unions play in equipping a modern workforce 
with the necessary skills to thrive in today's economy?
    Mr. Calemine. Thank you for the question. That is because 
unions organize and bargain contracts that set up and utilize 
apprenticeship programs. The unions help train a workforce, a 
highly skilled workforce. It is sort of a method of development 
rather than of a workforce and improving people's lives. It is 
a little different from the notion of how right to work laws 
have worked, which is more about runaway shops.
    I think we have seen over the last couple decades that if 
you live by a runaway shop, that is by chasing smokestacks, 
trying to get a factory from a non-right to work State to move 
to a right to work State, that runaway shop remains a runaway 
shop. You live and perish by those things. They will move 
elsewhere to China, to Mexico, and so forth.
    With apprenticeship programs, unions are helping develop a 
workforce, a highly skilled workforce in whatever industry they 
are working in, and it is a vital benefit to the entire country 
and the economy.
    Mrs. McBath. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Ms. Houchin 
from Indiana for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Houchin. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I am going to blame Mr. 
Bean for that. Thank you to the witnesses for testifying for us 
today. Thank you to the Chairman for having a hearing. I am 
really happy to be part of the Education Committee, 
particularly with its emphasis on the workforce.
    As you may know, since Indiana adopted its right to work 
legislation in 2012, we were the 23d State in the country to 
adopt that. Since that time we have seen a nearly 15 percent 
increase in manufacturing employment, according to the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics. Meanwhile, during the same timeframe non-
right to work states raised their manufacturing employment by a 
mere half a percent.
    Mr. Mix, a majority of states have passed right to work 
laws. As you know, these laws provide workers with the freedom 
to choose how to spend their hard-earned paychecks. Indiana's 
increase in manufacturing employment after becoming a right to 
work State proves companies are more interested in operating in 
right to work states.
    Why do companies so highly value states with right to work 
laws?
    Mr. Mix. Yes, Congressman, thank you for the question. 
Indiana is kind of interesting because Michigan and Indiana are 
the two states that passed right to work laws in 2012, led the 
Nation for the next 2 years in manufacturing job growth, and it 
has really benefited Indiana.
    Really, there has been no question about the benefit to 
Indiana. Union officials object to it obviously, because they 
cannot compel people to pay dues or fees to get to keep their 
jobs. As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, when you look at 
site selection criteria and folks that are consulting on 
issues, I think the Fantis Company, one of the largest site 
selection relocation companies in the world said that 50 
percent of all their clients say we are not going to go to a 
right to work state--or a State that does not have a right to 
work law.
    The benefit from a manufacturing standpoint is demonstrable 
at this point. I mean there is no question about that. For 
whatever reason that they may go, based on the answer to the 
last question, the right to work is part of that equation, and 
that means that they can have this relationship with their 
employees, talk to them directly, and most of the time if an 
employer is not taking care of their employees guess what?
    They will get a union. They will deserve a union. Employers 
these days understand as Congressman Allen indicated, that 
employers have to go find their workers now, and they have to 
take good care of them, and they have to take care of wages and 
benefits and be competitive.
    You know, only 6 percent of the private sector workforce in 
America today is unionized, and that is not because they do not 
have the ability to unionize, it is because as Gallop said, 58 
percent of non-union employees have no interest whatsoever in 
joining a union and certainly the American people oppose force 
and compulsion.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you. I remember during the debates on 
right to work in Indiana there were shouts of the sky is 
falling, it is going to be terrible. There were scare tactics 
claiming the death of the unions were yet to come. The sky did 
not fall in Indiana and unions still exist in Indiana, and 
right to work states, and as you said, if it provided a good 
benefit people would want to voluntarily join for their own 
benefits.
    I have heard opposing arguments saying that employees in 
right to work states are paid less, receive fewer benefits than 
employees in similar states that are not right to work, but I 
have not seen that to be the case in my home State. Have you 
found that to be accurate in other states?
    Mr. Mix. Yes, we have. As I mentioned previously, when you 
overlay a cost-of-living index on wages, you find out that 
workers in right to work states have at least $3,000.00 more in 
disposable income per capita in the states that allow for a 
worker to choose whether or not to join or pay dues to a union.
    Ms. Houchin. The Biden administration has issued numerous 
decisions that undermine employee free choice and strengthen 
labor union's ability to force representation on unwilling 
workers. I just do not believe it should be compulsory. I am 
not anti-union. I just do not think people should be forced to.
    I was a State employee in Indiana before Mitch Daniels took 
away the ability for public sector unions, and they often spent 
my dues on political campaigns for ideologies that I disagreed 
with. I do not think that folks should have to spend their 
hard-earned money for compulsory dues, particularly when those 
dues support political positions and parties and candidates 
whose policies go against their own values.
    The arguments made by some of our democrat colleagues 
against right to work laws, in many cases, just are not true. 
Despite Indiana being a right to work State we still have 
unions. Wages are up. Jobs are up. It does not make unions go 
away. It just simply provides employee choice.
    I am a proud supporter and cosponsor of the National Right 
to Work legislation in this Congress. I have seen firsthand the 
positive effects of it in my own home State. I am happy to 
support it. Thank you to Mr. Wilson for bringing it forward. 
Thank you to the witnesses, I will give you the last word, Mr. 
Mix.
    Mr. Mix. Yes. If could, you know, and that is an important 
fact you make. We believe that right to work laws hold union 
officials accountable. When workers can vote with their 
pocketbooks about whether or not they want to support a union 
when they are out playing politics, or doing things that have 
nothing to do with the shop floor, but everything to do with 
what is happening in Indianapolis, or Washington, DC. or 
Sacramento, or Jefferson City, or Tallahassee, or Columbia, 
wherever they are.
    It would focus them on the shop floor because that is where 
they have to be accountable. Right to work laws allow workers 
to hold union officials accountable in the workplace.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Mrs. Hayes 
from Connecticut for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hayes. Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses for being 
here today. Before I begin my questions there are just a few 
things that I want to touch upon from some of the things that 
have been said previously. Mrs. Geary, I want to tell you that 
no one should be threatened, harassed, or tricked into joining 
a union, and quite frankly those things are illegal, and not 
representative of unions as a whole.
    I am sorry if that was your experience, but you should have 
won a lawsuit if that was the case because that is not what 
unions do. To piggyback on what my colleague from New Jersey 
said about who is looking out for the little guy. I am a 
teacher by profession, and when the Trump tax cuts went into 
place the $250.00 in tax benefits that teachers used to be able 
to claim for out-of-pocket expenses was taken away.
    I guess my question is who is looking out for the little 
guy if big corporations are the focus of the Republican-
controlled Congress? Much of what we hear about right to work 
states is about grievances against unions, so what happens when 
the employees in those states have grievances against the 
employer?
    Who is looking out for them? Then just finally, about the 
endorsements and spending money on political campaigns. I was a 
member of many different unions, and there is always an 
election, and unions respect the outcomes of elections when 
they decide who to endorse, or who to contribute to. It is not 
just a decision made in a vacuum where, I mean I am sure there 
are people who do not vote for--who their candidate or their 
person is not the one who wins, but there is an election.
    The union has to respect the outcomes of the election. My 
questions, we have seen mobilizations in labor, the labor 
movement this year. Last year, a number of workers represented 
by unions rose by 273,000. Over the past 6 months, nearly 
700,000 workers have won pay increases because of collective 
bargaining.
    Across the country workers are seeing corporations enjoy 
incredible profits while the workers are left behind with 
stagnant wages. Thanks to persistent negotiations and several 
notable strikes, organized labor and collective bargaining have 
seen tremendous victories this year.
    Last month, the United Auto Workers secured a 25 percent 
wage gains from the Big Three automakers. In August, Teamsters 
ratified a new contract with UPS to win higher wages and a 
commitment to improve delivery trucks with something as basic 
as air-conditioning.
    In my State of Connecticut, we ranked ninth nationally for 
workers represented by a union. In October, nurses in my 
district secured a 3-year contract with numerous economic 
victories, while statewide pushes to improve hospital staffing 
have gained momentum. My question, Mr. Calemine, in your 
testimony you referenced a 2023 Treasury report on the impact 
unions have on non-union workers.
    Can you explain how a national right to work law may hurt 
workers who have chosen not to organize in their workplace?
    Mr. Calamine. Yes. Thank you for the question. Essentially 
it is designed to weaken unions, to reduce the unionization 
rate. That is what a right to work law is designed to do. When 
that happens workers at union facilities lose leverage and do 
not get as high a raise in their contracts, or as good a 
benefits as they might otherwise have over time if they were 
able to exercise full bargaining strength.
    That means that the non-union employers feel less pressure 
to raise their wages to try and compete with the unionized 
employers for workforce, or to try and fend off an organizing 
drive, which I have heard here I wish we lived in a world that 
was kind of described where people were free to join unions.
    We do not live in that world. Workers have to run a 
gauntlet of intimidation and fear tactics, and firings to try 
and win unions every day in this country. It is amazing that 
they are making the progress that they are making now. It shows 
how fed up people are, but the labor law needs to be reformed 
in a dramatic fashion to really protect workers and guarantee 
their right to organize a union.
    Mrs. Hayes. You have kind of answered my second question, 
which was while unions are making huge gains for workers, it 
remains critical that there is a level playing field and some 
of those barriers are removed. Last year, we heard testimony 
from Dr. Kate Bronfenbrenner who testified of the numerous 
tactics that employees are faced with when trying to join a 
union and prevented.
    If we are truly having an honest conversation, and it is 
about employees having the right to join a union if they 
choose, then the barriers and the games that are played to 
block them from doing that should not be a part of the 
conversation. With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Banks from 
Indiana for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mix, recently it 
seems like most unions are going woke. I do not know if you 
would agree with that or not. Just the case in point, the SEIU 
has been pushing for ``trans inclusive healthcare''. The 
Teamsters have been encouraging their rank-and-file members to 
share their pronouns, and earlier this year the AFL-CIO 
declared it was time to ``organize and mobilize against attacks 
on abortion.''
    My dad, a lifelong member of a union, he worked hard all of 
his life in a factory. I do not think he would support most of 
those woke causes, nor do I believe most members of these 
unions would support those causes. Why are these unions going 
so woke?
    Mr. Mix. Congressman, thanks. I think because they have the 
power of compulsion and force. I mean, Congressman Norcross 
talked about you know you can get out of your taxes, and you 
shouldn't be forced to pay taxes if you disagree. Well, that is 
government. These are private organizations, and they should 
not have the power of force.
    Because rank and file workers can't hold them accountable 
in states where they are compelled to pay dues or fees to keep 
their jobs, the union has the ability to talk about anything 
they want frankly, because the money comes in monthly through a 
dues deduction program, and is a condition of employment.
    Mr. Banks. Why does the leadership of these unions thumb 
their nose at their members? I mean that's the crazy part of 
it. My dad would not support any of these causes. He is pro-
life, he is pro-family, he supports the Second Amendment, but 
the leadership of these unions are so--have distanced 
themselves so much from their rank-and-file membership.
    I understand why they get away with it, but why do they do 
it? Like what motivates them to go down that woke, left wing, 
radical political path that does not represent the members of 
their union?
    Mr. Mix. Yes, you are absolutely right. The chasm between 
union officials and rank and file workers is growing wider and 
wider all the time because they can, and that is the point of 
this bill by Congressman Wilson. Again, it does not take away--
it does not add a single word to Federal law.
    It just simply says let us have voluntary unions, which 
gives rank and file workers the ability to hold their union 
officials accountable when it comes to these types of 
positions.
    Mr. Banks. Yes. I want to talk about Indiana. I know 
Representative Houchin did as well. We passed--it has been a 
decade now that we passed right to work in Indiana. Can you 
talk about some of the benefits, how that has benefited 
Indiana? Have we done any studies since then? I mean the data 
seems to support the case that right to work worked for 
Indiana.
    Mr. Mix. Yes, indeed your colleague was talking about that 
in her questions and comments about manufacturing job growth, 
and employment job growth, and wage growth in the State of 
Indiana. In fact, Congressman you know, given your experience 
in Indiana, that Indiana led the Nation in new manufacturing 
jobs shortly after passing the right to work law.
    It was Mitch Daniels, your Governor, who opposed right to 
work, who after a year of watching at work he said I may have 
made a--underestimated the impact of right to work when it came 
to job creation, new jobs, wage increases, and economic 
benefits that Indiana still is recognizing today.
    Mr. Banks. Can you compare that to Michigan? Michigan 
quickly followed Indiana's lead, but then they because of 
political pressure by democrats in the State they pulled it 
back. What was the outcome for Michigan? Indiana seems to have 
benefited from Michigan's misguided decision to hold back on 
the right to work.
    Mr. Mix. Well, Congressman the right to work law is still 
in effect. It will be in effect until February because it 
basically takes effect. The repeal takes effect 90 days after 
the legislature signee dies--and they did, so come February 
there will be workers in Michigan who heretofore have decided 
not to pay union dues. They will get a dues deduction out of 
their paycheck again as a condition of their employment.
    Michigan again, it was Michigan and Indiana that passed 
right to work laws in 2012. Indiana first, and Michigan trying 
to copy you that led the Nation in manufacturing job growth for 
the 2-years prior to the--or after the passage of the right to 
work law. I suspect that things are already happening in 
Michigan that will probably stymie economic development and 
growth and investment in that State because of the repeal by 
one vote in both chambers.
    Mr. Banks. Can you point to data, or evidence that workers 
in Michigan, or especially in Indiana have actually even union 
workers, have even benefited from higher wages because of right 
to work laws?
    Mr. Mix. Yes. Absolutely. We talked a little bit about 
that, but in fact in Indiana, Congressman, you may remember 
this, but the year after right to work passed, union membership 
actually increased in your State. Workers said you know what? I 
want to commit to this, and union officials started going out 
selling a product to the workers in Indiana, where their union 
membership actually increased.
    We know that when we compare costs of living, when we 
actually adjust wages to the cost of living, that workers in 
right to work states in Indiana are better off by about 
$3,000.00 in per capital disposable income.
    Mr. Banks. Yes. I just think it is crazy that the--not 
anti-union, grew up in a union family, I think it is crazy 
these union officials are so detached from their members that 
they become arms and tools of the democrat party, rather than 
representing the working class values of their membership, and 
I think you have made a case for that as well as the rest of 
you, so with that Mr. Chairman I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Banks. Now we will recognize 
my friend from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mix, in 
your testimony, did I understand that you believe there is a 
bias in favor of compulsory unions in present law?
    Mr. Mix. Absolutely.
    Mr. Scott. Okay.
    Mr. Mix. Categorically.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Calemine, it is been pointed out 
that you are a former member of the staff on this Committee, 
welcome back.
    Mr. Calemine. Thank you.
    Mr. Scott. A lot of good work when you were here. A lot has 
been said about the accountability of union leadership. How do 
you hold a union--how do union members hold their leadership 
accountable?
    Mr. Calemine. Unions are democratic organizations, and so 
members have a voice in that organization. They have freedom of 
speech. They get to vote on who their officers are. They can 
run for office. They get to vote on all kinds of things. In 
fact, once you unionize a workplace, it is a gateway to 
democracy.
    You vote on your officers, your shop stewards, you vote on 
whether or not you are going to ratify a contract. You vote on 
who is going to be on the bargaining committee and what their 
priorities should be. You have a whole lot of choices, and when 
you do not have a union, you do not have any choice, you 
basically live at the whims of the employer. The employer 
decides unilaterally what the terms and conditions of 
employment will be.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. In the Chair's opening remarks he 
mentioned a members' only contract where you can have a 
contract that would justify all the raises and whatnot--just 
apply it to union members. Is that present law?
    Mr. Calemine. Thank you. There is an argument that it can 
be done. The problem with it is that there is no obligation on 
an employer's part to bargain in good faith with members of 
this notion of a member's only minority union that just 
covering a small group of people. There is no obligation for 
that employer to actually sit down and in good faith bargain 
with such a group.
    The good faith bargaining obligation only attaches when you 
go to an NLRB election or go through voluntary recognition and 
show majority support of the entire bargaining unit.
    Mr. Scott. Which requires you to do--to represent all the 
members of the bargaining unit equally. That means even to the 
individual level if you provide a lawyer to someone with a 
grievance who is a union member, you would have to provide the 
same kind of lawyer to a non-member at union cost, paid for by 
dues paying members.
    Mr. Calemine. Correct.
    Mr. Scott. Now if someone elects not to join the union and 
pays the fair share, are they contributing to political 
activities?
    Mr. Calemine. No. If they are agency fee objector, then the 
union every year is figuring out how much of its costs go to 
things like politics, and how much goes to things germane to 
collective bargaining, and providing a rebate, or reducing the 
fee by that amount so that an agency fee objector is not paying 
for political activities.
    Mr. Scott. They are not paying for the holiday party?
    Mr. Calemine. It depends on what the holiday party is. You 
are talking about a union holiday party at the union 
headquarters?
    Mr. Scott. Yes. Or somewhere, it does not have anything to 
do with the bargaining contract or anything.
    Mr. Calemine. Things that are not germane to collective 
bargaining are not--they will not pay for those as part of 
those agency fees; correct.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. The sanction for an unfair labor practice, 
such as firing someone for supporting a union, what is the 
present deterrent effect of the present sanctions? What does an 
employer have to pay?
    Mr. Calemine. After sometimes years of litigation to try 
and win your job back, if you have been fired for trying to 
organize a union, the employer is not fined in any way by 
Federal law. All the employer has to do is provide back pay to 
that employee, or that former employee, that fired employee, 
minus any interim earnings they might have earned because they 
had to go out and feed their family.
    They might have gotten another job, so the employer 
benefits from whatever wages that worker got in the meantime.
    Mr. Scott. If they were working, if they were trying to 
organize a non-union shop and got a union job somewhere, they 
could have been paid more, so there would be what, no sanction?
    Mr. Calamine. Right. They would not have lost any interim 
earnings.
    Mr. Scott. There is no sanction?
    Mr. Calamine. Correct.
    Mr. Scott. For firing someone, unfair labor practice. Now, 
if you are the victim of an unfair labor practice, what 
compensation do you get?
    Mr. Calamine. You get a make whole remedy if you are the 
victim, and you will, I guess it is just the reverse. You would 
get like whatever you would have earned in the interim since 
the reinstatement is ordered, whatever earnings you would have 
lost if you had not been fired you would get that amount of 
money.
    Mr. Scott. Minus what you made on the side?
    Mr. Calamine. Minus what you made on the side, correct.
    Mr. Scott. Which means years later you might not get 
anything?
    Mr. Calamine. Correct.
    Mr. Scott. For getting fired?
    Mr. Calamine: Correct.
    Mr. Scott. What kind of message does that send to all the 
other people that are thinking about organizing a union?
    Mr. Calamine. It says do not try this. That is the message 
it sends. The other part of the remedy is that you get 
reinstated. By the time you are reinstated years later, the 
organizing drive--many of your coworkers may have already left. 
The people that were trying to pull together and make a 
difference, the workplace has changed.
    Employers, anti-union employers exploit these weaknesses in 
the labor law to bust union drives all the time and there are 
countless victims out of there of it.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. Now we will recognize Dr. Foxx, 
or Mr. Burlison from Missouri for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Calamine, I want 
to ask you--I am going to give you a quote, and I am going to 
ask you if you agree with the statement. This is by President 
John F. Kennedy in the 1962 Executive Order 10988. He said 
employees, when he used to talk about employees, he said shall 
have and shall be protected in the exercise of the right, 
freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal to form, join 
and assist an employee organization, or to refrain from such 
activity. Do you agree with that? That quote?
    Mr. Calamine. I agree with that. Yes.
    Mr. Burlison. You do agree that there should not be any 
kind of reprisal for someone who chooses not to join the labor 
organization?
    Mr. Calamine. Correct. Including firing.
    Mr. Burlison. An employee who is saying I am not joining, I 
am not paying dues, you are saying that that person should keep 
their job. They should not be fired?
    Mr. Calamine. There is a distinction in the law between 
joining as a member and meeting your financial core obligations 
as part of this workforce that is all receiving the benefits of 
the contract and the benefits of the representation to pay your 
fair share.
    Mr. Burlison. There is no--yes, substantively there is no 
difference. At the end of the day, what they are--like this is 
a termination request letter. Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
submit this to the Committee. This is a recommended letter, or 
template on how to fire employees to the employer if the member 
does not pay union dues.
    Chairman Good. Without objection.
    [The information of Mr. Burlison follows:]
     GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

    
    Mr. Burlison. Mr. Mix, I am from--I am really jealous of 
the people that were, you know, sitting on either side of me--I 
am from Missouri, a State that sadly forces everyone to pay 
membership dues, or pay dues to a union whether they want to or 
not. What we have experienced in Missouri is a giant sucking 
sound of jobs migrating across the borders into nearly every 
neighboring State that provides workers the choice of whether 
or not they want to join a union.
    What I found fascinating was when we actually looked at the 
data in Missouri, is that it was not just that the entire State 
was losing jobs, the border counties were losing jobs at an 
even greater rate. Is that what's happening in other states?
    Mr. Mix. Yes. Absolutely. When you do a study of like maybe 
a 30-mile radius on the border of a State, right to work State 
versus non-right to work State, you see that Oklahoma saw that 
when they were investigating, and that was one of the main 
reasons why Frank Keating decided they needed a right to work 
law because of that drain.
    Congressman if I can say, it was not for your lack of 
trying, right? For sure.
    Mr. Burlison. Right. Well, you know, it has been mentioned 
the free rider issue to which I do not think--I think when it 
comes to this country, I think that is a false issue in this 
regard. There are countless associations that advocate for 
individuals in any other form of labor, whether the Nurse 
Aestheticist Association, the Physician Association, the AARP. 
This country does not put in law a forced requirement that 
every senior citizen in America has to pay the AARP to 
reimburse them for their advocacy.
    That is because this is America. We believe in the right of 
association. I will say I have heard the free rider argument, 
while I disagree with it. Let me--I think I may have a 
solution. That would be this bill that I am going to be 
dropping next week called the Worker's Choice Act to directly 
address this issue, and what it does is it would allow workers 
in a right to work State to opt out of the union and represent 
themselves before their employers.
    It would free unions from having to represent so they do 
not--the union no longer has to represent that person. They do 
not have to pay for the attorney. They do not have to do the 
work for this person, as well it would give the worker the 
option to be a union member and accept the working conditions 
negotiated by the union, or leave the union membership behind, 
negotiate for compensation, working conditions independently, 
and provide for their own representation. Your thoughts on 
that?
    Mr. Mix. Yes. It sounds good to me. The idea of this so 
called free rider argument, we call it a captive passenger 
argument because Federal law gives union officials the ability 
to compel that representation of workers that may disagree. In 
that case, interestingly enough Mr. Congressman, comes from a 
Supreme Court case in 1944 called excuse me, Louisville 
Nashville Railroad v. Steel, where white union officials said 
they did not want to represent black workers on the railroad.
    The Supreme Court looked at their power that is derived 
from 19, you know from the Wagner Act saying wait a minute, you 
have power equal to a legislative body as it relates to the 
power you have over the workers that are ``in your unit''. It 
was racism by white union officials that it created its duty of 
fair representation, which the union embraced and do not want 
to give up because it gives them tremendous power over the 
workplace.
    That is what basically says yes, you have got to give the 
same due diligence and fiduciary relationship to non-members as 
you do members because it started out as racism because of this 
power they had over all the workers in the union, even those 
that did not vote for it, did not want for it, did not ask for 
a unionization.
    Chairman Good. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank you, 
Mr. Burlison, and now we will recognize Dr. Foxx from North 
Carolina for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our 
witnesses today for being here, and especially for all of the 
history lessons that we are getting today. I think it is 
wonderful that we can get a good perspective on what has 
happened in the past, so I thank you.
    Ms. Vargas, under Federal law every private sector employee 
has a right to choose whether or not to authorize automatic 
payroll deductions of union dues from their paycheck or become 
a union member. In your current position as a public defender, 
you are represented by the United Autoworkers. Could you 
discuss whether UAW officials, who are supposed to represent 
your best interests, respected your rights to make choices 
about automatic dues deductions and union membership?
    Ms. Vargas. I was ignored. When they--I just was ignored, I 
was totally ignored by the officials of the UAW, and they did 
not explain anything to me. It was my insistence, and having to 
go after them, and constant emailing them was before I got a 
response. Even then the onus is on the individual. They will 
not help you. They did not help.
    Mrs. Foxx. Okay. Thank you very much. Ms. Geary, according 
to your written testimony when you worked as a nurse at Kent 
Hospital in Rhode Island, the hospital was unionized by the 
United Nurses and Allied Professionals. You did not vote for or 
support the union, however under Federal law you are forced to 
be represented and work under a collective bargaining agreement 
negotiated by a union you did not support.
    Can you discuss whether you think it is fair that you were 
forced to associate with a union that you wanted nothing to do 
with?
    Ms. Geary. No. I do not think it is fair that I was forced 
to participate and pay dues and fees in this union. As a matter 
of fact, not only was I forced to do so, but because I was 
outspoken as to my opinion regarding this union, I was 
punished. I was punished on the job. I was punished personally. 
I was followed home at night. I was threatened by union reps. I 
was told my car would be keyed.
    It was a nightmare for me. I hear a lot here about unions 
and the wonderful things they do. I think a lot of this is a 
facade. I represent the reality of what really happens to 
people who want to exercise their First Amendment rights of 
freedom of speech, and freedom of association, and that is how 
I feel.
    This is America. We should be allowed to choose, and if 
unions are that good, they will sell themselves.
    Mrs. Foxx. Yes. I think you are right. I agree with you 
completely. Mr. Mix, right to work detractors say the law is 
unfair to unions. They usually cite the ``free rider'' argument 
that right to work laws allow workers to benefit from union 
representation without paying for it, and again thank you for 
the little history lesson that you just gave.
    Can you respond to the free rider argument, and discuss why 
unions jealously guard their monopoly status?
    Mr. Mix. Yes. That is right. There is a couple of quotes 
there that are pretty interesting. Bill Gould, who was the 
general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board in the 
Clinton administration said that workers, the law would allow 
for member only bargaining, et cetera. Obviously, there are 
issues that need to be settled.
    I think the most relevant quote was from Robert Reisch, who 
was the Secretary of Labor at the time. He said, ``Unions have 
to have a way to strap their members to the mast,'' and boy if 
that is what the Secretary of Labor says about how union 
officials need to treat their members, they are worried about 
workers defecting from the union.
    The only way they can guarantee they do not is to force 
them under these compulsory unionist regimes. It just does not 
make any sense. If they really are doing great things as 
Jeanette said, they will attract workers. I mean build it and 
they will come.
    We believe that, and I do not think there is anybody on the 
panel from that side or this side that would block an 
individual's right to join a union, associate with a union. 
Again, give their entire paycheck to a union, but force and 
compulsion have no place in this--whether it be in this law or 
in State law.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much and I completely agree with 
you. I yield back Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. We are almost done. We 
will now recognize our Ranking Member, the distinguished 
gentlemen from California, Mr. DeSaulnier.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to Chair 
Foxx, I love the history lessons. I can remember just as Ms. 
Foxx was saying that, growing up in Lowell, Massachusetts as a 
young person and listening to my grandparents' generation 
talking about the first union movement in the textile mills in 
Lowell.
    The women's textile workers who organized, and then what 
happened over the course of time is that as their wages came up 
a lot of those mills moved to the south, so history does repeat 
itself. What we are really trying to do here is find a balance 
between the employer and the employee.
    To the two witnesses, I am sorry what I have heard of your 
personal experience. That was not my personal experience as a 
member of the Teamsters and a member of the Hotel and 
Restaurant Workers. Mr. Calamine, and I do want to welcome you 
back to the Committee as Mr. Scott was saying that I was 
thinking of my predecessor, Mr. Miller, who used to work for is 
looking down on both of us and smiling.
    Although knowing his personality as we do, we probably know 
he would probably be a little bit--his Irish would be up on 
some of the conversation. What we are trying to do is find a 
balance here, Mr. Calamine. We have talked about the difference 
between right to work and states like mine, California, the 
fourth largest economy in the world.
    It has very strong labor protection laws. Could you talk a 
little bit about globally? A lot of what my perception in this 
is to make these human institutions work as best they can, 
which I think in goodwill we are all trying to do in the 
balance, as a former employer whose made a lot of--paid a lot 
of purveyors and workers overtime in non-union restaurants, in 
a union area.
    I am trying to get this balance right. Lincoln famously 
said labor and capital have to be balanced. If capital ever 
gets the advantage, you have lost democracy. There is balance 
in here. In a world where a concentration of wealth is so 
extreme, not unlike my grandparents' generation, the gilded 
age, that led to the depression and two world wars, you have 
got a lot of concentration of wealth and a lot of concentration 
of corporate power publicly traded and private.
    The union movement has seen a resurgence is--if any 
indication of what we said. I attribute that to Americans 
understanding they have to have a stronger voice in a world 
that's different. We look at competing economies, the Germans, 
they have a strong labor movement. It is part of their culture 
of the craft system.
    Could we compare a little bit about the world in terms of 
being competitive? We know that like the Chinese right now we 
have got a lot of comments about as our middle class grows 
there is more demand for worker voice. Could you speak to that 
a little bit in your research and your observations? Not just 
the regional differences, but being globally competitive?
    Mr. Calamine. Globally, I think, I grew up in West 
Virginia, and it was a manufacturing area. A lot of factories 
around the town where I grew up. Globally, I would start 
nationally and then go globally. Globally, or nationally 
rather, when those plants, most of them--I believe most of them 
were unionized and at bargaining time I heard the refrain 
growing up.
    Unions need to be careful to not ask for too much because 
they will just move to a right to work State they will move 
south to a right to work State, to Mr. Wilson's State for 
example. Those lower--that is these states where workers are 
not negotiating their terms and conditions of employment with 
their employer, they are just taking whatever the employer 
gives them, undercut the standards in the State where I was 
growing up.
    Eventually, some of them would move south. Now what we have 
is a global economy where there are countries that are also 
undercutting even the right to work states. If these 
factories--and that is why when we start with this notion like 
let us look at manufacturing employment. Why? That is--those 
are the jobs that are most easily moved around, and so yes, 
right to work states pulled the manufacturing jobs away from 
non-right to work states.
    Now, places like China or Bangladesh when it comes to 
textiles, with much lower standards of employment of--of rights 
for workers, are--have been pulling those jobs away from--from 
even those right to work states. It is a balance of like 
finding the right way to ensure that Americans--because we want 
Americans to grow up with, or Americans to have access to the 
American dream, and an ability to sit down and negotiate as 
equal partners as much as possible with capital to help build a 
middle class.
    It was thanks to unions that we grew that middle class 
during the period before all the union busting really took off 
since the 1970's or so.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. Perfect. I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. DeSaulnier. I now recognize 
myself for 5 minutes. Ms. Geary, would you say that forced 
union membership, forced union dues had a positive impact on 
your or your coworker's relationship with your employer?
    Ms. Geary. No. Not at all. That was one of the biggest 
regrets in why 150 nurses signed by decertification petition, 
and it is because we did not know that once a union came in we 
would not have access to our managers and administrators in 
order to manage our own jobs.
    We are professionals, and all of a sudden, we were cutoff 
from the decisionmaking process of caring for our patients.
    Chairman Good. Did you have an opportunity to work in a 
right to work State also?
    Ms. Geary. I was in North Carolina for a decade. Things 
there were very, very different. I moved there after I lived in 
Rhode Island as a matter of fact, and I made frankly, I made 
about double the pay. I felt more supported.
    Chairman Good. You made about double the pay in North 
Carolina?
    Ms. Geary. In North Carolina, yes sir.
    Chairman Good. Without the help of a union.
    Ms. Geary. Pardon?
    Chairman Good. Without the help of a union, you made more 
pay? Interesting--to make sure that was true.
    Ms. Geary. Correct. I was making around 25 something in 
Rhode Island. In North Carolina I was making 50 to 60 dollars 
an hour. With an open-door policy that I could talk to 
administration or management at any time. Now we all had 
frustrations, of course.
    Chairman Good. I am sorry. I have to interrupt a second. 
You mean your employer paid you double without a union forcing 
that to happen?
    Ms. Geary. In North Carolina? Right. I was offered a job 
with double the pay that I was receiving in Rhode Island with a 
union in place. That is correct.
    Chairman Good. Very good. Ms. Vargas, if I may, UAW 
officials threatened to claw back a salary increase that you 
received, and threatened your employment when you did not sign 
the card to allow the automatic dues deduction from your 
paycheck. How do you think if a national right to work had been 
in place how that might have been different for you?
    Ms. Vargas. I am sorry. I would not had to have dealt with 
it at all. I would not have had to even file with the NLRB. I 
could have negotiated for myself and probably I believe I would 
have gotten a better salary increase if I negotiated for 
myself. I would have had to endure what we faced, being 
threatened to lose our jobs after almost 30 years working 
there.
    Defending, and that became the other problem. They changed 
the nature of my office where it became so focused on the 
union, and not what we were really there for, which was to 
provide defense for indigent clients.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. Mr. Mix, wage negotiations, 
managing a contract, addressing workers' safety, this is what 
the average person might assume that a union is using their 
money for. Things that theoretically improve the workers' 
conditions, but sadly we know that billions of union dollars 
are going to political causes, and lobbying activities.
    The numbers we have are that 1.2 million went to Planned 
Parenthood. 15.9 million to the Democratic Governors 
Association. 1.6 billion, billion with a B for the 2022 
election cycle going to democrats. Would you say that works 
related to negotiate a new contract for individual workers or--
what are your thoughts on how those union dues are actually 
used?
    Mr. Mix. In part of our work at the Legal Defense 
Foundation we argued a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1988 called 
Beck vs. Communication Workers of America, where when the 
special master was assigned to kind of discover some 
information, found that the union was only spending 19 percent 
of their entire revenue stream on collective bargaining 
contract negotiating grievance arbitration.
    The things that are supposedly fundamental. I mean just 
looking through reports that the union filed with the FCC and 
the DOL, you find them spending billions. I do not know, 
billions does not mean much around here anymore frankly, 
accounting errors and pocket change.
    Chairman Good. We deal in the trillions now, yes.
    We--you know if you use the decision in the Janice v. 
AFSCME case in the Supreme Court in 2018 that freed all 
government employees being--from being forced to pay union dues 
or fees, and you used the mindset that articulates that the 
First Amendment protection, and that everything that government 
unions do is designed to redress government, which should be 
protected speech--it is under the First Amendment thanks to the 
Foundation's lawsuit that we won in 2018--the numbers grow 
quickly to almost 12 billion dollars on political and lobbying 
activities in a 2-year period.
    Chairman Good. Individuals like Ms. Vargas and Ms. Geary 
who have--have to pay those union dues though they may not 
choose to, 80 percent of that is for political activities they 
did not choose to spend their hard-earned dollars on. Well, my 
time has expired, so I will end on time. I will now recognize 
our Ranking Member for a closing statement.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to thank 
you for having this hearing. Obviously, we respectfully and 
passionately disagree. Right now, in the largest concentration 
of wealth in the history of this country arguably, where 
capital so dominates labor in the spirit of Lincoln and 
Eisenhower, it is important that workers have a voice.
    Is that voice perfect? No. You have elections. Lots of 
people do not like when they lose elections. Some of them very 
prominent nowadays, and even contest those elections, despite 
all the evidence. That is the way the system works. Right now, 
what I worry about is what Pickerdy has written about, so in 
tedious detail that in capitalistic economics when you get this 
imbalance, there is inevitably an implosion.
    What are we going to do about it? What is Congress doing to 
do about it? I think it is really important that labor has a 
countervailing institution to capital. Lincoln was right. It is 
not that capital is bad, but when it is so concentrated as 
Lincoln said, capital is derived from labor. You have to have 
people working first.
    The institution that protects people in a large global 
economy that we have available for us is labor. I have heard 
colleagues who like me, were members of a labor union, and had 
family members. They understand the value of labor. What we are 
arguing about I hope here today, is trying to keep ordinary 
workers having a voice.
    I think that is the determination that brings a passion to 
me to get that right. What I am concerned about, and Bob Reich 
who is a friend, your quote is not unlike him, but it is in the 
context of a very large approach where his argument of course 
is you do not have a middle class if you do not have a consumer 
class. It is the Henry Ford argument; I want my workers to be 
able to buy my product.
    That is what we are trying to get to. Unfortunately, it is 
very much swayed. It is hard for people to organize. It has 
been hard before, and it will be again. Non-union employer's 
benefit from this. Ms. Geary, good that you made that extra 
$25.00 an hour, as a non-union member.
    Our argument is the unions helped you because absent that 
historically there would not have been that competition and we 
see it in the UAW argument where the non-union employers almost 
immediately went to give the benefit. I would say, as a former 
point of sale retailer in the restaurant business, the more 
disposal income, there is more, cost of living is higher, but 
also people have more discretionary income, so they go in, they 
can invest, or they can go in and buy dinner or lunch at the 
local restaurant.
    Getting that balance is a challenge. Mr. Chairman, I wish 
we could have--we disagree on many things, but I think we both 
have mutual respect and a cordial relationship. These are the 
kinds of conversations we can have passionately, but we have to 
look at the outcomes.
    I do not have any doubt that the outcome we have to have in 
this country is a strong middle class where people have 
disposable income, and I also have a very firm commitment that 
and belief that if you look at history the ability for people 
to organize, have an election as freely as possible, gives them 
that voice that is equal to, or at least somewhat equaled to 
capital.
    When it comes to contributions, when you look at the record 
just from American's prosperity, from the Koch industries 
group, they are spending on independent expenditures dwarfs 
labor and working people in the last 30 years. Dozens and 
hundreds of times, probably, so arguing that there should be 
more accountability. Okay, let us be fair. Let us be fair about 
corporate interest and capital interest privately held in their 
contributions and let us have transparency in that.
    As much as I appreciate this conversation, I wish it would 
be more constructive toward getting which--at least body 
language-wise I am getting from you Mr. Mix. I would be happy 
to have that conversation is how do we get more balance, what 
Lincoln was talking about, which then creates this middle 
class, which is the spirit of what President Eisenhower said 
when he had the quote that I had, is getting that more 
balanced.
    I do not see this bill, with all due respect to my friend, 
Mr. Wilson, as helping that. I will yield back with those 
comments, and looking forward to a more fruitful, honest, 
passionate discussion where we might actually agree on some of 
these things.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. DeSaulnier. You know, it is 
interesting as has been noted several times today, particularly 
by Mr. Mix, that the vast majority of Americans do not work 
under a union. 94 percent is the statistic that I have seen 
that you have confirmed today, and that is perhaps why they do 
have a favorable opinion of a union, but they still do not want 
to be part of one.
    If you do not work under one, you know, it is kind of like, 
okay I like it for you, but I certainly do not want it for me, 
certainly not from a forced standpoint. I especially also 
appreciated the testimony of Ms. Vargas and Ms. Geary for 
sharing how you personally suffered under forced, compulsive 
union membership and union dues, and your willingness to help 
others benefit from your experience today with your testimony.
    The Ranking Member said hey, your experience did not match 
his, but I suspect that is true because he did not resist 
forced union membership or compulsory dues payments. His 
experience may have been different if he had resisted as you 
all did. Unions are predominantly in blue states, I will point 
out, from which people are fleeing in record numbers, to free 
right to work red states.
    Why is that? Are the American people stupid? Do they not 
know what is best for them? Why do they not want unions? Let us 
let the marketplace dictate. Give freedom to employers, freedom 
to businesses, freedom to job creators, and yes, freedom to 
workers and employees.
    Right to workforces competition. Right to workforces unions 
to earn their support and demonstrate the majority consensus 
for their existence, that is why you hear such resistance to 
what we are talking about today from my friends on the other 
side. If right to work was a bad thing, free red states would 
be suffering and stagnating, while anti-choice blue states 
would be growing and flourishing, but we all know the opposite 
is true.
    I worked for a union shop, a UAW shop in college in an auto 
factory. Unions cultivate an unhealthy, us first mentality in 
the workplace. This is not the same country it was 70 years 
ago, in terms of protection of worker's rights when President 
Eisenhower was proposing or promoting unions.
    Unions give you the right to strike--yes, they do. They 
give you the right to lose your job, and the right to have your 
plant closed. That is what happened in the place that I used to 
work by the way. A growing number of Americans have chosen 
again not to join a union. Union's help create a disgruntled 
employee atmosphere mentality.
    The fact is unions again contribute tens of millions of 
dollars to democrat campaigns, using the very dollars that are 
withheld from un-consenting employees. The only ones who really 
win with the union are union bosses and democrat politicians. 
With the union membership at an all-time low, there is no 
reason why we should today be forcing employees to give some of 
their hard-earned paychecks to union bosses.
    I also want to point out that something that was mentioned 
in the opening statement from the Ranking Member, he said 
earlier the right to work movement started to stop the 
advancement of black workers who organize through unions. I 
would point out that the black, excuse me, the Biden 
administration is doubling down right now on a pro-union racist 
law with a nefarious history, the Davis-Bacon Act is a 
conglomeration of many Jim Crow era policies that were intended 
to inflate the wages of government contractors and eliminate 
competition for labor in favor of white union workers.
    Under Davis-Bacon the Department of Labor substitutes its 
own contrived, non-scientific calculations of prevailing wages 
for actual market wages. The Department of Labor's calculation 
uses inflated union wages to determine what workers should get 
paid, and the Biden administration has unilaterally and 
arbitrarily expanded the Davis-Bacon wage rules through 
regulation, which is harmful to workers across the country.
    I do have legislation to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act, which 
would help remove these discriminatory laws from the books and 
save taxpayer money. I openly State that I believe that unions 
are harmful to the workplace, and I do not support them in any 
fashion. While I do support, of course, the legal right of 
workers to organize and choose for themselves.
    There are lots of things that I do not support in this 
country, that I believe should be legal, including the right to 
organize and choose for yourself. I also support the 
fundamental right for employers to resist unions. That is 
important.
    The administration today does not support that of course, 
and that is why they want to pass the PRO Act. I will remind my 
colleagues today that national right to work does not 
technically threaten unions, it just ensures that everyday 
Americans like Ms. Vargas and Ms. Geary do not have to be 
threatened by a union anymore.
    The truth is, and we know this to be the truth, passing the 
right to work, national right to work, will practically result 
in reduced union power, and hopefully union membership for 
those and reduce union membership to those who actually choose 
to join and fund a union, and that is a good thing in my 
opinion and in my experience.
    I hope we can move this legislation forward so that we can 
continue to protect worker's rights and liberties and fight 
against the Biden administration's big labor bias, which is 
hurting the country and hurting workers all over the country. 
With that, I would like to thank again our witnesses for 
appearing today, taking the time to be with us and testify 
before the Subcommittee. Without objection, there being no 
further business, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon at 12:21 p.m., hearing was adjourned.]
     GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT