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


                 BIG LABOR LIES: EXPOSING UNION TACTICS
                       TO UNDERMINE FREE AND FAIR
                               ELECTIONS

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

                                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

                                SECOND SESSION

                               __________



              HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 22, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-51

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
  
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


        Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
        
                              __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
57-136 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------             
      
                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
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York           FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York

                       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 May 22, 2024.....................................     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

    Messenger, William L., Vice President and Legal Director, 
      National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation............     9
        Prepared statement of....................................    12
    Alcorn, Michael, Crew Member, Trader Joe's...................    20
        Prepared statement of....................................    23
    Rhinehart, Lynn, Senior Fellow, Economic Policy Institute....    25
        Prepared statement of....................................    27
    Delie, Stephen, Director of Labor Policy, Mackinac Center for 
      Public Policy..............................................    33
        Prepared statement of....................................    35

 
                 BIG LABOR LIES: EXPOSING UNION TACTICS
                       TO UNDERMINE FREE AND FAIR
                               ELECTIONS

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, May 22, 2024

                  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., in 
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Good 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Good, Walberg, Allen, Burlison, 
Foxx, DeSaulnier, Norcross, Wild, McBath, Hayes, Manning, and 
Scott.
    Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Nick Barley, 
Deputy Communications Director; Mindy Barry, General Counsel; 
Isabel Foster, Press Assistant; Daniel Fuenzalida, Staff 
Assistant; Sheila Havenner, Director of Information Technology; 
Trey Kovacs, Professional Staff Member; Georgie Littlefair, 
Clerk; John Martin, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy/
Counsel; Hannah Matesic, Deputy Staff Director; Audra McGeorge, 
Communications Director; Rebecca Powell, Staff Assistant; Kelly 
Tyroler, Professional Staff Member; Seth Waugh, Director of 
Workforce Policy; Maura Williams, Director of Operations; 
Brittany Alston, Minority Operations Assistant; Ni'Aisha Banks, 
Minority Staff Assistant; Ellie Berenson, Minority Press 
Assistant; Nekea Brown, Minority Director of Operations; Ilana 
Brunner, Minority General Counsel; Raiyana Malone, Minority 
Press Secretary; Kevin McDermott, Minority Director of Labor 
Policy; Paola Milbank, Minority Intern; Dhrtvan Sherman, 
Minority Committee Research Assistant; Banyon Vassar, Minority 
IT Administrator.
    Chairman Good. The hearing on the Subcommittee on Health, 
Employment, Labor and Pensions will come to order. I note that 
a quorum is present. Without objection, the Chair is authorized 
to call a recess at any time.
    President Biden's radical labor policies have damaged fair 
and open labor relations between employers and employees, and 
are fundamentally reshaping the labor landscape. Upon taking 
office, President Biden declared his intention to govern as the 
most pro-union President in history.
    Well, President Biden has kept his promise, and proven to 
be the most partisan, big labor President since FDR, and the 
Nation is worse off for it. Today we will examine the three 
main ways in which unions have been emboldened under this 
President's leadership to pursue bad faith organizing tactics.
    First, unions conduct corporate campaigns to damage a 
company's image and reputation. Corporate campaigns often 
involve a range of disruptive attacks, such as frivolous legal 
challenges, political schemes, or public relations assaults. 
The goal is to force the company to surrender to union demands, 
regardless of whether those demands are in the best interests 
of the business, or its employees.
    These corporate campaigns often lead to another tactic, so-
called neutrality agreements. These agreements are often 
misrepresented as a peaceful way to allow unionization efforts 
to proceed without employer intervention. The reality is that 
these neutrality agreements can be coercive and undermine the 
rights of both employers and employees.
    They typically implement gag clauses, hardship provisions, 
and force employers to give unions access to workers' private 
personal information. Finally, unions want to install 
undercover salts, which is when a union organization covertly 
seeks employment at a company with the primary intention of 
organizing the workforce from the inside and filing frivolous 
labor practice charges against the employer.
    This is a highly disruptive scheme that harms the business, 
reduces productivity, and generates employer and employee 
conflict. These tactics do not align with the principles of a 
fair and open organizing process. The Biden administration's 
promotion of many of these unfair schemes are yet more examples 
of their efforts to facilitate power grabs by union bosses.
    Forcing President Biden's favorability is cratering with 
union households. American people are seeing Biden's big labor 
bias for what it is, anti-worker and anti-business. In fact, 
polls show that union households have shifted 6 points for 
President Trump since 2020.
    The American people understand that President Biden's 
economic policies actually harm working class families. The 
biggest factor in raising worker's wages is a strong economy, 
like what we had under President Trump's leadership, not the 
hyperinflation causing policies known as Biden Economics.
    Going forward, we should ensure that both employers and 
employees can express their views openly and honestly in a 
labor dispute and allow any negotiation to be conducted in good 
faith, absent union intimidation. With that, I yield to the 
Ranking Member for his opening statement.
    [The statement of Chairman Good follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 
witnesses. I am tempted to quote Ronald Reagan, ``there you go 
again.'' ``Trickle down will work for everybody just trust 
us,'' but I guess I did do that, I apologize. I wish we could 
focus on a strong economy where it benefits everybody.
    It is pretty clear that when workers have a voice, whether 
they be unionized or not, and clear to me that the union 
movement helps union members and non-union members to have that 
voice. At a time where we are at the highest level of 
inequality in the history of this country, where the average 
union worker's hourly wage is about $23.00 an hour, but the 
average wage of the Fortune SP 500 corporations is almost 
$9,000.00 an hour.
    In 1965 when union membership was at its highest, and our 
economy was amongst the best it has ever been in history, there 
was a clear correlation between the pay for CEOs and their 
workforce. It is now only almost 400 times the average worker. 
In those days it was three times, so something is amiss.
    I am for fair organizing, legal organizing, and I think the 
vast majority of the people in the union movement do that. If 
they can talk honestly to their members, or their prospective 
members, then we can have a fair conversation. High road 
employers realize that. They realize their workforce is the 
essence of their success.
    I knew that when I was a small business owner. I have been 
a union member before I was a restaurant owner. I understand 
the importance of the relationship between the workforce and 
the profitability of a business, whether it be small or S&P 
100.
    I believe both can prosper. As a matter of fact, I think 
both must prosper in the United States of America for it to 
work for everyone. The folks who make this country work are the 
folks that are asked to defend this country in its moment of 
need through history. If they do not feel part of the overall E 
pluribus unum, out of many, one, then it does not work, and 
that is what is happening right now.
    That is what President Biden and we are attempting to do. 
Given the title of this hearing and the Chairman's opening 
statement, it feels this is designed to be another in a series 
of hearings undermining workers' right to organize and 
collectively bargaining--not making sure that the rules are 
clear to both parties, and that they both adhere to them.
    Let us make one thing clear. Workers are their union. When 
my colleagues and their large corporate allies attack unions, 
they are attacking workers who are seeking a better life and 
want to achieve the American dream. They are attacking people 
like Priscilla, a union cook in San Francisco. After joining 
UNITE HERE Local 2, of which many years ago I was a member of, 
Priscilla and her coworkers' collective action helped them win 
family healthcare. She also won job security. Priscilla says 
``my union contract gives me a sense of security that I am 
always going to be able to provide for my family.''
    It is not just Priscilla who benefits through her union, 
research consistently shows that when workers band together to 
have a voice and exercise their right to organize, they have 
higher pay, better benefits, and safer workplaces.
    Research also shows that non-union workers benefit from it 
as well. In fact, 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 to 15 percent 
more likely to have paid leave, and 53 percent more likely to 
have defined pension plans, benefit pension plans.
    Unions also help grow the economy from the bottom up and 
the middle out and increase economic mobility for historically 
underserved and overlooked communities. As we fight for the 
equity and justice in the workplace, unions uplift workers' 
voices and push for better, safer working conditions.
    Unfortunately, today, right wing billionaires just cannot 
get enough. Their funded organizations and Republicans are 
attempting to weaken worker's rights to organize and 
collectively bargain through anti-worker legislation. Not only 
is the majority fighting to get workers' rights and ability to 
win a strong contract, they also want to tie the hands of 
employers who voluntarily choose neutrality and respect their 
workers' choice on union representation.
    Companies like Microsoft and Akash Systems recognize that 
you do not have to fight your workers tooth and nail. The Vice 
President and Deputy Counsel General of Microsoft said its 
neutrality agreement with the Communications Workers of America 
``reduced friction, it built relationships with our workers.''
    She even recommended other businesses rethink neutrality 
agreements and respect workers' choice. For all the majority's 
talk of restrictions on employers, they are now meddling with 
an employer's ability to facilitate a positive relationship 
with organized workers, for the employers who want to be high 
road employers.
    The focus of this hearing also completely ignores the 
primary obstacle that workers face in exercising their freedom 
of association--aggressive and pervasive union busting. The 
reality is that many unscrupulous employers, not all, not the 
high road employers like Microsoft, are threatening, 
surveilling, and firing workers for their union interest and 
activity without any meaningful repercussions because of the 
lack of civil penalties on the law and severely underfunded 
National Labor Relations Board.
    The Biden administration has made significant progress 
toward cracking down on dishonest employers, and supporting 
workers' right to organize, and respecting high road employers. 
However, we still have a long way to go. That is why we must 
work together to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, 
or the PRO Act.
    I am proud to join Ranking Member Scott, Representative 
Brian Fitzpatrick, in reintroducing this landmark proposal from 
last year. The bipartisan PRO Act would rectify the weaknesses 
in the NLRA and level the playing field in the workplace by 
strengthening, not weakening workers' basic right to join or 
form a union and holding unscrupulous employers accountable.
    Labor unions have always led the fight toward many of the 
critical advances in today's workplace, and we will continue to 
guide workers to securing higher wages, better benefits, and 
safer workplaces. What is more, unions create workplace 
democracies. This is a choice, so that workers have a real 
voice in their conditions.
    An attack on labor unions is an attack on workers and their 
families. We should keep that front and center during this 
morning's hearing. Thank you for your time, and I yield back.
    [The statement of Ranking Member DeSaulnier follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. DeSaulnier. 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 
o'clock p.m., 14 days after the date of this hearing, which is 
June 5, 2024.
    Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 
14 days to allow such statements, and other extraneous 
materials referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the 
official hearing record.
    I now turn to the introduction of our distinguished 
witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Bill Messenger, who is the 
Vice President and Legal Director for the National Right to 
Work Legal Defense Foundation located in Springfield, Virginia. 
Welcome, sir.
    Our next witness is Mr. Michael Alcorn, who is a Crew 
Member for Trader Joe's in Hatfield, Massachusetts. Welcome. 
Our third witness is Ms. Lynn Rhinehart, who is a Senior Fellow 
in the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, DC. Welcome.
    Our final witness is Mr. Stephen Delie, who is the Director 
of Labor Policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in 
Midland, Michigan. Welcome, sir.
    We thank the witnesses for being here today, and we look 
forward to your testimony. Pursuant to Committee Rules, we 
would ask that you limit your oral presentation to a 5-minute 
summary of your written statement.
    We would also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of 
their responsibility to provide accurate information to the 
Subcommittee. I will now recognize Mr. Messenger for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF MR. BILL MESSENGER, VICE PRESIDENT AND LEGAL 
  DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, 
                     SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA

    Mr. Messenger. Chairman Good, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today. The point of my testimony is straightforward, 
secret ballot elections and free speech are far superior to 
card checks and censorship.
    Before discussing that point, I wanted to note that an 
individual's right to choose whether to associate with a union 
should not be put to a majority vote at all, regardless of the 
process. The First Amendment guarantees to every person the 
individual right to choose whatever organization he or she 
affiliates with.
    We do not put to a vote what church people must belong to, 
what political party they must affiliate with, what advocacy 
group they must be a part of. It is an individual choice. That 
same principle should apply to unions. Whether any worker 
associates with a union should be that individual's choice, and 
not a collective decision.
    Unfortunately, Federal law collectivizes that decision. 
Federal labor law provides that workers must accept union 
representation if at some moment in the past, even if decades 
ago, a majority of workers in the workplace supposedly 
supported a union. What is more, Federal law authorizes forcing 
workers to pay dues to that union even if they do not want to 
be a member. I submit that this is inconsistent with basic 
precepts of free association.
    At the very least, Congress should pass a National Right to 
Work Act, and guarantee that every worker at least has the 
freedom, not to be forced to pay dues to a union to keep their 
jobs. However, if the government is going to persist with this 
collectivist approach, at the very least they can provide 
workers with a democratic process for choosing or rejecting a 
union. At a minimum this means secret ballot elections and free 
speech.
    Secret ballot elections and free speech are the backbone of 
our political process, and the political process of any nation 
that could call itself a democracy. With the secret ballot, 
voters can vote their conscious without worrying about 
intimidation or threats. With a free flow of information, they 
can make an informed decision.
    Unfortunately, union organizers often attempt to rob 
employees of their right to vote in secret ballots, and of the 
right to free speech with union organizing agreements. In these 
agreements they try to supplant that process with card check 
and with censorship of employer's speech about unionization.
    I submit that is nothing like a democratic process. I mean, 
just imagine if the ruling party of a Third World nation 
decided to use such a process instead of having secret ballot 
elections for political office. Instead of having elections, 
the ruling party would go around people's homes and workplaces 
and collect votes for the party.
    Instead of free speech, only the ruling party will be 
allowed to campaign, campaigning by the opposition party would 
be banned. If and when the ruling party collects a majority of 
votes from the citizens, the ruling party is declared the 
winner in perpetuity and does not have to stand for re-
election.
    That is very similar to what employees face under union 
organizing agreements. Union organizing agreements generally 
supplant secret ballot elections card check recognition, where 
union organizers go to employee's homes and to their workplaces 
to collect votes for the union, mainly by getting them to sign 
union membership cards.
    Union organizing agreements almost always contain gag 
clauses that censor the employer from speaking about 
organization, therefore ensuring that employees only hear one 
side of the story that is spun by the union. If and when the 
union collects cards from a majority of employees, it 
presumptively becomes the employee's representative forever, 
because nothing in the National Labor Relations Act requires 
unions to stand for re-election.
    I submit this process is nothing akin to a democratic 
process that would be allowed in any sort of political 
democracy. Unfortunately, the Biden National Labor Relations 
Board is getting into the act, and also trying to repress 
secret ballot elections and free speech, even though the NLRA 
favors both. The National Labor Relations Act favors secret 
ballot elections and does not mandate card check.
    In fact, Congress, you have repeatedly refuse to amend the 
National Labor Relations Act with the PRO Act and other things, 
demanding card checks. The Biden NLRB is trying to do an end 
run around Congress by mandating card check with its Cemex 
decision, which allows fair labor practice, according to the 
Biden Board, for an employer to recognize a union based on 
cards.
    Turning to free speech, the Supreme Court has recognized 
that the National Labor Relations Act favors a robust, open and 
wide-open debate about labor disputes. Employees have an 
explicit right to receive information about unionization.
    Notwithstanding what the National Labor Relations Act is 
supposed to do, the Biden NLRB is cracking down on employer 
speech as much as it can, and trying to suppress any speech 
that it deems critical of unions, and of unionization. I submit 
this is wrongful. The American workers deserve secret ballot 
elections and free speech, not card checks, and censorship.
    Congress can make that a reality in a variety of ways. 
There are several bills pending, and in fact, the National 
Labor Relations Board could go a long way to fostering 
elections and free speech, if only it would stop trying to 
throttle both, and enforce existing law against union 
organizing agreements.
    I submit the Board should try to be part of the solution 
instead of being part of the problem. Thank you Chairman Good, 
and I look forward to answering everyone's questions.
    [The Statement of Mr. Messenger follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Mr. Alcorn 
for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL ALCORN, CREW MEMBER, TRADER JOE'S, 
                    HATFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

    Mr. Alcorn. My name is Michael Alcorn. I have been a Crew 
Member at Trader Joe's for nearly 10 years. Thank you for 
allowing me to share my experiences with the Trader Joe's 
United Union at my store in Hadley, Massachusetts. Prior to the 
campaign, I had no first-hand experience with unions. My only 
thought on unions was that they looked like a positive unifying 
force.
    The realities I experienced both during and since the union 
campaign, were not positive or unifying. From the beginning of 
the campaign everything was----
    Chairman Good. Pardon me. I am going to ask you to pull 
that microphone a little bit closer to you, so we can hear you 
better, if you would. Yes, right up, we are just having trouble 
hearing you.
    Mr. Alcorn. Should I start again?
    Chairman Good. Yes. Let us restart the clock and let him go 
again, please.
    Mr. Alcorn. Okay. Thank you so much. From the top. My name 
is Michael Alcorn. I have been a Crew Member at Trader Joe's 
for nearly 10 years. Thank you for allowing me to share my 
experiences with the Trader Joe's United Union at my store in 
Hadley, Massachusetts. Prior to the campaign, I had no first-
hand experience with unions. My only thought on unions was that 
they looked like a positive unifying force.
    The realities I experienced both during and since the union 
campaign, were not positive nor unifying. From the beginning of 
the campaign everything was very one-sided. The organizers used 
with us or against us tactics that did not promote all voices, 
but only the union position. I first heard about the 
unionization efforts from a coworker in May 2022.
    They told me our conversation must be kept confidential, or 
people might get fired. I responded that I did not think we 
needed a union, but I would be willing to talk about it. The 
organizer then told me that all we need to initiate a union 
election was for 30 percent of the store to say they would be 
willing to have a union election, and then we could talk about 
it.
    I stated that I would support an election because I thought 
that there would be some sort of a meeting where we would all 
get together and discuss this. That never happened. A few days 
later the organizers petitioned for an election, claiming they 
had majority support, and that Trader Joe's should recognize 
this union without a vote.
    This would have forced many of my coworkers into a 
unionized environment without any prior knowledge, or the 
ability to be a part of making that decision. I was lied to by 
the organizer. They misrepresented what was really needed in 
order to have a union election, which is 30 percent support for 
a union, not an election.
    To this day I wonder how many of my coworkers might have 
gotten the same deceptive pitch and signed union cards. The day 
the petition was filed the organizers made inaccurate and 
incomplete press releases, creating false narratives about our 
workplace to promote their own agenda, and personal vendettas.
    We did not appreciate these few coworkers portraying our 
workplace in a negative light. It was extremely disheartening 
and embarrassing. Our customers were supportive of our rights 
to organize, which we appreciated, but we wanted them to know 
that the union campaign was not representative of all of us.
    I asked the organizer why did he not come speak to all of 
us about our experiences before putting out a one-sided video? 
They said they had to do it this way, and that you have to 
surprise the boss when organizing a union. This really upsets 
me, because up to this point, I worked in a positive, civil and 
respectful workplace. It was not just surprising the boss, it 
was organized in secret and surprised your coworkers.
    Then make them feel like if they do not vote for the union, 
they do not care about their coworkers. When some of us 
attended an informational gathering hosted by the organizers to 
ask questions, we were promptly called anti-union. Some 
coworkers were told that they might be racist if they do not 
vote for the union. It became clear that not only was the union 
going to attack Trader Joe's, they were attacking the 
credibility of any member of the collective and opposition to 
unionization.
    Anyone speaking up was smeared by the organizers as moles 
for the company, incapable of having any credible concerns or 
independent agency. After an organizer realized I was not 
onboard, they told me that they could not answer any more of my 
questions because they needed to focus on the people who would 
help them win.
    I called the NLRB, expecting them to be able to offer some 
advice, and to see if the organizers had any duty to disclose 
information that would be relevant to their representing me 
should they win. The NLRB agent told me that it makes sense 
that the organizers would only talk to the people who already 
support the union.
    Anyone voicing any concern was essentially excommunicated. 
We were made to feel as if we would not be represented if we 
were not onboard before the vote. Many of us were devastated 
when the union won. People who were against the union were 
harassed in the parking lot after the results were announced.
    Shortly thereafter, with only selective notification, the 
union held an officer election. Only a quarter of the 
collective were present. Of those, a few handful voiced their 
concerns about having an election without notifying everyone. 
The union proceeded anyways. I was later told by a coworker 
that one of the organizers told them they purposely did not 
advertise the election, so that they could get the right people 
in.
    When I spoke to the Department of Labor, I was told that 
while they do have strict rules to guarantee fairness in union 
elections, they could not guarantee fairness in this election 
because it was a new union.
    In my research I couldn't find any oversight as to how a 
union creates a constitution, so it seems as if the union can 
elect whomever they want, however they want, and create the law 
and power structure of the union without the consent, or even 
knowledge of the collective.
    All the intimidations and pressure has been a lot for us to 
take. We have begun to collect signatures to decertify this 
union. They have done nothing, but be adversarial, misleading, 
exclusive, and discriminate against anyone who challenges or 
disagrees with them. It seems their only tactic is to paint 
Trader Joe's as a bad company, while also seeking to silence 
those of us who do not agree.
    Supporting workers should mean supporting all workers, not 
just pro-union workers. Workers should never have 
representation imposed upon them. Not all unions are good. We 
are not dumb, and Trader Joe's did not union bust us not to 
vote for this union. This was a bad faith union. Thank you.
    [The Statement of Mr. Alcorn follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Ms. 
Rhinehart for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MS. LYNN RHINEHART, SENIOR FELLOW, ECONOMIC POLICY 
                  INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Ms. Rhinehart. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Good, 
Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and members of the Subcommittee. 
Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Lynn 
Rhinehart, I am a Senior Fellow at the Economic Policy 
Institute, which is a nonprofit think tank here in Washington, 
DC. that focuses on economic issues as they affect working 
people.
    This hearing is taking place at an exciting time. Workers 
are organizing at their workplaces at levels we have not seen 
in years. Support for unions is at its highest in decades, 
particularly among young workers. Union membership has 
increased in each of the last 2 years. Workers are filing more 
petitions for union elections and are winning a higher 
percentage of elections.
    They are seeing the gains that unionized workers have won 
at the bargaining table, such as higher wages, an end to two 
tier wages, and more, and workers are taking action to win 
these same sorts of improvements at their own workplaces. 
Research tells us that tens of millions of workers would choose 
union representation today if they had the chance.
    Unfortunately, our labor law is stacked against them 
because it gives employers too much leeway to interfere when 
workers try to organize, and there are literally no monetary 
penalties for going over the line and breaking the law. Two 
recent union election campaigns helped illustrate my point.
    Last Saturday, the National Labor Relations Board announced 
that 1,700 workers at Disneyland--Disneyland, who work as 
costumed characters like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, voted 
overwhelmingly to unionize with Actors' Equity.
    Disney has a long history of working with unions. It is my 
understanding that Disney did not run a campaign against the 
union but left the choice to workers who voted overwhelmingly 
to unionize.
    Leaders of the organizing drive said it was a win-win 
situation. They said, ``You can be pro-Disney and pro-union at 
the same time,'' the day before the NLRB announced that workers 
at two Mercedes plants in Alabama had voted against unionizing 
with the United Auto Workers.
    Unlike Disney, Mercedes, which has a long history of 
working with unions in Europe, reportedly engaged in an intense 
anti-union campaign, with daily anti-union messages, regular 
anti-union captive audience meetings, firing and retaliating 
against union supporters, and more.
    These campaigns wear workers down. As one worker was quoted 
as saying, ``Everyone is just sick and tired of it.'' Mercedes 
conduct is being investigated by the German government for 
violating German law, and charges have been filed alleging that 
Mercedes violated U.S. labor law.
    If the NLRB finds that Mercedes crossed the line and 
illegally interfered with their workers' organizing rights, 
Mercedes will face no monetary penalties under U.S. law. None. 
There has been a lot of talk today about employee free choice 
and the suggestion that an NLRB election is the best, or 
perhaps only way to assure employee free choice about whether 
to unionize.
    Under our law, the NLRB election process does not 
necessarily provide a fair choice because of the employer anti-
union campaigns leading up to the election that our law allows.
    Imagine an election for public office when only one party 
had direct access to the electorate and could communicate with 
the electorate every day leading up to the election on work 
time about their preferred candidate.
    While the other candidate was relegated to talking with 
voters in the parking lot, or on the street, while voters were 
leaving their shifts and trying to get home or trying to get to 
work on time. That is hardly fair, but that is our system.
    Then there is the subtle or not so subtle pressure about 
how things will get worse if workers choose to unionize. These 
employer campaigns are incredibly powerful and effective, and 
employers know this because the bottom line is that workers do 
not want a fight with their employer. They want a union and a 
collective voice to make their jobs better.
    That is why we should support employers and unions coming 
together to reach agreements on how organizing campaigns will 
be handled. There is nothing improper about these agreements. 
They lower the temperature, establish basic ground rules, and 
in so doing they actually facilitate employees having a free 
choice about unionizing, which is everybody's goal and is what 
our law is supposed to protect.
    We should support these agreements, not criminalize them, 
as one of the bills being discussed today would do. In sum, 
workers want unions. Unions help all workers, both union and 
non-union, in winning better pay, benefits, and fairness on the 
job. We all saw the UAW bump--the pay raises that non-union 
auto plants gave their workers after the UAW's historic 
contracts last fall.
    We should be focused on ways to make it easier, not harder, 
for workers to exercise their rights to form and join unions. 
Passing the Protecting the Right to Organize Act and the Public 
Service Freedom to Negotiate Act would be a great place to 
start. Thank you, and I would be happy to answer your 
questions.
    [The Statement of Ms. Rhinehart follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize our final 
witness, Mr. Delie, for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN DELIE, DIRECTOR OF LABOR POLICY, 
      MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN

    Mr. Delie. Chairman Good, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and 
members of the Subcommittee. Good morning and thank you for 
having me. My name is Steve Delie, and I am Director of Labor 
Policy for the Mackinac Center, a 501 C-3 research and 
educational organization that advances the cause of free 
markets and limited government.
    I am here today to support policies that will better enable 
workers to make a free choice about unionization in the 
workplace. These policies are necessary because the current 
administration, including the National Labor Relations Board 
under Chairwoman Lauren McFerran, have encouraged the adoptions 
of policies that favor unions over workers.
    Today I would like to discuss those policies, as well as 
three bills that advance the cause of worker freedom, namely 
the Employee Rights Act, the Workers Choice Act, and the Start 
Applying Labor Transparency Act.
    For decades, unions have been aggressively pursuing an 
organizing strategy based on a process known as card check, 
which is an alternative to this tradition secret ballot 
election. Secret ballot elections are the gold standard for 
unionization determinations, and both the NLRB and courts have 
recognized as such.
    Despite this, unions have aggressively pushed for card 
check. Card check occurs in public, which itself puts undue 
pressure on employees. While this pressure alone is a problem, 
a far more troubling issue is that card check campaigns open 
the door to deception and coercion.
    Past union tactics have included threats of violence, 
deportation, and even lying about the effect of signing a card. 
Whether it be through deception, coercion or pressure, card 
check campaigns necessarily distort employees' true opinions 
about unionization.
    One technique unions use to avoid secret ballot elections 
is to convince or to coerce employers into entering into so-
called neutrality agreements.
    Although styled as an agreement by an employer to maintain 
neutrality throughout a unionization campaign, these agreements 
silence employers and deprive employees from hearing all of the 
facts regarding unionization. To obtain neutrality agreements, 
unions often turn to a tool known as a corporate campaign.
    A corporate campaign occurs when a union attempts to 
accomplish labor goals through economic or legal pressure. In 
some cases, corporate campaigns have even caused businesses to 
close entirely, an outcome that has been praised by union 
organizers. Shutting down a business is a message to other non-
union businesses might be a win for unions, but it does little 
to help the workers who end up unemployed.
    Another example of the unfair playing field labor law is 
known as salting. Salting is the union practice of hiring 
workers to create discontent amongst employees, while 
encouraging unionization. While employers are required to file 
detailed reports on their consultants, unions are not.
    Congress should level the playing field. Workers' rights to 
a fair election are under threat. The most significant 
legislative threat to the secret ballot is the PRO Act. Under 
the PRO Act, employers accused of interfering in an election 
must prove their innocence, or risk being ordered to bargain 
based on card check.
    This is particularly problematic thanks to the NLRB's 
recent decision in Cemex. The ongoing attacks against workers' 
rights to a free and fair election have not gone unnoticed. 
Ongoing efforts at both the Federal and State levels are 
advancing the cause of worker freedom.
    At the Federal level the Employee Rights Act, the Workers 
Choice Act, and the Salt Act, are all meaningful steps toward 
ensuring workers have a free and fair choice about 
unionization. While the ERA advances several policies, the most 
relevant to my testimony today is its guarantee of a secret 
ballot election.
    The Workers Choice Act ensures that workers opting out of 
union membership have the chance to represent themselves in 
employment matters. The Salt Act, meanwhile, ensures that 
unions and employers are treated equally. I urge the passage of 
all three acts, which together will eliminate many of the 
concerns that I have identified today.
    The states have also recognized the importance of ensuring 
workers can make a fully informed choice about unionization. In 
2023, Tennessee became the first State in the Nation to adopt a 
law requiring secret ballot elections as a condition of 
economic development funding, with both Georgia and Alabama 
quickly following suit.
    These states are at the forefront of pushing back against 
Federal overreach and are ensuring workers can make a fully 
informed decision about unionization. Congress should heed this 
growing chorus of State voices and enact common sense reforms 
to protect workers.
    The Employee Rights Act, Workers Choice Act, and Salt Act 
are all significant steps in the right direction and should be 
adopted. Congress can, and should, go further, and ensure that 
labor law as a whole is premised on the principle of truly 
voluntary association.
    I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 
today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The Statement of Mr. Delie follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Mr. Allen [presiding]. I want to thank our witnesses. Under 
Rule 9, we will now question witnesses under the Five-Minute 
Rule. I will wait to ask my questions later. First, I would 
like to recognize Mr. Walberg from Michigan, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the panel 
for being here today. This is an important topic, and it goes 
around and around and around. It comes back, goes forward, 
comes back. Nonetheless, good to have you here today.
    The National Labor Relations Act was created by Congress to 
provide a level playing field between employers and union 
leaders, but most importantly, it was designed to protect the 
right of workers to make free and informed decisions about 
whether they want to join a union.
    Unfortunately, as Mr. Alcorn stated so clearly in his 
testimony, there are cases where information is being 
misrepresented, and workers are being deceived during a 
unionization drive. I appreciate the Committee holding this 
hearing today to discuss tactics that sometimes go against 
democracy in the workplace very clearly.
    Mr. Delie, thanks for being here. I sure appreciate the 
Mackinac Center over the years, many years now, that I have 
been affiliated with your position, sometimes positions that go 
against my party's policy. You have taken a strong stance on 
the issue of law and policy that works within our Constitution.
    As you State in your testimony, secret ballot elections are 
the gold standard for unionization determinizations. I agree, 
and as we all know in Congress, the higher the voter 
participation the better. What I am concerned about is data 
showing that in multiple union elections, less than a majority 
of employees participated.
    Specifically, in 2023, there were 146 elections in which 
less than a majority participated, and 44 elections in which 
less than one-third of the employees participated. This is 
concerning because in these cases a small minority of workers 
determine workplace representation, which may not reflect the 
true wishes of the majority of workers.
    Mr. Delie, does the National Labor Relations Board require 
a certain percentage of employees to participate in an 
election?
    Mr. Delie. Generally speaking, no, Representative. The 
National Labor Relations Act says that the elections have to be 
conducted by a majority of employees in the unit, but that 
definition has been stretched over the years, and I can give 
you an example.
    Most recently in Riverside, California, there was an 
election at a Starbucks franchise. That election was won by the 
union with 11 percent support. There were 20 workers at that 
franchise, 3 voted in favor, 1 opposed, 24 abstained, and that 
union stands a good chance of being recognized anyway.
    We have gotten away from a point where at least a quorum of 
employees, even, are voting on this issue.
    Mr. Walberg. Okay. Does the current National Labor 
Relations Board have policies to incentivize high voter 
participation among a potential bargaining unit, Mr. Delie?
    Mr. Delie. Yes, they do. For the past several years the 
NLRB has been advancing both mail in ballots and more recently 
electronic ballots. This is despite the fact that statistics 
have shown these reduce voter turnout relatively significantly. 
In Aspirus and Keweenaw, which is the 2020 NLRB decision, even 
the NLRB recognized that those statistics show that when you do 
remote voting you lose out on a lot of the participation.
    By encouraging that you are discouraging a truly 
representative election.
    Mr. Walberg. Then finally, what benefits do you think could 
be gained by having a minimum threshold for participation and 
representation elections?
    Mr. Delie. Well, I think that would be very consistent with 
the original purpose of the Act. I mean when you are talking 
about unionization, it is supposed to be representative of the 
will of the majority of employees of a workplace.
    Well, if you have an extreme minority voting and making the 
determination for the majority, you lose out on that level of 
democratic support, so I think at the very least a quorum of 
employees should be necessary in order to have a union 
recognized.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Mr. Alcorn, thank you for being 
here. You mentioned in your testimony you tried to get the 
basic pros and cons. Both sides of the issue on unionizing 
Trader Joe's. How did Trade Joe's United organizers react to 
Trader Joe's crew members requesting information about the 
union?
    Mr. Alcorn. As I stated in my testimony, they were pretty 
dismissive of us and were trying to silence our questioning as 
soon as they could, which is why I felt the need to call the 
NLRB, because I did not really know what our rights were in 
this moment. They seem to also intimidate our workplace into 
making us feel like we could not even discuss these issues with 
our mates in the store, and we have really good relationships 
in the Trader Joe's.
    It has a different setup than maybe other workplaces, and 
so it was really hard for us not to be able to have those 
conversations with our mates.
    Mr. Walberg. Yes, thank you. I hope in the future your 
experience changes in the proper way.
    Mr. Alcorn. Thank you.
    Mr. Walberg. I yield back.
    Mr. Allen. The gentleman from Michigan yields. I now 
recognize the Ranking Member for the purpose of questioning the 
witnesses. Oh, Ms. McBath, excuse me, Ms. McBath from Georgia, 
I now recognize you for the purpose of questioning the 
witnesses.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you Ranking 
Member DeSaulnier, and your staff, and to our witnesses. Thank 
you so much for being with us today. This is the fifth anti-
union and anti-worker hearing that the majority has held this 
Congress. It is no coincidence that these are coming at a time 
when unions are successfully organizing and negotiating in some 
of the most difficult places in the country.
    Instead of addressing the working conditions and the wages 
that are driving this wave, my colleagues would rather change 
the rules now that they feel that they are not getting their 
desired effect of suppressing union membership. Regardless of 
what you may hear from our Republican colleagues today, the 
deck is stacked against unions and working families.
    To say otherwise is to undermine American workers and their 
families in favor of companies that time and time again violate 
Federal labor laws. The stakes in these negotiations are not 
even. When a store is closed due to shutdown attempts to 
organize, or workers illegally fired for exercising their right 
to organize, they lose their livelihood.
    They wrongfully lose their ability to provide for 
themselves and their families for weeks, for months, or 
sometimes even a year at a time. Even if the National Labor 
Relations Board comes back in a few months with a finding that 
the company did indeed violate the workers' rights, the 
paychecks have simply stopped.
    Their kids still need to eat. Their lights must still stay 
on, and their rent is still due. Despite violating the law, the 
company has removed a worker who was legally just simply 
exercising their rights in the workplace, all at zero cost to 
the employer. The stakes are far higher for workers and their 
unions. These families live under the very real threat that 
their employer could simply shut down the store or fire them 
just simply on a whim.
    They are held to the expectation that they will still have 
to do their best work with that knowledge, while they wait and 
hope that they have enough money saved up to hold themselves 
over until they can find another job. Companies can move on 
like nothing happened, while workers lose their main source of 
income and face life altering consequences for themselves and 
for their families.
    These are entirely different levels of impact that we are 
talking about here this morning. These misguided attacks on 
unions and working families are simply wrong. Instead of 
changing the rules to make it harder for workers to organize, 
we should be doing what we can to ensure that every American 
worker can exercise their right in the workplace without fear 
of being wrongly terminated.
    Ms. Rhinehart, can you use what time that we have left 
remaining in my 5 minutes to discuss how important it is that 
we fully fund the National Labor Relations Board? Thank you.
    Ms. Rhinehart. Thank you for your statement, and for that 
question. It is essential that the National Labor Relations 
Board be fully funded, which it is not currently. It is very 
underfunded relative to the task at hand. The National Labor 
Relations Board is responsible for protecting the organizing 
rights of 100 million workers, and they receive about 300 
million dollars a year, and it has been flat funded for a very 
long time, except for an increase a couple of years ago.
    What this means is that the National Labor Relations Board, 
particularly in the regions, is very understaffed. The workload 
is very high and case processing is very slow, so to the 
example that you provided in your comments about a worker being 
illegally fired for being pro-union and trying to organize a 
union at their workplace, the investigation of that charge is 
slow.
    The NLRB's action to try to seek recourse for that worker 
is slow because they simply do not have the resources that they 
need to move cases promptly and efficiently. It is truly a case 
of justice delayed is justice denied. The last thing I would 
say on that is that under the National Labor Relations Act, 
unlike many other labor and employment laws, workers do not 
have a right to bring their case forward on their own.
    They are completely dependent on the National Labor 
Relations Board bringing their case on their behalf. If the 
Board is underfunded, and they cannot move the case, then the 
workers are really out of luck, which is a terrible situation 
for workers to find themselves in. Thank you.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Mr. Allen. The gentlelady from Georgia yields, and now I 
recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. My home State of 
Georgia has been named the best State to do business in some 10 
years in a row. We are a right to work State, which, Mr. 
Alcorn, that means that if you have a good job, and you want to 
keep that job that you do not have to pay union dues to keep 
that job.
    What this administration is attempting to do, and has been 
attempting to do, along with every Democratic administration, 
is to apply the PRO Act throughout the entire country, which 
means that Georgia would no longer be able to have a right to 
work law. The modern workforce is entrepreneurial.
    Employers are competing for this modern workforce are very 
innovative in their approach to recruit and retain top talent. 
Mr. Delie, today's discussion has focused on the tactics that 
unions use to undermine workers' rights to a secret ballot and 
limit free speech during the unionization process.
    My bill, the Employee Rights Act, contains several 
provisions that promote free and fair union elections, 
including guaranteeing secret ballot elections. Can you discuss 
how the Employee Rights Act helps protect workers from coercive 
union tactics?
    Mr. Delie. Yes, Representative, and first of all thank you 
for your leadership on that bill. As you mentioned, one key 
provision of the Employee Rights Act is the protection of the 
secret ballot, which as I said earlier, is the gold standard 
for union elections. It allows workers to make their choice 
outside of the public eye for many potential coercion or 
intimidation.
    The Employee Rights Act goes further than that. It also 
requires workers to opt in to a union political spending, so 
right now workers who are hoping to opt out of that, have to go 
through a somewhat Archean process to exercise a right under a 
case called Communication Workers v. Beck, whereas an opt in 
system would remove that burden from workers, but still allow 
workers who support union political activity to spend as they 
so choose.
    It also enshrines the independent contractor standard that 
would be a much more clear standard. Our current independent 
contractor standard is relatively subjective and murky, which 
is very difficult for, as you put it, entrepreneurs and small 
businesses to be able to comply with.
    It also clarifies a joint employer standard to ensure that 
when a unionization election happens at a franchise level, it 
is a truly representative local decision as opposed to a top-
down approach adopted by the overarching franchisor.
    Mr. Allen. In addition, my bill, The Truth Employment Act, 
ensures employers are not required to hire Salts who enter the 
hiring process for the purpose of unionizing a workplace, or to 
be the non-union company out of business. These Salts are paid 
union agents and have no obligation to disclose their union 
affiliation with their employer or coworkers.
    In contrast, if an employer hired a consultant to discuss 
the impacts of unionization with workers, the employer must 
disclose his or her identity, compensation and activities. The 
consultant is also required to disclose similar information. 
Your written testimony mentions recent polling on the subject 
of union Salts. Can you discuss the results?
    Mr. Delie. Yes, I can. This poll was conducted I believe in 
2022, and it talked--or 2023 actually, and it requested public 
feedback on Salting. What it found is that 75 percent of those 
who were polled wanted equal disclosure from employers and 
unions on Salting. 59 percent thought that elections featuring 
union Salts should be thrown out entirely, and 62 percent 
thought that employers should be able to ask in a job interview 
if an applicant was a Salt.
    The bottom line, as the polling showed, the public 
overwhelmingly favors an organic, free choice over a 
manipulated or manufactured one.
    Mr. Allen. Yes. Again, I have said it over and over again. 
The American people just want choice here, and not to be 
forced. Mr. Alcorn, to followup on that response you believe 
Salting is deceptive, and what is your opinion of this 
practice?
    Mr. Alcorn. Yes, I do believe it is very deceptive. I think 
there is no question about that. I think if people want to 
organize, they should do it in an official capacity, not in a 
deceptive or secretive way. I think workers deserve to know who 
they are working with, and what their intentions are. That's 
workers' rights.
    Mr. Allen. Well, I want to thank you, and to reiterate my 
Employer Rights Act provides essential protections for workers' 
rights, choices and freedoms, including ensuring political and 
privacy protections, and guaranteeing secret ballot elections. 
With that, we will recognize Mr. Norcross for 5 minutes for 
questioning.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. And now the other side 
of the coin. First of all, thanks for having a hearing. I am 
not sure the name of the hearing is completely accurate or what 
is reflective of what I call the real world, most Americans' 
real world, but I get it. Listen, it is getting close to 
election time for a lot of folks, and they are certainly going 
to say whatever they need.
    It is interesting, we talk about ``salt'', and the ability 
that we have to be truthful and disclose. Wow. Take the 
Presidential race and then let us have that conversation, huh? 
We have to be truthful and not deceptive that somehow the 
elections for a union is there are not enough people voting.
    Well, not enough people voting, and not a majority for a 
union election, yet we have a President who not only did not 
get the majority of the people. He did not get the majority of 
the vote, yet he is our President. That is different over 
there. Union elections have to be different.
    Listen, if you want to do real polling, you go to a number 
of people, workers who want a union. Overwhelmingly, 
approaching 70 percent. If you go down the line here today, 
less than one-half of 1 percent would know what a ``salt'' is. 
That is the reality of what is going on.
    What is going on is people just want to have a voice in 
their workplace. They are not out to bankrupt people. We can 
each pick out anecdotes on what is going on, this horrible 
issue. The vast majority of people just want to have a say in 
their workplace, and that is an issue. When we look at the 
issues around ``salt'', they are volunteers, the vast majority 
of them.
    Just people like you and I who want to go in and be treated 
fairly. That sort of leads me to my first question is how can 
you explain to this Committee, and this is for Ms. Rhinehart. 
``Salting'', just like worker's unions, is not aimed at hurting 
employers, and it is not.
    I was a ``salt''. I am not sure anybody else in this room 
can say that. I was a ``salt'' before they even called them 
``salts''. Let us talk about that. They are not--their cause or 
purpose is not to hurt an employer and put him out of business, 
but just have a voice. Could you elaborate on that, Ms. 
Rhinehart?
    Ms. Rhinehart. I would be happy to, thank you. That is 
exactly right. People hire on as ``salts'' to organize a 
workplace, not to damage a business. Damaging a business does 
no good to the business, or the workers at the business who 
want the business to succeed, to continue to be employed, to 
hopefully have the business make a profit, so that maybe they 
can share in some of that profit.
    I really think that it is a false premise that the reason 
``salts'' go into a workplace is to damage the business. 
``Salts'' go into the workplace to talk to workers about the 
idea of unionizing and improving their lives through having a 
collective voice. The other thing I would like to mention about 
``salts'', is that to the extent a ``salt'' is employed by a 
labor organization, that is disclosed currently under the very 
extensive financial reports that unions are required to file 
now and have been required to file for years under the Labor 
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.
    These are very detailed reports that every employee and 
their salary and their name is disclosed in these reports that 
are filed today. There is a great deal of disclosure that 
already goes on. Legislation to require more disclosure really 
is not needed. The last thing I would like to say on the topic 
of ``salting'' is that one of the bills that is being discussed 
would actually legalize discrimination against workers for 
being pro-union.
    That is what legislation allowing employers not to hire 
``salts'' would be is legalizing discrimination against people 
because they're pro-union and that just completely undermines 
the premise of our labor law, which is that workers ought to 
have a free and fair choice to be pro-union and to organize 
their workplace. I hope that is responsive to your question.
    Mr. Norcross. It does, and it does not change having a 
``salt'' that is involved in no way impacts or changes whether 
or not an employee would vote for a union, or not vote.
    Ms. Rhinehart. Exactly. I think that is another really 
important thing to bear in mind. A ''salt'', an employee in the 
workplace who is a ''salt'' and pro-union, gets one vote.
    Mr. Norcross. That is it.
    Ms. Rhinehart. Other workers get one vote. The ``salt'' 
does not vote for other workers, so it is one vote. It is one 
person, one vote.
    Mr. Norcross. When I was unemployed, I was an electrician, 
we were between jobs, there was a contractor who I know who was 
interested, their employees in being in a union. I went down 
and applied for a job. That ended up creating the beginning, 
and not only did that employer voluntarily sign with our union, 
but I ended up a 30-year relationship with that employer as a 
``salt'' from the very beginning.
    It is not to put them out of business. It is to bring us 
all together, and with that, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Dr. Foxx 
for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our 
witnesses for being here today. Mr. Messenger, in your written 
testimony you discuss the differences between the traditional, 
or bottom up organizing process, and top-down organizing 
tactics. Can you discuss how top-down union organizing tactics 
undermine an atmosphere of free and open debate, leading up to 
a union election?
    Mr. Messenger. Thank you for the question, Dr. Foxx. The 
simple answer is that one of the aims of almost any top-down 
organizing campaign is when unions, euphemistically called a 
neutrality agreement, but the key to neutrality is a gag clause 
on employer speech. The result is in any kind of organizing 
campaign only the union campaign. Only the union can put out 
its information.
    The employer's speech about the down sides of unionization, 
what may happen, is completely censored by that gag clause as a 
result of top-down organizing. As a result, most employees do 
not have information on both sides of the story when they are 
making a decision.
    Of course, under most neutrality agreements, they are not 
making that decision at all in the privacy of a voting booth, 
but rather doing so in the teeth of a union card check 
campaign.
    Mrs. Foxx. It is very important that they understand both 
sides. Mr. Alcorn, during the Trader Joe's United campaign to 
organize your workplace, the union promised to be an 
independent union powered by crew members. Do you believe the 
union's leadership has lived up to this promise, and given 
individual employees a voice in how the union operates?
    Mr. Alcorn. I do not. This union has been riddled with 
secrecy. They go to the bargaining table without discussing 
what they're doing with any of us. I was given mixed messages 
about something that did happen at the bargaining table from 
multiple unions.
    Mrs. Foxx. Will you pull that mic a little closer to you? 
There you go.
    Mr. Alcorn. Yes. I was receiving conflicting messaging from 
union leaders about something that is going on in bargaining, 
and the union leader said that anybody could come to the 
bargaining table. They wanted everybody to have a voice. Me and 
a few of my coworkers did attend the bargaining to observe what 
was going on.
    We were not pleased with everything we were seeing, and we 
were discussing that with coworkers back in the store, and then 
the next time we went to observe the bargaining they told us we 
could not be there. When I asked why they had changed their 
mind on who could come to the bargaining, I asked the lawyer, 
they called hotel security on us, to ask us to leave.
    We were not disruptive at all. We were just there to 
observe what they had been doing. They are not forthcoming with 
the information. They did not discuss the salaries they would 
be taking home. I found the financial documents on the 
Department of Labor website, and I asked people who are very 
close to the union leaders, if they knew about the salaries 
that they would be taking home, and they said what salaries?
    When I posted what these salaries were, the union President 
then said nobody really cares about the salaries. This is a 
non-issue because we are not accepting dues. I am wondering why 
they think all the money that they are raising on representing 
us they can just do whatever they want with.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Delie, the United Auto 
Workers Union just lost an election at a Mercedes Plant in 
Vance, Alabama. While the election was ongoing, media reports 
indicated the U.S. Government may have reached out to pressure 
the German government regarding Mercedes stance toward the 
election.
    Can you discuss what you know about this unusual action by 
the Biden administration?
    Mr. Delie. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. I would be happy to. The 
reporting on this is still very fresh, so the details are still 
forthcoming, but Bloomberg has put forth a number of articles 
suggesting that someone in the Biden administration, perhaps 
DOL, or some other entity, reached out to Germany specifically 
to discuss the organizing campaign, and that that somehow 
resulted in an agreement between Germany and the United States 
to promote unionization.
    We also know that the European Council, which handles the 
European Union's international issues, has been involved in 
this as an investigation, and that now Germany has filed some 
degree of unfair labor practice charges. The details are still 
emerging, so it is hard to say for sure.
    This would be extremely concerning if true because you are 
putting essentially the full force of the Federal Government 
behind one side of a private labor dispute, and that would be 
significantly concerning for me.
    Mrs. Foxx. Yes. Unfortunately, given the actions of this 
administration, it would not be too hard to believe the reports 
because the actions of the administration have been in all 
cases, to tip the scales in favor of the unions, and it is 
supposed to be neutral. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. We will now recognize 
Ms. Manning for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we all know, this 
country is experiencing a historic swell in organizing, which 
has benefited thousands of workers across the country. In my 
own district, we have just seen workers at Thomas Built Buses 
secure a new contract, which included significant raises and 
increased job security for the workers.
    Those are great workers who are proud to build energy 
efficient electric school buses for school districts all across 
the country. Thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which 
we passed in the last Congress under President Biden's 
leadership, Thomas Built Buses have more orders than ever and 
are working hard to provide clean energy school buses that will 
help our environment.
    We have heard some interesting testimony today. I think we 
just heard a conspiracy theory, and we have heard some very 
negative testimony about the very existence of our labor laws, 
as well as accusations that unions are actually detrimental to 
employees and employers. Ms. Rhinehart, can you talk to us 
about benefits that the employers get with a unionized 
workforce?
    Ms. Rhinehart. Thank you. I would be happy to. A lot of 
what I am going to say comes from a comprehensive report that 
the Department of Treasury put out last year on the importance 
of unions to building and maintaining the middle class in our 
country. That report goes into detail about the benefits that 
employers enjoy from having a unionized workforce, which 
include things like less turnover, turnover and recruiting and 
replacing employees is very expensive.
    Unionized employers have less turnover because their 
employees tend to be more satisfied with their jobs and their 
working conditions and the fact that they have a voice. 
Unionized workers tend to be more productive than workers at 
non-union facilities, and so employers enjoy that advantage.
    Then they also get the advantage of having a way to engage 
employees collectively on issues that are facing the employer 
and the employee. New technology innovations at the plant. They 
have a way of organizing input to the employer on the issues 
that they are facing as they try to grow their businesses.
    These are just a few of the advantages that unionized 
employers enjoy. I would add the morale issue, which comes 
about for many reasons, but one of them is that through having 
a union and a collective bargaining agreement, the rules 
covering the workplace pay and ground rules are all written up 
and they are transparent.
    Everybody knows what the rules of the game are, and that 
helps with employee morale because they know what the rules are 
and there is less arbitrary, random treatment in the workplace. 
Those are some of the advantages.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. We all know that when employers do 
not pay a livable wage, families struggle to put food on the 
table, they struggle to pay their rent, they struggle to pay 
childcare, so a livable wage, which unions are able to 
negotiate, helps us reduce dependence on government subsidies 
that some of my colleagues are so concerned about.
    Ms. Rhinehart, the courts have repeatedly upheld neutrality 
agreements. The NLRB has even upheld that ``national labor 
policy favors the honoring of voluntary agreements reached 
between employers and labor organizations,'' and that ``the 
Board will enforce such agreements, including agreements that 
explicitly address matters involving union representation.''
    Can you speak to why the courts and the NLRB have supported 
the use of neutrality agreements and find it consistent with 
the purpose of a National Labor Relations Act?
    Ms. Rhinehart. Absolutely. Voluntary recognition has been 
established practice since before we even had a National Labor 
Relations Act. It is a situation where employers voluntarily 
agree to recognize a union based on majority support and decide 
that they are not going to go through the whole elongated, 
prolonged NLRB election process, which can be very contentious 
and it can cause a whole lot of delay.
    I think the important things to point out about voluntary 
recognition are one, that it is voluntary, so employers do not 
have to agree to it, and in fact the NLRB's recent Cemex 
decision, which has been characterized as mandating voluntary 
recognition actually does no such thing.
    It says employers may voluntarily recognize, and they can 
choose not to, and they can file an election petition. It is 
their choice. It is voluntary. Fundamentally the idea here is 
that employers are within their rights and many choose to enter 
into a relationship, a collective bargaining relationship with 
their workers' representative more constructively and without a 
fight because that starts them off on a better foot.
    They can work collaboratively to grow their business, and 
not have a fight.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. My time is expired, I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Mr. 
Burlison for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In reading the 2022 
Gallup Poll, it indicated most workers after taking that poll, 
only 11 percent non-union employees describe themselves as 
extremely interested in joining a union. 58 percent said that 
they were not at all interested in joining a union.
    When you add to the fact that 90 percent of people who are 
in a union have never even voted to be in the union that they 
are forced to pay dues to. You know, when I am back home, I 
hear often from people who say that there was once a need that 
is less and less there for workers.
    The unions once served a great purpose that has a 
diminishing role, and so I wonder if that is what is being 
reflected in these polls. Mr.--is it Delie? What are your 
thoughts on that? What is causing the diminishing desire to see 
a benefit or value in being a member of a union?
    Mr. Delie. Well, I think there is a number of factors. For 
one, the legal environment that we are in has changed since the 
1950's. There are significantly more regulations at both the 
State and Federal level, prohibiting all sorts of behaviors 
from safety to discriminatory practices, that were not in place 
back then, so I think that is one factor.
    I think a larger factor is that the American worker has 
changed. Unions are still operating as though it is 1955, and 
Ford, GM, and now Stellantis, own 80 percent of the auto 
industry, and that is just not the case. We are in a different 
economy. Workers want different things.
    They want the ability to make a choice freely and fairly, 
and without interference. They want that choice to be 
meaningful, but they also want independence, and a direct 
relationship, and workplace flexibility, and work from home, 
and a whole bunch of things that just are not conducive to a 
one size fits all approach to how you regulate a workplace.
    Mr. Burlison. The once promised that being once you 
unionize then everyone's salaries go up, you get better 
salaries, better benefits. That is not necessarily the case, is 
it? At least statistically, it is not necessarily the case?
    Mr. Delie. No. I mean I think----
    Mr. Burlison. Studies, sorry.
    Mr. Delie. No. I apologize for interrupting. No. I mean 
when you look at the data you cannot just take the average and 
assume that it applies equally across the states. $100,000.00 
in California is very different than $100,000.00 in South 
Carolina. When you adjust for cost of living and various other 
factors, the evidence is largely inconclusive.
    There are some studies on one side that say there is a 
minor improvement. There are some studies on the other that say 
no, it is actually a minor detriment. I do not think this is a 
panacea where you can say oh, all of a sudden you have unions, 
and this creates a higher wage environment. I do not think that 
is accurate or borne out by the literature.
    Mr. Burlison. I know that in Missouri at one point there 
was a study that was done that was very intriguing because 
Missouri is surrounded by mostly states that are right to work. 
When you compared the salaries of people that were living 
inside the border of Missouri, compared to the countries that 
are just outside the border, it was startling how much people 
actually make more money in the right to work states, just 
across the border in Missouri.
    My other question has to do with people's decision whether 
or not to join, of course in right to work states often the 
argument is that they are receiving a benefit that, you know, 
if they choose not to join a union they are receiving some 
benefit. The free rider. I call it a captive rider situation.
    Can you talk about how the impact of the Build Workers 
Choice Act might impact that decision, and actually benefit the 
workers?
    Mr. Delie. Absolutely, and I will try to be brief. The 
issue that we have is one of exclusive representation. If I am 
a dissenting employee in a unionized workplace, I cannot 
negotiate my own terms and conditions of employment. On the 
union side, the argument is that is a free rider if I do not 
pay.
    I am getting all of the contract benefits, and I am not 
paying anything. On the employee side, I am a forced rider. I 
am being forced to accept benefits and terms that I may not 
want, and that I think I can do better. What worker's choice 
does is it eliminates that problem by saying if you do not want 
to be part of a union, negotiate your own terms, and unions, 
you only have to represent those employees who are actually 
paying you.
    It is a great solution to an age-old problem in labor law.
    Mr. Burlison. I think it is a fair thing all around. Thank 
you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. I will now recognize Ms. Hayes 
for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you and thank you to all of our witnesses 
for being here today. This is again the fifth hearing that this 
Subcommittee has held to attack the rights of workers to 
organize and collectively bargain. While Americans are 
advocating for better wages, safer workplaces, and more secure 
retirements, this Committee has focused our energy on unions 
and union members, who make up less than 7 percent of the 
private sector workforce.
    The average union worker is paid about 20 percent more than 
the median, non-union worker, is 26 percent more likely to be 
offered employer sponsored health insurance, and up to 15 
percent more likely to have paid leave. This does not mean that 
forming a union is right for every worker and every workplace. 
Mr. Delie, I happen to agree with you.
    That is why it is important for local workers to be able to 
weigh in on the conditions that they want to bargain for. 
Unionizing is a democratic process, and it is up to workers to 
decide by majority vote. It is interesting listening to all of 
my colleagues on this Committee because every single one of us 
got here by the democratic process and a majority vote.
    We do not invalidate results if turnout is low. If people 
do not want a union, we want to protect the right for them to 
show up and vote no. The idea that if a minority of employees 
vote, then a union should not exist, that is now how we are 
here. That is not how democratic processes work.
    Every worker deserves the opportunity to weigh in, and tell 
us, and tell their employer what they think is best for 
themselves. However, many workers are not provided with the 
fair opportunity to consider the benefits or the drawbacks of 
unionizing because their employers take advantage of weak 
enforcement laws, or pressure and punish them for organizing 
efforts.
    This year, the NLRB has opened 15 cases relating to unfair 
labor practices in my District, compared to only 3 cases for 
unions seeking representation last year. I am a co-sponsor of 
the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which would provide 
greater clarity on the organizing process for workers and 
employers and ensure that employers--workers and employees and 
ensure that employers follow the law.
    I just also want to say that as Representatives, once we 
are elected, we represent everybody, even the people who did 
not vote for us, so the idea that not participating in the 
process invalidates it is incredibly problematic and not even 
something that we abide by here.
    Ms. Rhinehart, what tactics do unscrupulous employers use 
to undermine the agency of workers in an organizing drive, and 
how would the PRO Act ensure that workers can make these 
decisions free from employer interference?
    Ms. Rhinehart. Thank you for that question. Unfortunately, 
there is sort of a standard playbook that employers follow when 
they want to defeat an organizing drive. The first thing they 
do is fight the petition for a union election, if one has been 
filed before the National Labor Relations Board and draw it out 
and litigate issues that really do not need to be litigated and 
use the time that they buy to then run a campaign against the 
union.
    Kind of like what we saw down in Mercedes. Captive audience 
meetings, a barrage of anti-union messages, bringing the 
supervisors to tell workers under their supervision that the 
boss does not want a union. That is standard playbook. Hire 
third party anti-union busters to come in and basically run the 
campaign.
    These campaigns are very, very effective, and really do 
deny workers a free and fair choice about whether to choose 
representation. However, workers still do vote to have a union, 
and in that instance then sometimes you have a situation where 
an employer will drag out the bargaining process.
    We are seeing this with some major employers today, 
dragging out the bargaining process to try to basically 
undermine the union, discourage workers, and hope that somebody 
will file a decertification petition to get rid of the union.
    The problem with all of this is that we really don't have 
adequate remedies under our labor law to address this conduct. 
If an employer illegally fires a worker for being pro-union, 
there are no penalties. There are no penalties against the 
employer for that act, and it takes forever for the case to get 
processed.
    Under that legal regime, the law is just really too weak as 
it is currently drafted. The Protecting the Right to Organize 
Act would address this situation by removing some of the 
employer interference from the election process, establishing 
real penalties when employers break the law, and providing a 
process for workers and unions and their employers to reach a 
first agreement when workers organize.
    It would go a long way in leveling the playing field and 
making real workers' rights to organize.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. My time has expired, so I will 
submit my next question, but I thought that hearing that whole 
and complete answer was very important to this process. With 
that, I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Ms. Wild 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rhinehart, first of 
all thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. The 
district that I represent, Pennsylvania's 7th District, which 
is known as the Lehigh Valley, home to the late, great 
Bethlehem Steel, has a rich history of organized labor.
    For over a century, unions have been the backbone of the 
American workforce, advocating for workers to have fair wages, 
and safe working conditions, and reasonable hours. My 
colleagues across the aisle claim that the balance of power 
favors unions, but that is simply an inaccurate claim.
    The law does not inherently favor unions, rather it 
attempts to strike a balance between the interests of workers 
and employers. Legislation such as the National Labor Relations 
Act, the NLRA, and the PRO Act, which I supported, aim to 
ensure fairness and stability in labor relations by providing 
guidelines for collective bargaining, protecting worker's 
rights to organize, and prohibiting unfair labor practices by 
both employers and unions.
    Ms. Rhinehart, research shows that 75 percent of employers 
force workers to attend captive audience meetings to listen to 
anti-union speeches by management. Can you confirm that? Can 
you tell us how this coercive tactic denies workers the ability 
to make independent decisions on unionizing?
    Ms. Rhinehart. Thank you. Yes. I can confirm that research 
shows that 75 percent of employers, approximately, conduct 
captive audience meetings, and something around that number 
also hire third-party union busters to come in and help them 
run their anti-union campaigns.
    The problem with the captive audience meetings is that they 
are so coercive. They are on the employer's property. They are 
on work time, the employer runs the meetings, and employees get 
the message. They get the message loud and clear that their 
employer does not want them to unionize.
    Often, unfortunately, the conduct of captive audience 
meetings is accompanied with other conduct, such as firing or 
discriminating against pro-union workers.
    Ms. Wild. I assume these captive meetings do not include a 
balanced view where unions are invited in to also give a 
presentation?
    Ms. Rhinehart. Oh no. Thank you for that clarification. The 
union has no ability to get inside the workplace and talk to 
workers about the benefits of unionization, as a general 
matter. If they have reached a ground rule agreement with an 
employer to allow for some access, then that is an exception to 
the rule. As a general matter, union organizers cannot come 
into the workplace and talk.
    Ms. Wild. On that point, can you clarify whether unions 
truly have the same level of access to workers as employers do 
during organizing efforts?
    Ms. Rhinehart. I can clarify that unions absolutely do not 
have the same level of access to workers compared to employers.
    Ms. Wild. Okay. Can you give us an idea of how--what the 
access is for unions to be able to talk to employees? How does 
that work?
    Ms. Rhinehart. Well, under our law, employers are allowed 
to keep out non-employees, and so if a union organizer is not 
an employee they cannot come into the workplace unless there is 
some public area in the workplace, and so they have to stand in 
the parking lot if the parking lot is open, or they have to 
stand on the street, literally on the street, to try to talk to 
workers as they come and go from work.
    It is absolutely not equal, the access that employers and 
unions have to workers.
    Ms. Wild. Right. Thanks. A member of the majority, meaning 
my colleagues across the aisle, recently introduced the so-
called Workers Choice Act, great title, sounds logical. In your 
testimony though you State that this bill would create chaos in 
the labor management system. Can you expand on that?
    Ms. Rhinehart. Yes. In my view the problem with the Workers 
Choice Act is that it would undermine the collective bargaining 
system, by which you have the union representing workers and 
the employers sitting at a table to negotiate over work rules 
and paid benefits for the entire workforce.
    If you have that, but individual workers are then allowed 
to opt out of that system and negotiate separately with the 
employer, it just creates a chaotic situation where the 
employer is having to deal with multiple entities. It opens the 
employer up to a risk of giving favorable treatment to some 
versus others, which might be illegal.
    It is going to open up all sorts of problems on the shop 
floor with people being worried about preferential treatment 
and favoritism.
    Ms. Wild. Therein lies the chaos that you referred to, and 
I guess it belies the term ``collective bargaining,'' the whole 
idea being bargaining on behalf of a collective or group of 
people. Is that fair to say?
    Ms. Rhinehart. That is exactly right. I would also like to 
point out that under our labor law right now, there is nothing 
that prohibits an employer from dealing with a member's only 
union that is less than a majority of the workforce. If 20 
percent of workers decide they want to be a members-only union, 
an employer can work with that union under current law, and 
they do not.
    The reason they do not, I think is because of this chaos 
point that we have just been talking about.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you very much. With that, I yield back. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. I now recognize my good friend 
from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rhinehart, we have 
heard about tipping the scales with the National Labor 
Relations Act. Is the National Labor Relations Act neutral 
about whether or not you should encourage joining unions?
    Ms. Rhinehart. The National Labor Relations Act encourages 
the practice of collective bargaining.
    Mr. Scott. The law itself is not neutral. The law itself 
encourages forming unions.
    Ms. Rhinehart. The law absolutely encourages the practice 
of collective bargaining. The law is also very clear that it is 
up to workers to choose, but the policy of that law is to 
encourage collective bargaining. It is not neutral on that 
point.
    Mr. Scott. What does it say about the employer's right to 
influence a decision of the employees to join a union, and if 
they decide to join a union which union to join? What is the 
employer's right to influence that decision in the National 
Labor Relations Act?
    Ms. Rhinehart. The National Labor Relations Act establishes 
that it is worker's choice. Employers are under the law allowed 
to express their opinion about unionization, which is where 
these captive audience meetings come in, where they express 
their opinion very clearly that they do not want a union.
    They are not allowed to make threats against workers who 
are choosing to unionize.
    Mr. Scott. Now you mentioned penalties for firing workers 
and unfair labor practice. What is the penalty for--can you say 
again what the penalty is for firing, illegally firing, a 
worker who is trying to organize a union?
    Ms. Rhinehart. It is zero. There are no monetary penalties 
under the National Labor Relations Act for illegally firing 
workers, none.
    Mr. Scott. The only thing that the employer would owe would 
be back wages, minus what the employer, employee could have 
earned outside?
    Ms. Rhinehart. That is correct. The National Labor 
Relations Board can enforce.
    Mr. Scott. If they get a job outside and make as much as 
they were making, there is nothing?
    Ms. Rhinehart. Then there is no back wages owed. There may 
be some related expenses. The NLRB came out with a decision a 
few months ago to make clear that they want, if workers have 
other expenses like the cost of buying health insurance while 
they were out of a job, that those costs can be recovered as 
well, but there are no penalties, and there are no damages.
    Mr. Scott. All that is after the fact and the employer was 
able to send them mighty, a loud message to everybody else as 
to what happens.
    Ms. Rhinehart. Yes. It tends to undermine union organizing 
campaigns in a major way.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. It seemed to be a question about benefits 
of the union being inconclusive. Anything inconclusive about 
the value of joining a union in terms of salary?
    Ms. Rhinehart. Studies have repeatedly shown that unionized 
workers enjoy better pay, better benefits, better health and 
safety. I really am not familiar with the literature that 
suggests otherwise. Everything I have read is to the contrary.
    Mr. Scott. That it is about 20 percent additional salary, 
more likely to get health benefits, more likely to get a 
pension?
    Ms. Rhinehart. Exactly. I think it is also important to 
point out that non-union workers benefit from those unions 
standards because employers raise wages to compete with 
unionized employers, so everybody benefits.
    Mr. Scott. You have seen this in the union elections in 
Mercedes with they were increasing the pay to try to avoid the 
union?
    Ms. Rhinehart. Eliminating two tiers, which was another key 
issue of workers, and they did it really, I think, in response 
to what the UAW accomplished in the negotiations last fall.
    Mr. Scott. The gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. Hayes, 
mentioned the fact that we were elected many times with the 
minority of the people voting for us. Yesterday, I understand 
that a special election in California, the winner is going to 
come to Congress with less than about 10 percent of the 
population of his District voting for him, and he will be 
welcomed in Congress, just like everybody else.
    Let me ask you a quick question on ``salts''. How do you 
tell--I know there is legislation, how would you tell an 
illegal ``salt'' from somebody who just supports unions?
    Ms. Rhinehart. That is a great question. I do not know. I 
guess the employer would have to interrogate the worker.
    Mr. Scott. Discriminate first, and ask questions later?
    Ms. Rhinehart. Discriminate first and ask questions later. 
I think that is right.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Scott. We will now recognize 
the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rhinehart, the 
neutrality agreements, Microsoft, 100,000 people are affected. 
Tell me a little bit more about that. Why are so many high road 
employers. What I mean by that expression are people who are 
both union employers and non-union employers, who pay 
competitive wages and benefits, pay their taxes.
    Bringing the country up altogether, union and non-union. In 
this instance, a company like Microsoft applying a neutrality 
act to negotiations for 100,000 affected people, tell me more 
about that. Then in the context of some of your other comments 
today about whether Americans want to be in unions or not, or 
Mr. Alcorn, I am sorry to hear your story.
    Of course, there are hundreds of stories that could be told 
on both sides of that. I will take your story at face value, 
and it upsets me as a pro-union person when people start to 
bend the rules on either side too much. Elections do have sharp 
elbows involved, but we try to comply with the law.
    Neutrality acts go ahead of that, go back to the culture of 
what is good for the employer is good for the American people, 
not just what is good for the General Motors corporate 
executives.
    Ms. Rhinehart. Thank you, Congressman. I really think it is 
important to always keep in mind that neutrality agreements and 
voluntary recognition agreements are voluntary and elective on 
the part of employers. They enter into them for business 
reasons. The business reasons could be that they are reading 
and hearing about the benefits of having a unionized workforce.
    About their workers having a collective voice on the issues 
that matter to them. Employers are probably reading the polls, 
and seeing that there is increased interest in organizing, that 
young workers want unions. They want to have a collective voice 
and have some input, and that perhaps it is in their business 
interest to listen to that and provide a process for workers to 
choose fairly whether or not to have representation and not get 
into a fight.
    I think those are some of the reasons that go into 
businesses deciding to enter into neutrality agreements, is 
that they are just realizing that workers want to have a 
collective voice, and that in their business interest they 
would like to just accept that and move on that and not get 
into a fight.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Just on a macro level, and I know the 
Chairman is sick of hearing me talking about John Kenneth 
Galbraith and Thomas Piketty, but Galbraith said there should 
be countervailing institutions, political institutions would be 
my word, between wages and capital.
    Piketty talked fairly agnostically from my perspective as 
the history of when capitalistic societies get too one way or 
the other. Right now, we are a big diversity, not that capital 
is wrong, but the discrepancy between the balance, between 
wages, goes to the question about do unions help that?
    Galbraith argued that you needed unions as a countervailing 
institution to capital. Can you speak to that a little bit, 
which goes to Mr. Delie's question about going back to the 
1950's, which I respectfully disagree with. He is also sick of 
me quoting Eisenhower about, ``Only a fool would stop an 
American worker from trying to organize.'' Could you speak to 
that a little bit?
    Ms. Rhinehart. Sure. I have to say I was confused by the 
comments about workers running away from unions because the 
evidence is absolutely to the contrary. Union membership is up 
200,000 for each of the last 2 years. It is up, not down. 
Petitions for union representation elections are up this year 
by 35 percent at the National Labor Relations Board.
    That tells us that workers want unions. I think that some 
of what is going on here is that workers are tuned into what 
you have pointed out, the discrepancy between their pay and CEO 
pay, and they are feeling like they should get a little bit 
more of the pie in their own pockets to help meet their needs.
    We saw this in the negotiations last fall with the big 
three automakers, where the automakers were making tons of 
money and the CEOs were making tons of money, and the workers 
were really demanding a much larger share of the pie for 
themselves and for their livelihoods and they were able to win 
very important raises through the bargaining process.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Then what happened to other Japanese 
companies? I cannot remember whether it was Toyota or Honda, 
that did not have union representation. What did they do after 
the UAW's action?
    Ms. Rhinehart. Yes. Interestingly, they raised pay 
significantly for their workers.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Which seems intuitively, that shows that 
the union movement specifically in that instance helped non-
union people, which I would argue as a customer of Trader 
Joe's, that also happened. That the people worked there. They 
liked the environment. They are non-union, but they could go to 
work at Safeway.
    Ms. Rhinehart. Exactly.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thanks. I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. I now recognize myself for 5 
minutes. Appreciate our witnesses enduring with us through the 
process here. We are almost finished. Mr. Messenger, as we have 
discussed today, labor unions often force employers to sign a 
contract regarding the employer not to interfere with the 
union's attempts to organize.
    The Democrat's position, as demonstrated by their holy 
grail, The PRO Act, is embrace a union or close your doors. 
These so-called neutrality agreements handcuff employers, while 
the unions get free reign to prey upon the employees. As you 
know, a key provision of many neutrality agreements is a gag 
rule that prohibits the employer from saying anything negative 
about the union, before an election, even though a union may 
end up ultimately destroying the company.
    Can you discuss again the role that employers should be 
able to play before a unionization vote is taken?
    Mr. Messenger. Yes. The National Labor Relations Act favors 
robust, uninhibited debate about unionization. Congress 
actually enacted Section 8-C of the NRA just to facilitate and 
foster that kind of debate. Employees can hear both sides of 
the issue when they make their decision, preferably in a voting 
booth. Gag clauses of course deprive employees of both sides of 
the story, about unionization, and therefore hinder their 
ability to make an informed choice.
    Chairman Good. What about any free speech concerns with the 
restrictions that are placed on employers?
    Mr. Messenger. Well, the gag clause generally prohibits 
employers from saying anything about unionization, or the 
union. In fact, in some organizing agreements the gag clauses 
require that the employers say something favorable about the 
union, to try to encourage the employees to unionize.
    Sometimes it is sort of difficult to accept because usually 
employers are coerced to enter into these agreements, so they 
are coerced into saying something that they do not even 
believe.
    Chairman Good. Another component of the neutrality 
agreements requires the employers to give the unions access to 
the business property and share the private contact information 
with the employees. How does this again facilitate intimidation 
by union bosses, or union organizers with their employees?
    Mr. Messenger. Sure. The personal information about 
employees, besides being a breach of their privacy to hand over 
to a third-party special interest, email addresses, personal 
cell phone numbers and the rest, facilitate home visits. Union 
organizers can go to individual's homes over and over and over 
again to try to get them to sign union cards.
    Then with respect to access to the workplace, it creates 
quite a, you know, impression on employees when all of a sudden 
the union is camped out, you know, in their breakroom, and it 
creates the impression that the employer wants you to do this 
by the fact that the union, you know, is there with the 
blessing of the employer.
    Chairman Good. You are I am sure you are aware, but my 
bill, H.R. 719, amends the Labor Relations Act to make it 
unlawful for employers to provide any organizing assistance to 
labor unions, which would effectively end the practice of 
neutrality agreements. How do you think that my bill might help 
true union employee dialog and debate in labor disputes?
    Mr. Messenger. Well, the bill would make clear that 
organizing assistance is a thing of value under Section 302. 
Section 302 makes it unlawful for unions to demand or receive 
any money or other thing of value to a union. The bill again 
makes clear organizing assistance can be a thing of value to a 
union.
    Right now, there is a Circuit split over that issue, the 
11th Circuit says it is, 4th and 3d Circuit says it is not. My 
position is it is already a thing of value. There is no 
organizing exemption to Section 302.
    Again, there is a Circuit split on this issue, and your 
bill would very hopefully resolve that split, and make clear 
there is no organizing exemption to Section 302, and that it is 
unlawful for an employer to give things of value to a union 
that are valuable for organizing, such as a gag clause, which 
is really just control over the employer's speech, information 
about employees, access to the workplace and other things.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. There have been a lot of stats 
thrown around today, but despite the great length the Biden 
administration has gone to promote and support big labor, the 
Bureau of Labor and Statistics shows private sector union 
membership is at an all-time low of 6 percent, something that 
Ms. Hayes, by the way, agreed with.
    A 2022 Gallop poll found that more than 58 percent of 
Americans not currently in a union have no interest in joining 
one. More than 90 percent of workers represented by a union 
under the NLRA today never voted for the union that represents 
them. In 2015, unions represent 8 million private sector 
workers under the NLRA, and just under 500,000 of those, or 
about 6 percent, ever voted for union representation at any 
point in their careers, and were still employed by the company, 
which they voted for the union.
    The remaining 94 percent either voted against a union, 
opted not to vote in the election, or more commonly, inherited 
a union previously certified as the exclusive representative. A 
2022 Gallop poll, non-union workers reported--and this does not 
surprise me after working in an auto factory with a union, but 
non-union workers reported being more engaged, enthusiastic 
about their work, and their workplace than union members.
    On the other hand, about 24 percent of union members 
reported being actively disengaged, unhappy and resentful that 
their work needs were not being met. With that, I will yield 
the remainder of my time and ask the Ranking Member to give his 
closing statement.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a 
fascinating conversation. Louis Brandeis once said that we can 
have concentration of great wealth in the hands of very few 
Americans, or we can have democracy. We cannot have both. I 
would argue whether the latter has happened.
    The funding for our campaigns, Presidential campaigns since 
Citizens United, is disproportionately toward people who have 
accumulated lots of capital and use it for their own ends. A 
lot of them believe, quite honestly, that average people are 
not smart enough, or capable enough to have free and fair 
elections and be engaged, whether it is in a union election, a 
city council election, or a Presidential election.
    We hear people right now running up to this next 
Presidential election saying that duly certified, proven 
through the courts, the Presidential election was fake. It was 
not accurate. Somehow, we have gotten this view that you can be 
as greedy as you want to be, and that is okay, at the 
sacrifice, in my view, of working people.
    I believe that average people can govern, but they are at a 
disadvantage. To Galbraith's observation, unions and organizing 
give average people a voice. They are not perfect. They are 
human institutions. Unfortunately, sometimes people do not do 
things that we would like humans to do perfectly in organizing.
    Disproportionately, I would argue that corporate interest 
has now broken the laws that used to be in effect when the CEOs 
made three times what their average workers, as opposed to 400 
times, which is the world we live in right now. This is a good 
conversation. We have to stick by the letter of the law. People 
bend the law.
    We also have to be mindful of what this country is about. 
It is about merit and hard work. People being able to get their 
fair share, and right now we do not have that because the 
concentration of wealth is very disproportionate. Even 
conservative economists warn about that concentration of 
wealth.
    The way to get at that from a political instance is to give 
workers a voice. It is pretty clear to me that the union 
movement historically has done that, and that--not to dismiss 
the 50's, or to go back to the 1860's, there are institutions 
in this country that have wanted cheap labor. That is the way 
it has been.
    We have had to fight throughout our time to recognize 
individual choice and merit, but also recognize that, 
unfortunately, human nature being what it is, that some people 
decide that their interests are everyone's interest. Unions are 
what represent everyone's interest as a political entity, as an 
economic entity, and that is why it is important that we give 
them the strongest voice legally that we can, which is working 
through the current system.
    Respectfully, we have a very different perspective on that. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. I thank our witnesses for sharing 
today. The fact is unions are contrary to a strong economy. 
They cause inflated, non-competitive wages, massive cost 
increases, lower productivity, they cultivate anti-employer or 
anti-management attitudes, a very unhealthy workplace 
environment.
    They protect unproductive workers or worse. In short, the 
value of unions have long expired with long passed legislation 
that corrected former poor working conditions. Healthy 
competitive market pressures and American culture make unions 
unnecessary at best, and truly harmful at worst.
    The Ranking Member was correct, to paraphrase his opening 
remarks, employees do not have to fight their employers tooth 
and nail. That is what unions tell them they need to do. They 
should work together for their shared mutual interest. My union 
experience working in an auto factory was more similar to that 
of Mr. Alcorn, by the way.
    Unions have long outlived their usefulness, and Americans 
overwhelmingly agree if only 6 percent of those in the private 
sector, again, are part of a union. According to a Gallop poll, 
only 11 percent of non-union employees describe themselves as 
``extremely interested'' in joining a union.
    58 percent on the other hand said they are not interested 
at all, so that makes it five times as many non-union employees 
who are strongly against a union, versus a number who are 
strongly for a union. That is why we have the lowest 
unionization numbers today, because this is not the working 
environment of the 1930's.
    Employers today have more laws and regulations governing 
what they can do than ever before. Employees have more choices, 
flexibility and benefits than ever before. While we can 
continue to work to improve opportunities and conditions for 
workers today, we do not need to cling to yesteryear, and we 
certainly should not tolerate deceptive union tactics that 
undermine worker's choice.
    We cannot allow big labor to continue the despicable 
practices that harm employers and undermine employee rights. It 
is wrong to pit workers and employers against each other. 
Republicans have actual legislative solutions. My legislation 
to end neutrality agreements, Representative Owens Salt Act to 
expose workers who are only there to stir up trouble, and 
Representative Burlison's Workers Choice Act, which promotes 
the right to work.
    I hope our Committee can continue to advance these policies 
that will protect workers, and without objection, there being 
no further business, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]