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


                    CONFRONTING UNION ANTISEMITISM:
                        PROTECTING WORKERS FROM
                            BIG LABOR ABUSES

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

                                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, JULY 9, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-58

                               __________

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


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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
57-223 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
VACANCY

                       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 July 9, 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....................     3
        Prepared statement of....................................     5

                               WITNESSES

    Kopmar, Ilana, Staff Attorney, Nassau County Legal Aid 
      Society....................................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     9
    Sussman, William, Graduate Student, Massachusetts Institute 
      of Technology..............................................    12
        Prepared statement of....................................    14
    Lofaso, Dr. Anne Marie, Professor of Law, West Virginia 
      University College of Law..................................    51
        Prepared statement of....................................    53
    Taubman, Glenn, Staff Attorney, National Right To Work Legal 
      Defense Foundation.........................................    67
        Prepared statement of....................................    68

                         ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

    Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of North Carolina:
        Testimony dated July 22, 2024, from Glenn M. Taubman.....    91
        Letter from Adina Bechhofer..............................    98

 
                    CONFRONTING UNION ANTISEMITISM:
                        PROTECTING WORKERS FROM
                            BIG LABOR ABUSES

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, July 09, 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 10:15 a.m., in 
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Good 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Good, Wilson, Walberg, Allen, 
Bean, Burlison, Houchin, Foxx, DeSaulnier, Courtney, Norcross, 
Jayapal, Manning, and Scott.
    Staff present: Mindy Barry, General Counsel; Jackson 
Berryman, Speechwriter; Isabel Foster, Press Assistant; Daniel 
Fuenzalida, Staff Assistant; AnnMarie Graham Barnes, Deputy 
Communications Director; Ben Gruber, Intern; Sheila Havenner, 
Director of Information Technology; Alex Knorr, Legislative 
Assistant; Trey Kovacs, Professional Staff Member; Georgie 
Littlefair, Clerk; Hannah Matesic, Deputy Staff Director; 
Carson Middleton, Staff Director; Mike Patterson, Oversight 
Investigative Counsel; Rebecca Powell, Staff Assistant; Kiah 
Stith, Intern; Seth Waugh, Director of Workforce Policy; Maura 
Williams, Director of Operations; Ellie Berenson, Minority 
Press Assistant; Ilana Brunner, Minority General Counsel; Arana 
Blake, Minority CBCF Intern; Stephanie Lalle, Minority 
Communications Director; Dhrtvan Sherman, Minority Research 
Assistant; Raiyana Malone, Minority Press Secretary; Kevin 
McDermott, Minority Director of Labor Policy; Meghan O'Neil, 
Minority Intern; Eleazer Padilla, Minority Staff Assistant; 
Mason Pesek, Minority Policy Counsel; Veronique Pluviose, 
Minority Staff Director; 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. Today's hearing will examine the 
ways in which unions put politics over people through the lens 
of rampant union antisemitism.
    Unfortunately, the politicization of unions is not new. The 
National Institute for Labor Relations Research estimates that 
unions spent about 25 billion dollars in political donations 
during the 2022 election cycle, or far more than the roughly 2 
billion they report as political activities.
    In the 2020 Presidential campaign, President Biden received 
27.5 million in direct donations from labor organizations, 
while President Trump received less than 360,000. While the 
working class seems to be moving in favor of the GOP in the 
upcoming election cycle, it is clear that union bosses sold out 
to the left long ago.
    Additionally, the response by union leaders to the October 
7 Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel have exposed yet another 
way that unions are beholden to the radical left, instead of to 
the workers they claim to represent. Rather than focus on their 
stated purpose of negotiating better workplace conditions for 
workers, unions choose to spend time and money advancing their 
divisive and anti-American political agenda.
    Take for example the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, or 
ALAA, the ALAA represents more than 2,700 public interest 
lawyers in the New York metro area. On December 19, 2023, it 
passed a highly controversial resolution calling for a cease-
fire in Gaza.
    The resolution's inflammatory rhetoric, such as calling 
Israel an apartheid State alienated many members and caused 
nearly 35 percent of the membership to vote against it. The New 
York Post has further exposed more details of offensive and 
harmful antisemitism that is rampant throughout ALAA 
communications.
    Some of the union members sued the union, but shockingly 
the union members that filed the lawsuit were charged with, 
``Conduct unbecoming of a union member.'' They were charged 
under the UAW Constitution, and they are now facing trial with 
a penalty of expulsion from the union.
    In other words, the union members shelling out roughly 
$120.00 a month to be part of the union, will now be put on 
trial by the same organization intended to protect and 
represent them, simply for standing up for what they believe.
    One of the Plaintiffs argued, ``I should not have to 
financially support an organization that adopts antisemitic 
resolutions, sides with terrorist organizations, and advocates 
for the destruction of Israel in order to be a public defender 
in New York.''
    I could not agree more. Union members have rights under the 
Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, and the Supreme 
Court's Beck decision to speak out against their unions, and to 
cease paying union dues for political activities they disagree 
with. Unfortunately, unions have an incentive to keep their 
members ignorant of their rights.
    They often make little effort to inform them of these 
rights, and as Jewish workers have recently experienced current 
Federal labor law, and Supreme Court precedent failed to 
adequately protect individual employees' right to refrain from 
union activity.
    The ALAA, along with other organizations like the MIT 
graduate student union, demonstrates how unions neglect their 
members to pursue left wing activism at all costs.
    Today we are providing a platform for those who are not 
truly represented by the unions they pay dues to. We will 
discuss how the law protects their political and religious 
convictions, and how further protections could be provided.
    Perhaps not everyone here and on the panel agrees on the 
appropriate role of the unions in society, but I hope we can 
all agree that if anything, they should pursue, they should 
advocate on behalf of the workplace interest of workers, rather 
than pursuing a radical, political agenda that alienates their 
members. With that, I yield to the member for his opening 
statement.
    [The Statement of Chairman Good follows:]

     Statement of Hon. Bob Good, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, 
                    Employment, Labor, and Pensions

    Today's hearing will examine the ways in which unions put politics 
over people through the lens of rampant union antisemitism.
    Unfortunately, the politicization of unions is not new. The 
National Institute for Labor Relations Research estimates that unions 
spent about $25 billion in political donations during the 2022 election 
cycle, or far more than the roughly $2 billion they report as political 
activities.
    In the 2020 presidential campaign, President Biden received $27.5 
million in direct donations from labor organizations, while President 
Trump received less than $360,000. While the working class seem to be 
moving in favor of the GOP in the upcoming election cycle, it is clear 
that union bosses sold out to the Left long ago.
    Additionally, the response by union leaders to the October 7 Hamas 
terrorist attacks on Israel have exposed yet another way unions are 
beholden to the radical Left instead of the workers they claim to 
represent. Rather than focus on their stated purpose of negotiating 
better workplace conditions for workers, unions choose to spend time 
and money advancing their divisive and anti-American political agenda.
    Take, for example, the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (ALAA). 
The ALAA represents more than 2,700 public interest lawyers in the New 
York Metro Area, and on December 19, 2023, it passed a highly 
controversial resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
    The resolution's inflammatory rhetoric--such as calling Israel an 
apartheid state--alienated many members and caused nearly 35 percent of 
the membership to vote against it. The New York Post has further 
exposed more details of offensive and harmful antisemitism that is 
rampant throughout ALAA communications.
    Some of the union members have sued the union, but shockingly, the 
union members who filed the lawsuit were charged with ``Conduct 
Unbecoming of a Union Member'' under the UAW Constitution and are now 
facing trial with a penalty of expulsion from the union.
    In other words, these union members shelling out roughly $120 a 
month to be part of the union will now be put on trial by the same 
organization intended to protect and represent them, simply for 
standing up for what they believe.
    One of the plaintiffs argued, ``I should not have to financially 
support an organization that adopts antisemitic resolutions, sides with 
terrorist organizations, and advocates for the destruction of Israel in 
order to be a public defender in New York.''
    I could not agree more. Union members have rights under the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act and the Supreme Court's Beck 
decision to speak out against their unions and to cease paying dues for 
political activities they disagree with.
    Unfortunately, unions have an incentive to keep their members 
ignorant of their rights and often make little effort to inform them of 
these rights. As Jewish workers have recently experienced, current 
federal labor law and Supreme Court precedent fail to adequately 
protect individual employees' right to refrain from union activity.
    The ALAA, along with other organizations like the MIT Graduate 
Student Union, demonstrates how unions neglect their members to pursue 
Left-wing activism at all costs.
    Today we are providing a platform for those who are not truly 
represented by the unions they pay dues to. We will discuss how law 
protects their political and religious convictions, and how further 
protections could be provided.
    Perhaps not everyone here and on the panel agrees on the 
appropriate role of unions in society, but I hope we can all agree 
that--if anything--they should advocate on behalf of the workplace 
interests of workers rather than pursuing a radical political agenda 
that alienates their members.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by 
making clear that I condemn antisemitism, and all forms of 
hate, whether it be in the classroom, in the workplace, or 
anywhere else. As Members of Congress, and citizens, we have a 
responsibility to stand up against all forms of hate, 
regardless of the source of the political party, or the 
political party.
    I agree with the Chairman that we should do more to combat 
antisemitism. No one should be threatened, harassed, or 
attacked because of who they are, who they worship or what they 
stand for.
    I look forward to the witnesses' testimoneys, but we should 
avoid the broad brush, stereotypical attacks on workers' 
ability to organize and collectively bargain that have 
characterized the Subcommittee's six prior anti-labor hearings.
    Based on the title of today's hearing, I fear we will do it 
again. Just for the record, corporate interests and the 
wealthiest in America, and income and equality is at its most 
intense in the history of this country, eclipsing the Gilded 
Age, is now the advantage of corporations in the top 10 
percent, 16 to 1.
    We talk about labor contributing to campaigns, they are 
being buried by corporate interests, particularly after the 
Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Immigrants, including 
Jewish immigrants, left their home countries often under 
duress, and sought to build a better life and future for 
themselves and their families in the United States.
    Many immigrants opted to organize and join the labor 
movement because they understood what is still very true today, 
unions give workers a voice, and have the power to transform 
their lives through collective action. That means elections--
union elections.
    Throughout history unions have been pivotal in advancing 
the conditions and rights of workers, from establishing the 5-
day work week, to championing minimum wage laws, banning child 
labor, which is now under attack again, and protecting workers 
from being maimed and killed at work.
    Their advocacy, the union advocacy, has been instrumental 
in building and sustaining America's middle class, which is now 
under attack. At a time of extreme wealth inequality, workers 
are increasingly organized because as they seek the collective 
and democratic power unions provide them in order to secure 
higher wages, better benefits, and safer workplaces, union 
workers enjoy approximately 20 percent higher wages, and are 
more likely to have access to essential benefits, such as 
health insurance, paid leave, and defined benefits pension 
plans.
    These gains not only benefit individual workers and their 
families, but they also contribute to a more robust economy, 
where prosperity is more broadly shared. Unions also create 
workplace democracy. Unions are inherently ``small d'' 
democratic institutions. For example, workers need at least 
majority support in the workplace to form and join a union.
    Union workers need majority support to authorize a strike. 
They need majority support to ratify a contract. Workers are 
their unions, and unions are accountable to their members, by a 
vote While the fundamental principle of unions is rooted in 
majority rule, just like any democracy, our Nation's laws also 
protect the rights of individual workers.
    We are fortunate to have Dr. Anne Marie Lofaso as one of 
our witnesses today. The Doctor's testimony notes that workers 
have multiple levels to choose from, to related to how they 
want to affiliate with their unions.
    Union-represented workers have a right to resign from union 
membership. The right to object to dues beyond representational 
activities known as the Beck right, and the right to request a 
religious accommodation for non-payment of union dues.
    Those are all rights. Unions are legally required to inform 
workers of their Beck right, and their equal rights, and 
protection under Title 1 of the Labor Management Reporting and 
Disclosure Act.
    While employers are required to inform workers of their 
right to religious accommodations beyond a basic flyer posted 
in the workplace, employers have no obligation to directly 
inform workers of their rights to organize a union or come 
together with their coworkers to engage in concerted activity 
regarding the terms and conditions of employment.
    As we discuss these issues today, let us not forget that 
the true threat to workers' freedom and rights is not unions, 
but employer, bad employer, low road employers, intimidation 
and retaliation, as well as deficiencies in our labor laws to 
hold unscrupulous businesses.
    As I have said many times, it is not responsible 
businesses, it is a few businesses that bring the whole culture 
down to us versus them, more money for us, and less for them. 
Not all businesses, just the ones that do not play by the 
rules, accountable for violations of the law. These include 
employers holding mandatory coercive, captive audience 
meetings, inadequate penalties for violating workers' rights 
and prolonged delays in justice for workers facing retaliation.
    We must reaffirm our commitment to strengthening workers 
protections, and advancing legislation such as the PRO Act, 
Protecting the Right to Organize e Act. This landmark 
legislation would modernize our labor laws for the first time 
in decades, empowering workers to organize freely, and ensuring 
that employers are held accountable for their actions.
    Last, we have a responsibility to fund the very agencies 
that enforce workers' rights. We should make sure we are 
appropriately funding key agencies like the National Labor 
Relations Board, and the EEOC, so they can fulfill their vital 
mission to protect workers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 
yield back.
    [The Statement of Ranking Member DeSaulnier follows:]

  Statement of Hon. Mark DeSaulnier, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
                Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to start by making clear that I condemn antisemitism and all 
forms of hate--whether it be in the classroom, in the workplace, or 
anywhere else. As Members of Congress and citizens, we have a 
responsibility to stand up against all forms of hate, regardless of the 
source or the political party.
    I agree that we should do more to combat antisemitism. No one 
should be threatened, harassed, or attacked because of who they are, 
who they worship, or what they stand for. I look forward to the 
witnesses' testimonies--but we should avoid the broad-brush 
stereotypical attacks on workers' ability to organize and collectively 
bargain that have characterized the subcommittee's six prior anti-labor 
hearings, and--based on the title of today's hearing--I fear we will 
hear again.
    Just for the record, corporate interest is the wealthiest in 
America, and income inequality is the most intense in this country. 
Eclipsing the glided age is now the advantage of cooperation in the top 
10 percent, 16 to 1. When we talk about labor contributing to 
campaigns, they are being buried by corporate interest, particularly 
after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.
    Immigrants, including Jewish immigrants, left their home 
countries--often under duress--and sought to build a better life and 
future for themselves and their families in the United States. Many 
immigrants opted to organize and join the labor movement because they 
understood what is still very true today--unions give workers a voice 
and have the power to transform their lives through collective action. 
That means elections. Union elections.
    Throughout history, unions have been pivotal in advancing the 
conditions and rights of workers, from establishing the five-day work 
week to championing minimum wage laws, banning child labor, which is 
now under attack again, and protecting workers from being maimed and 
killed at work. Their advocacy, the union advocacy, has been 
instrumental in building and sustaining America's middle class. Which 
is now under attack.
    At a time of extreme wealth inequality, workers are increasingly 
organizing because they recognize the collective and democratic power 
unions provide them in order to secure higher wages, better benefits, 
and safer workplaces. Union workers enjoy approximately 20 percent 
higher wages and are more likely to have access to essential benefits 
such as health insurance, paid leave, and defined-benefit pension 
plans. These gains not only benefit individual workers and their 
families but also contribute to a more robust economy where prosperity 
is more broadly shared.
    Unions also create workplace democracy.
    Unions are inherently small ``d'' democratic institutions. For 
example, workers need at least a majority of support in their workplace 
to form or join a union. Union workers need majority support to 
authorize a strike. They need majority support to ratify a contract. 
Workers are their unions, and unions are accountable to their members 
by a vote.
    While the foundational principle of unions is rooted in majority 
rule, just like any democracy, our nation's laws also protect the 
rights of individual workers. We are fortunate to have Dr. Anne Marie 
Lofaso as one of our witnesses today. Dr. Lofaso's testimony notes that 
workers have multiple avenues to choose the level with which they wish 
to affiliate their unions. Union-represented workers have the right to 
resign from union membership, the right to object to dues beyond 
representational activities, known as the ``Beck'' right, and even the 
right to request a religious accommodation for nonpayment of union 
dues.
    Unions are legally required to inform workers of their ``Beck'' 
rights and their equal rights and protections under Title I of the 
Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. While employers are 
required to inform workers of their right to religious accommodations, 
beyond a basic flyer posted in the workplace, employers have no 
obligation to directly inform their workers of their rights to organize 
a union or come together with their coworkers to engage in concerted 
activity regarding the terms and conditions of their employment.
    As we discuss these issues today, let us not forget that the true 
threat to workers' freedom and rights is not their unions, but 
employers, bad employers, low road employers. Intimidation and 
retaliation, as well as deficiencies in our labor laws to hold 
unscrupulous businesses--as I have said many times, it is not a 
responsible business, but a few businesses that bring the whole culture 
down to us versus them. Not all businesses, just the ones that do not 
play by the rules--accountable for violations of the law. These include 
employers holding mandatory and coercive captive audience meetings, 
inadequate penalties for violating workers' rights, and prolonged 
delays in justice for workers facing retaliation.
    We must reaffirm our commitment to strengthening worker protections 
and advancing legislation such as the bipartisan Protecting the Right 
to Organize (PRO) Act. This landmark legislation will modernize our 
labor laws for the first time in decades, empowering workers to 
organize freely and ensuring that employers are held accountable for 
their actions.
    Lastly, we have a responsibility to fund the very agencies that 
enforce workers' rights. We should make sure we are appropriately 
funding key agencies like the National Labor Relations Board and the 
EEOC so they can fulfill their vital mission to protect workers.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairman Good. Thank you. 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 July 23, 2024.
    Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 
14 days to allow such statements, and other extraneous 
materials referenced in the hearing, to be submitted to the 
official hearing record.
    I will now turn to the introduction of our distinguished 
witnesses. Our first witness is Ms. Ilana Kopmar, who is a 
Staff Attorney employed by the Nassau County Legal Aid Society 
in Hempstead, New York. Welcome.
    Our next witness is Mr. William Sussman, who is a Graduate 
Student, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technical, or MIT, 
in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Welcome, Mr. Sussman.
    Our third witness is Dr. Anne Marie Lofaso, who is a 
Professor of Law at West Virginia University College of Law in 
Morgantown, West Virginia. Welcome, Dr. Lofaso.
    Our final witness is Mr. Glenn Taubman, who is a Staff 
Attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense 
Foundation, which is located in Springfield, Virginia. Welcome, 
Mr. Taubman.
    We thank the witnesses for being here today and look 
forward to your testimony. Pursuant to the Committee Rules, I 
would ask that you limit your oral presentation to a 5-minute 
summary of your written statement, and I would like to remind 
the witnesses to be aware of their responsibility to provide 
accurate information to this Subcommittee.
    I now recognize Ms. Kopmar for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF MS. ILANA KOPMAR, STAFF ATTORNEY, NASSAU COUNTY 
             LEGAL AID SOCIETY, HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORK

    Ms. Kopmar. Thank you, Chairman Good, and Ranking Member 
DeSaulnier. I am a criminal defense attorney at Nassau County 
Legal Aid, and I am also a member of the UAW Local 2325, the 
Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, the ALAA.
    I am also Jewish, and Zionism, the belief in the right of 
the Jewish people to self-determination in our ancestral 
homeland is as integral to my religious practice as is keeping 
kosher and observing the sabbath. Most American Jews share this 
belief, that Zionism is integral to their Jewish faith.
    After Hamas' bloody attack against Israel on October 7th, 
the ALAA and its leadership created an antisemitic, hostile 
work environment for its Jewish members, for whom the existence 
of Israel is integral to their Jewish identity, and for their 
non-Jewish allies.
    On November 14th, the ALAA just gave 3 days' notice of a 
membership vote on a resolution entitled, Resolution Calling 
for the Ceasefire in Gaza, an End to the Israeli Occupation of 
Palestine. Despite its title, the Resolution was not a call for 
a cease-fire, but for Israel's defeat. The Resolution does not 
mention Hamas even once.
    It dehumanizes the victims of October 7th by not mentioning 
that Hamas massacred, raped, and mutilated Jews, Israelis and 
Americans, and violently abducted men, women and children. 
Instead, it is a one-sided vitriolic attack against the Jewish 
State using antisemitic tropes, and language widely understood 
to be a call for the destruction of Israel.
    Three of my colleagues and I from my office, believe that 
this antisemitic resolution would interfere with our ethical 
responsibility to zealously represent our Jewish and Israel 
clients free from discrimination. It also added to an already 
hostile, antisemitic environment in the union.
    We sought, and were granted in State Court, a temporary 
restraining order halting the vote. After the case was removed 
to Federal Court, the TRO was dissolved, the resolution passed 
with just over half of members voting at all, and one-third of 
those voted no.
    Immediately after filing the TRO, the union retaliated and 
filed internal charges to expel us. They accused us of conduct 
unbecoming to a union member, even though we have a legal right 
to oppose the union's antisemitism. We appealed to the UAW 
International Executive Board.
    It denied our appeal without even considering our legal 
arguments. If we had not filed an immediate appeal of that 
decision to the UAW's Public Review Board, the union was going 
to start jury selection, and our expulsion trial tonight. We 
have now filed our own charges against the union with the EEOC 
and brought a lawsuit in Federal Court for violating our labor 
rights, and unlawful discriminatory retaliation.
    After the TRO, the union's antisemitism against us 
intensified, and in Gaggle, an email listserv for members, and 
in member-wide Zoom meetings, we were called ``fascist,'' 
genocider,'' ``fascist colonizers,'' ``Zionist ghouls.'' We 
were told to go kill ourselves. Members advocating kicking 
Zionists out of the union, and outrightly called for the 
elimination of Israel.
    One member stated that the union has a duty to stand up and 
called for an end to Israel, and signed their email with the 
Nazi reference, ``Goosestepping outside.'' When Jewish and 
Zionist members introduced a resolution to free the hostages, 
the immediate response on Gaggle was ``LMAO,'' laughing my ass 
off. Another responded that this resolution confirmed that 
Zionist union members were not comrades, but fascist 
colonizers.
    At the Joint Council meeting the resolution's presenters 
were called ``disgusting'' and ``F'd up,'' and there were calls 
to mute them. Members wanted to kick out a Jewish member from 
the meeting for expressing typical Zionist lies. The union 
overwhelmingly voted down the resolution, calling to free the 
hostages.
    ALAA President Lisa Ohta, and leadership were at that 
meeting, and they did nothing to stop the attacks, or tamp down 
the bullying and vitriol. The next day, a paid ALAA staffer 
emailed the membership characterizing the hostage release 
resolution as a small Zionist minority, attempting to disrupt 
the ALAA. He also blamed the Zionists for collaborating with 
this congressional Committee and attempting to weaken the 
union.
    I am not here to weaken the union, but to strengthen it. 
The union is tearing itself apart. Union leadership has a duty 
to protect its members from bias and discrimination, not foster 
attacks against its Jewish and non-Jewish Zionist members. This 
is not how a union should act, and we should not be forced to 
support the discriminatory actions. Thank you so much for 
inviting me, it has been an honor and a privilege.
    [The Statement of Ms. Kopmar follows:]

  Statement of Ilana Kopmar, Staff Attorney, Nassau County Legal Aid 
                      Society, Hempstead, New York

    My name is Ilana Kopmar. I have spent my entire legal career of 32 
years as a criminal defense attorney for the Legal Aid Society of 
Nassau County. I also served as President of our office's prior Union 
for five years before we joined our present Union.
    My job is very rewarding, primarily because of the relationships 
that I develop with my clients. Every day, my colleagues and I appear 
in court to zealously defend our clients and protect their rights. 
Pursuant to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, we are assigned to 
clients of every race, national origin, and religion, including Jewish 
clients.
    Our clients do not choose their attorneys, and we have an ethical 
obligation to represent every client free from even the perception of 
bias and discrimination. When we walk into a courtroom, it is crucial 
that our clients trust us to protect and defend them.
    Just as our job is to protect and defend our clients, our Union has 
a job to protect and defend its members. Our job can be very difficult. 
We are paid low salary wages and have high caseloads and low retention 
rates. As prior President of our office Union, I know that we need a 
strong Union to protect and advance our interests. Over 10 years ago, 
our office joined UAW Local 2325, the Association of Legal Aid 
Attorneys, also known as the ALAA. We believed that through the 
camaraderie and the support of more than 3000 members of the ALAA, 
spread over 30 non-profit agencies, we would have the Union's support 
to help us bargain for higher wages, increased state and county 
funding, improved benefits, and a better work environment. We thought a 
supportive
    Union would make us a stronger, more effective Union.
    Recently, instead of focusing on collective bargaining and 
fostering a united membership, the ALAA and its leadership created an 
antisemitic, hostile work environment for its Jewish members for whom 
Zionism is an integral part of their Jewish identity, as it is for the 
vast majority of American Jews, and their non-Jewish allies. After the 
attack by the terrorist organization Hamas on October 7--the worst 
attack against the Jewish people since the Holocaust--the ALAA 
communication channel, Gaggle (an email listserv for Union members and 
Joint Council meetings) became a hotbed of antisemitism and blatant 
discrimination directed against us.
    Shortly after October 7, my office colleagues and I learned that 
ALAA colleagues of ours working at the NYC Legal Aid Society were 
subject to inter-office emails from their fellow ALAA members denying 
the atrocities that happened on October 7. One email questioned whether 
Jewish Legal Aid lawyers who have ``an allegiance to Israel'' can 
zealously represent clients who are Palestinian or Muslim and 
questioned whether such lawyers were colluding with prosecutors. In 
late October, the Bronx Defender Chapter of the ALAA adopted a 
blatantly antisemitic resolution which questioned the veracity of 
reports of Hamas' brutality, killing, mutilation and rape of Israeli 
victims, and falsely accused Israel of genocide. Most shockingly, the 
resolution proclaimed the ALAA Chapter's support of Hamas' ``resistance 
under occupation,'' which is a call for continued violence by Hamas 
against the Israeli and Jewish people. Shortly thereafter, the CAMBA 
Chapter of the ALAA, located in Brooklyn, New York, put out a similar 
antisemitic resolution. These resolutions caused a public outcry and 
calls to defund the organizations employing ALAA members.
    I and others recognize these resolutions as supporting violence and 
discrimination against us, our families, friends and other Jewish 
Zionist and allied Union members. Unions should not engage in 
discriminatory speech against its own members or show bias against our 
clients. My Union has the right to criticize Israel and its government, 
just as it may any other government. However, denying Jews the right to 
self-determination in their ancestral homeland and condoning violence 
and discrimination against Jews crosses a clear line into antisemitism. 
Pursuant to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (``IHRA'') 
definition of antisemitism, such denial of the Jewish people's right to 
self-determination, and the demonization of Jews who support Israel, 
constitutes antisemitism. This esteemed body recognized this by passing 
H.R. 6090, the ``Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023,'' and H.R. 894, 
affirming unequivocally that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
    To me, an integral part of my faith and identity as a practicing 
Jew is the recognition of Jewish people's right to self-determination 
in their indigenous homeland in Israel. My connection to and support of 
Israel is as important to me as is my commitment to keep kosher and 
observe the Sabbath. In other words, it is an integral part of my 
sincerely held religious belief system.
    On November 14, 2024, the ALAA gave just three days' notice of a 
resolution to be voted on by its entire membership, entitled 
``Resolution Calling for a Ceasefire in Gaza, and End to the Israeli 
occupation of Palestine.'' This resolution is an antisemitic screed 
against the Jewish state and its supporters including myself and other 
Union members. Despite its title, the resolution was not a call for a 
ceasefire, but for Israel's defeat. Nowhere in the 1,147-word screed is 
the terrorist organization Hamas even mentioned, let alone called upon 
to stand down. Nowhere does the resolution acknowledge that Hamas 
massacred, mutilated, raped, maimed, burned, killed over 1,000 Jews and 
Israelis, including many American citizens. Nowhere does the resolution 
mention that Hamas violently abducted men, women, children and babies 
and are holding them hostage. There was no demand that Hamas release 
its hostages. Instead, the resolution was a one-sided vitriolic attack 
against Israel. It uses antisemitic tropes and language widely 
understood as a call for the destruction of Israel.
    The ALAA resolution was so shocking in its antisemitism that the 
Legal Aid Society of New York City, The Bronx Defenders Organization 
and the President of the New York Legal Assistance Group issued 
statements rejecting the ALAA resolution as antisemitic. The Board and 
management of the Legal Aid Society of Nassau County, my employer, led 
by our Chief Attorney,N. Scott Banks, issued a statement rejecting the 
resolution for its ``antisemitic language and thinly veiled call for 
the destruction of the State of Israel.'' The statement concluded that 
``this resolution does not represent the values or mission of our 
office and is divisive and hurtful to so many members of our staff and 
clients.''
    My colleagues and I were immediately concerned about the negative 
effect this resolution would have on our office and our clients. We 
reasonably believe that the resolution constituted a discriminatory 
statement and created a hostile work environment. People questioned why 
our Union was getting involved in a conflict thousands of miles away 
that has nothing to do with defending our clients' constitutional 
rights. More importantly, we were concerned that the antisemitic 
resolution showed bias against our Jewish, Israeli and non-Jewish 
Zionist clients and fellow Union members, making them lose trust in us. 
Four of us obtained a temporary restraining order under New York law 
from a Nassau County Supreme Court Judge, in Clarke, et al. v. The 
Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, et al., Index No. 618764/2023 (Sup. 
Ct., Nassau Cnty.), to halt the membership vote from concluding on 
November 17. The following week, after listening to extensive oral 
arguments, the Judge extended the TRO. Eventually the case was 
transferred to federal court in the Eastern District of New York, where 
the TRO was dissolved. The vote proceeded, and the resolution was 
passed by a vote of 1067 to 570--almost half of ALAA members did not 
vote at all, and a third who did voted ``no.''
    After the resolution was presented, the Union turned on anyone who 
expressed their support for Israel as a means of retaliating against us 
to dissuade us from engaging in protected activities such as testifying 
before this body or making or supporting a charge of discrimination. We 
were subjected to a barrage of vitriolic hate speech through Gaggle and 
during Joint Council meetings. We were called fascists, genociders, 
genocide deniers, snitches and Zionist ghouls. We were told to go kill 
ourselves. The slogan ``from the river to the sea'' was routinely used. 
More than that, Union members were very vocal in outrightly calling for 
the elimination of Israel. One member wrote ``we have a duty to stand 
up and call for a Free Palestine, which means an end to Isreal [sic]. . 
.'' and signed off with ``goosestepping [sic] outside.''
    Contrary to the very nature of a Union requiring unity and 
camaraderie with fellow members, one member wrote that they ``will 
never have camaraderie with zionists.'' Another email stated ``y'all 
are assuming and conflating that somehow our vote was unconstitutional 
or antisemitic simply because y'all are Zionists and will defend 
israel's [sic] settler colonial project until you cannot any longer. 
until [sic] the liberation of palestine [sic]--from the river to the 
sea.'' One member wrote that ``If the majority decides that LAS should 
not have Zionists in its ranks, then it will be the majority.''
    The emails were a continuous barrage of antisemitic and anti-Israel 
rhetoric. There was no thoughtful discussion and respectful dialogue. 
Instead, Gaggle was replete with insults, denigration, divisiveness and 
antisemitism that would not be tolerated in any other workplace space. 
For what was intended to be a safe space for people to express 
themselves, Gaggle was not a safe space for Jews and Zionists, and, 
most alarmingly, the Union leadership did nothing to tamp-down this 
behavior.
    Immediately after the TRO was filed, four members from the ALAA 
filed discriminatory retaliatory charges, pursuant to Article 31 of the 
UAW Constitution, to expel me and the other three members who exercised 
our legal right to oppose the Union's antisemitism by securing the TRO. 
They accused us of ``conduct unbecoming of a union member'' for 
engaging in protected activities in filing the TRO to stop the Union 
from voting on the resolution and for calling out antisemitism espoused 
by Union members in Gaggle. On January 2, 2024, the ALAA Amalgamated 
Council ratified the discriminatory Article 31 charges and sent the 
retaliatory complaint to the Joint Council to hold a trial and render a 
verdict. A guilty verdict results in our expulsion from the Union.
    With the assistance of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human 
Rights Under Law, we appealed the ALAA's ratification of the expulsion 
charges proceeding to the UAW International Executive Board. We argued 
that the proceeding violates the Labor-Management Reporting and 
Disclosure Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York 
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. After 
waiting months for a decision without hearing anything, we filed 
charges against the ALAA with the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission. Within days of the ALAA being notified of the EEOC charges, 
we received a decision from the UAW International Executive Board 
denying our appeal without even considering our arguments that the 
expulsion violates Federal and New York laws. Shortly thereafter, we 
received notice that the Union intended to commence the expulsion trial 
on July 9, 2024. We immediately appealed to the UAW Public Review 
Board, staying the expulsion proceedings.
    This vitriol continued even after the Union began expulsion 
proceedings against us, in both Joint Council meetings and Gaggle. 
Jewish Zionist members and their allies were demonized as ``scabs, 
snitches and genocide-deniers.'' One recent meeting was particularly 
difficult. At that meeting, three Israel-related resolutions were 
proposed to be voted on by Union delegates. The first resolution 
demanded that in support of the student pro-Palestinian protesters, all 
public defense agencies should issue public statements opposing Israeli 
genocide. The second resolution condemned UAW President Shawn Fain and 
other IEB members for voting against divesting from Israel Bonds and 
continuing the ``UAW's complicity in genocide.''Two of my colleagues 
(Jewish ALAA members) offered a third resolution as an alternative. 
This resolution condemned Hamas for abducting hostages and called for 
the release of hostages. When the resolution supporting the release of 
the hostages was first introduced on Gaggle, the immediate response was 
``lmao.'' Another member wrote that the resolution confirms that ``in 
act and thought, y'all not like us. Y'all aren't comrades, but fascist 
colonizers--mere prosecutors in defender's clothes.''
    The meeting proceeded along similar hostile lines. In the Zoom chat 
when one Jewish Zionist member expressed her opposition to the 
divestiture resolution, one member responded that she was expressing 
``typical Zionist lies,'' and another responded, ``sorry but no settler 
colony like Isra*l [sic] has the right to exist.'' Another commented 
that she should ``please get out of here with this despicable shit,'' 
and someone else on the chat requested that she be removed from the 
chat because she is a Zionist. During the presentation by two Union 
members in support of the Release the Hostages Resolution, people 
called for an end to the presenter's ``rant'' and to mute her. Others 
commented that their presentation was ``disgusting'' and ``fucked up.'' 
The chat was then flooded with ``Free Palestine'' and ``all eyes on 
Rafah'' statements.
    These attacks were done in the presence of ALAA President Lisa Ohta 
and the ALAA Sergeant at Arms. Not once did they or anyone else from 
Union leadership tell the membership to stop their antisemitic vitriol, 
to act with decency and respect, and to stop their attacks. They did 
nothing to stop the antisemitic bullying. The resolution condemning 
Hamas for the taking of Hostages was a simple one, meant to call upon 
the Union to show compassion towards innocent Jews, including five 
American citizens, and non-Jews who were violently abducted and are 
still being held hostage by Hamas. That night, the Union revealed its 
animus and discrimination against Jewish Zionist members. The Union 
delegates overwhelmingly rejected the resolution calling for the 
release of hostages by a vote of 18 in favor and 124 against. The other 
two resolutions were overwhelmingly affirmed.
    The next day, a paid ALAA staff member sent an email to the entire 
membership stating that ``a small Zionist minority has repeatedly, but 
unsuccessfully, attempted to distract from and disrupt UAW 2325 ALAA 
members' support of Palestinian Liberation.'' The staff member then 
blamed the Zionists within the ALAA for collaborating with this 
Congressional Committee, allegedly attempting to weaken the Union. To 
be clear, the Union's paid staff member associated being a Zionist with 
weakening the Union.
    I am not here to weaken the Union, but to strengthen it. This Union 
is tearing itself apart. Union leadership has a duty to protect all 
members from bias and discriminatory attacks. Instead, they are 
allowing and fostering attacks against its Jewish and non-Jewish 
Zionist members who fight against antisemitism and discrimination. This 
is not how a Union should act, and its members should not be forced to 
support such discriminatory actions.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairman Good. Thank you. Mr. Sussman, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM SUSSMAN, GRADUATE STUDENT, 
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

    Mr. Sussman. There we go. Chairman Good, Ranking Member 
DeSaulnier, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is William 
A. Sussman. I am a doctoral student in computer science at the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This past year I served 
as President of MIT Graduate Hillel.
    Last December, this Committee heard MIT's President testify 
that calling for the genocide of Jews, ``can be antisemitic, 
depending on the context.'' Allow me to share some of that 
context.
    According to the Anti-Defamation League, the Boycott, 
Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, is an international 
campaign aimed at delegitimizing and pressuring Israel, through 
the diplomatic, financial, professional, academic and cultural 
isolation of Israel, Israeli individuals, Israeli institutions, 
and increasingly, Jews who support Israel's right to exist.
    The MIT Graduate Student Union, known as the GSU, has 
engaged in BDS since its inception. It is one of the reasons 
they chose to affiliate with the United Electrical Workers, or 
UE, which endorses the BDS movement, and urges the union at all 
levels to become engaged in BDS.
    In 2022, a plurality of MIT graduate students voted to 
install this union as our exclusive bargaining agent, and in 
September 2023, MIT capitulated to its demand for a contract 
with mandatory dues. Then came October 7th. According to the 
American Jewish Committee, Hamas terrorists waged the deadliest 
attack on Jews since the Holocaust, slaughtering babies, raping 
women, burning whole families alive, and taking hundreds of 
innocents, hostage.
    The blood had not yet dried when my colleagues at MIT 
declared, ``Victory is Ours.'' The full-time GSU staff 
organizer told NBC 10 Boston, ``Those who rebel against 
oppression cannot be blamed for rebelling against that 
repression.'' In November, my union representative joined anti-
Israel protestors, who were occupying a building, and when 
threatened with suspensions, the GSU backed the protestors.
    Meanwhile, the GSU illegally threatened to terminate anyone 
who refused to pay for their so-called activism. I filed a 
charge against the union with the National Labor Relations 
Board, which agreed that the GSU had violated our Beck rights. 
However, the NLRB refused to require training of union agents, 
who continue to break the law.
    In January, when MIT brought disciplinary charges against 
two graduate student protestors, the GSU blamed external 
pressure from billionaire donors and right-wing politicians, 
and organized another protest, this time in front of the 
Discrimination and Harassment Office. One picket sign read, 
``Anti-Zionism does not equal Antisemitism.''
    In April, the GSU pushed through a cease-fire resolution 
that does not mention ``peace,'' ``hostages,'' or ``Hamas.'' In 
May, the GSU Vice President was arrested at yet another 
protest. She was banned from campus, but remains on paid union 
leave. As I wrote in the Wall Street Journal, ``Jewish graduate 
students are a minority at MIT.''
    We cannot remove the GSU or disabuse it of its 
antisemitism. We also cannot support an organization that 
actively works for the eradication of the Jewish homeland, 
where I have family living now. That is why many of us asked 
for a religious accommodation that would divert our compulsory 
dues from the UE to a charity.
    The union denied my request, telling me in a letter that no 
principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership 
in, or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union, that one 
of UE's founders was Jewish, and that opposition to BDS is not 
a position I hold for religious reasons. In other words, UE 
thinks it understands my faith better than I do.
    With the help of the National Right to Work Legal Defense 
Foundation, I joined four other Jewish graduate students in 
filing discrimination charges against the union, with the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission. In response, the GSU chanted 
``shame'' against us, calling our lawyers ``well-financed.'' 
They forgot to mention our horns.
    Facing potential charges of its own, MIT began approving 
religious accommodations, and the union followed suit. UE 
represents graduate students at a dozen other universities, and 
it should not take five discrimination charges to exercise our 
freedom of religion and association.
    This Congress should pass the National Right to Work Act, 
so that unions have to earn their dues, and think twice before 
discriminating against minorities. As a lifelong democrat, I 
would like to conclude with a warning for my fellow party 
members. A major union president who voted for FDR four times 
would later in life say, ``I didn't leave the democratic party, 
the democratic party left me.''
    That union president was Ronald Reagan. If the democratic 
party leaves the Jews, we will have no choice but to leave the 
party. Ironically, this incentive structure is precisely what 
is missing from unions. Thank you for the invitation to testify 
today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The Statement of Mr. Sussman follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Good. Thank you, sir. Dr. Lafaso, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF DR. ANNE MARIE LOFASO, PROFESSOR OF LAW, WEST 
 VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, MORGANTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA

    Dr. Lofaso. Good morning, Chairman Good, Ranking Member 
DeSaulnier, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am 
Anne Marie Lofaso, a labor law professor at West Virginia 
University, and a former NLRB attorney. Thank you for inviting 
me to testify regarding employee's rights to know their labor 
rights.
    There has been renewed interest in unions among workers, 
with a record high support of 71 percent. Workers want unions, 
and should know all of their rights, including how labor law 
provides recourse to protect against antisemitism and other 
forms of hate.
    Let us start with what the law already requires of unions. 
The law already requires unions to inform members of their 
Title 1, and their Beck Rights. The law also requires a union 
to represent fairly, and non-discriminatorily all employees in 
the bargaining unit, including nonmembers who pay no dues.
    Religious objectors have at least six avenues of recourses 
if their union acts contrary to their religious beliefs. First, 
the religious objector, like any employee, can refuse to join a 
union, and can resign from a union at any time.
    Second, under Section 9--sorry, under Section 19, that 
expressly allows religious objectors to refuse to pay any dues 
but may be required to donate to a non-religious, non-labor 
charity in the same amount they would have paid in dues.
    Third, the union's refusal to accommodate a religious 
objector's request to substitute charitable payments for union 
dues, makes a prima facia discrimination case under Title 7, 
and the law requires employers to post these rights.
    Fourth, the objector could file unfair labor practice 
charges, or a lawsuit against the union, alleging a violation 
of the union's duty of fair representation, such as a failure 
to process grievances of Jewish employees.
    Fifth, if the union or the employer tries to inflame 
employees' passions by dividing them, using religiously 
inflammatory words during an organizing campaign, any party can 
file objections to the union, which may result in a re-run 
election.
    Sixth, in the public sector, a religious objector may also 
have Constitutional claims against the union. Now, let us look 
at what the law does not require of unions or employers. No one 
is required to inform workers of any of their NLRA rights, 
other than Beck rights, that is the right not to join a union.
    This Subcommittee should put its energy in solving the real 
problem facing workers. Employer interference with their right 
to free association, and workers' lack of awareness of the 
broad spectrum of rights they enjoy under labor laws. Few 
private sector workers understand that labor law protects them 
even if a union does not represent them.
    Employees are protected if they discuss how to improve 
their working conditions during break times, and in non-working 
areas. Employees cannot be fired for expressing their support 
for labor legislation, or for invoking their Weingarten rights.
    Workers should be informed of all their labor rights, not 
only Title 1 rights, Beck rights, and their right to religious 
accommodation, but all their rights.
    A simple fix would require employers to post these rights 
in the workplace alongside other employment rights posters. 
Even when workers know their rights, the NLRB's underfunded, 
making it challenging to conduct union elections and combat 
unfair labor practices, including union ULPs.
    Congress should fully fund the Board and EEOC, to ensure 
enforcement of all workers' rights, including their Beck 
rights, and their religious accommodation rights. To the extent 
that compliance with the LMRDA's disclosure requirements is 
problematic, those problems seem to be on the management side.
    Congress should fully fund the Department of Labor's OLMS 
to ensure compliance. Even when workers know their rights, they 
are often met with employer resistance during an organizing 
drive, or first contract negotiations. Given the act's weak 
remedial scheme, some employers prefer to pay lawyers to defend 
ULP charges, knowing that even if they lose the remedy is often 
a no cost, notice posting.
    However, the Act is limited to public causes of action, 
meaning that access to privately relief via court is typically 
preempted. This is why the passage of the PRO Act is so 
important. The PRO Act would strengthen the Act's remedies and 
require the agency to seek injunctive relief to reinState 
employees whenever it has reasonable cause to believe that the 
employee's job termination was unlawful.
    The PRO Act would create a private cause of action, giving 
workers access to courts, rather than relying on the Board's 
General Counsel to enforce their rights. The PRO Act would also 
make mandatory captive audience speeches unlawful, thereby 
diminishing the employer's power to interfere with employee 
free choice.
    I welcome the Subcommittee's support for workers. I ask 
that the members of the Subcommittee better target the problems 
facing workers, so that workers know all their rights, and can 
enforce those rights against all institutions, including the 
government, business, and labor unions. Thank you.
    [The Statement of Ms. Lofaso follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Good. Thank you. Finally, Mr. Taubman, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MR. GLENN TAUBMAN, STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIONAL RIGHT 
    TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA

    Mr. Taubman. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. 
I have been practicing labor and Constitutional law for over 42 
years at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in 
Springfield, Virginia. My clients are individual employees, who 
wish to stand apart from the workplace labor union they did not 
choose, and do not want.
    For 42 years I have helped litigate the Foundation's 
groundbreaking Supreme Court cases, like Communications Workers 
v. Beck, and Janus v. AFSCME. These decisions recognized 
individual employees' Constitutional and statutory rights to 
partially limit their association with labor unions they wanted 
no part of but were nevertheless forced to join or fund.
    Despite these Supreme Court decisions, I must regularly 
explain to my clients that while they can choose to join any 
worship, house of worship, any affinity group, or fraternal 
organization that they want, Federal law prevents them from 
choosing the agent that exclusively represents them in their 
workplace.
    In half the states without right to work protections, they 
must pay union dues, or be fired. Since October 7th, those once 
routine explanations of basic labor law have become dark, 
sobering, and often heartbreaking conversations about the 
reality of union antisemitism, and legalized compulsion in the 
workplace today.
    Now, my phone is ringing off the hook with calls from 
unionized Jewish and Israeli graduate students at this Nation's 
elite educational universities, MIT, Columbia, University of 
Chicago, to name a few, asking me how they can disassociate 
from a union that is partnering with, and often leading groups 
that organize protests to shut down the campus, destroy 
property, chant the genocidal, antisemitic slogans, and menace 
them on campus.
    Many of these employees are forced to pay dues that go 
directly to subsidize the union's celebration and support of 
Hamas's massacres. In case any of you need reminding, Hamas is 
a medieval death cult on the U.S. government's terrorist watch 
lists, not unlike ISIS and Al Qaeda, wearing masks at the 
workplace, while changing, ``Death to Zionists from the River 
to the Sea,'' is not benign or legitimate union bargaining 
activity.
    My phone is also ringing off the hook from medical 
residents and interns at some of the Nation's finest teaching 
hospitals, asking the same question, as their union is busy 
poisoning their workplace with hateful and exclusionary anti-
Jewish, and anti-Israel propaganda.
    My phone is ringing off the hook from teachers and legal 
aid lawyers, all of whom wonder how the union they used to 
support, and even championed, had suddenly turned away from 
advocacy for better benefits, and to a radical advocacy against 
Israel's just and moral defensive war.
    A war that is occurring thousands of miles away from their 
workplace. Federal labor law has long allowed employees to be 
trapped by exclusive bargaining agents they never voted for, 
and do not want. Today, Jewish employees find themselves forced 
under the thumb of exclusive bargaining agents who are loud and 
ardent supporters of the Hamas death cult.
    At the National Right to Work, we are redoubling our 
efforts to help such employees forcibly saddled with 
antisemitic unions. We have filed Beck charges because unions 
falsely tell employees that they must join, and must pay dues, 
even when the money is spent to support radical campus 
protestors.
    We have filed charges of religious and ethnic 
discrimination with the EEOC because unions refuse employee's 
requests for religious accommodations. Despite our best 
efforts, Title 7 and Beck are not nearly strong enough 
protections, as long as unions can force workers to pay 
anything to get or keep a job, employees will be denied their 
full freedom of association, speech and conscience.
    The Janus decision was a small step for employee freedom in 
the public sector. Now is the time for this Congress to pass 
the National Right to Work Act in the private sector, to end 
the problem of coercive forced unionism, and the particular 
problem of compelling Jewish and other religious employees to 
fund unions, whose views and activities are hateful, 
threatening and deeply divisive.
    What could be more American than that? Thank you, and I 
look forward to answering your questions.
    [The Statement of Mr. Taubman follows:]

Statement of Mr. Glenn Taubman, Staff Attorney, National Right To Work 
            Legal Defense Foundation, Springfield, Virginia

    Chairman Good, Ranking Member DeSaunier and distinguished Committee 
Members:
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I have been 
practicing labor and constitutional law for over 42 years at the 
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. National Right to Work 
Foundation Glenn M. Taubman--National Right to Work Foundation 
(nrtw.org). My clients are individual employees, not unions or 
employers. For 42 years I have helped litigate the Foundation's 
groundbreaking Supreme Court cases, like Communications Workers v. 
Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988) and Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. 878 (2018). 
These landmark decisions secured the constitutional and statutory 
rights of individual workers to limit their association with labor 
unions they wanted no part of, but were nevertheless forced to join or 
fund with their hard earned wages, just to get or keep their jobs. My 
perspective comes from decades of representing more employees than I 
can count, all covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the 
Railway Labor Act, and the Constitution.
    This hearing is aptly titled ``Confronting Union Antisemitism: 
Protecting Workers From Big Labor Abuses,'' and the need to protect 
employees, especially Jewish employees, from the latest form of union 
abuse is clear. Federal labor law must be reformed and reimagined to 
better protect individual liberty and safeguard individual workers' 
free choice concerning unionization, especially in the face of today's 
blatant union anti-semitism.
    Unions reflect the harsh realities of majority rule. Minorities 
within unions almost necessarily get crushed. For example, it is well 
documented that for decades, unions blatantly and grotesquely 
discriminated against black workers, see Steele v. Louisville & N.R. 
Co., 323 U.S. 192 (1944) and Conley v. Gibson, 355U.S. 41 (1957). To my 
frustration, American unions have not become more enlightened. Today, 
many unions are discriminating against and threatening a different 
minority group: the Jewish and pro-Israel workers they purport to 
represent.
    Many labor unions have strayed far from their ostensible role as 
protectors of employees' workplace rights. Partisan politics and 
foreign policy escapades are simply more exciting and interesting than 
filing workplace grievances or negotiating workplace protections. These 
unions are beholden to their own extremists and are often led by people 
more interested in the ideological and ``intersectional'' causes 
fashionable at the fringes of the political spectrum than they are in 
the well-being of the workers they purport to represent. These unions 
are not your father's or grandfather's labor unions, many of which were 
once staunchly pro-Israel and pro-American. In many workplaces such as 
college campuses, teaching hospitals, government offices, and K-12 
schools, these unions have campaigned for the anti-Israel boycott-
divest-sanction (BDS) movement, taking pro-Hamas and anti-American 
positions because BDS has become the siren song of the progressive 
left. As the Members of this Committee should know, Hamas is an anti-
semitic and anti-Western death cult, not unlike ISIS and al-Qaeda, yet 
many of today's unions are among its loudest and most ardent 
supporters.
    Many old line unions like the UE electrical workers union or the 
UAW autoworkers have seen precipitous declines in their traditional 
industrial membership, so they have searched for low hanging fruit to 
organize--and that is typically young people like graduate students, 
medical residents and interns, and legal aid lawyers, people whose 
political views might previously have aligned with the unions but who 
had no experience actually dealing with them. (See Ex. 1, Labor Notes 
article on the targeting of students for compulsory unionism; and Ex. 
2, Wall Street Journal editorial about the UAW's pro-Hamas activities). 
The current travesty of herding graduate students into anti-semitic 
unions finds its source with the Obama-Biden National Labor Relations 
Boards, which have by fiat turned graduate students into graduate 
employees--subject to unionization under the NLRA and, of course, the 
payment of forced union dues as a condition of their academic careers. 
See, e.g., Trustees of Columbia University and UAW, 364 NLRB 1080 
(2016), overruling Brown University, 342 NLRB 483 (2004). Many Jewish 
and pro-Israel graduate students are now being told that they must pay 
dues to these radical unions or face termination. Such union coercion 
is not limited to university campuses.
    After October 7, my law practice and my dealings with my clients 
took an even darker turn. Initially, my phone began ringing off the 
hook with calls from Jewish and Israeli graduate students at the 
nation's elite educational institutions--MIT, Columbia, NYU, the 
University of Chicago and Northwestern to name a few--asking how they 
can disassociate not just from any union, but from the anti-semitic 
anti-Israel union that is menacing them on campus, protecting their 
tormentors, or forcing them to pay dues to subsidize the union's pro-
Hamas activities.
    These academic unions have not participated in the occupation of 
campus libraries to protest the murder of Sudanese, who are being 
starved and killed by the thousands every day by their own co-
religionists. Nor are they helping to set up encampments to protest the 
treatment of Uighurs being herded into labor camps by the Chinese 
Communist Party. Nor are they demanding that the Assad regime halt its 
bloody repression against its own Syrian people, which has resulted in 
the murder of hundreds of thousands. Nor do they demand the boycott of 
Iranian oil products and pistachios in an effort to secure an end to 
Houthi and Hezbollah rocket attacks on commercial shipping and innocent 
civilians in both Israel and Lebanon. These unions' time and treasure, 
and yes, their anti-semitic hatred, is laser focused on defaming Jews 
and destroying the State of Israel.
    In addition, my phone is now ringing off the hook from medical 
residents and interns at some of the nation's finest teaching 
hospitals, asking the same question, as their union is busy poisoning 
their workplace with hateful anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli propaganda 
and union resolutions.
    My phone is also ringing off the hook from teachers and legal aid 
lawyers, all of whom wonder how the union they formerly supported had 
suddenly become organizers of pro-Hamas demonstrations and purveyors of 
hateful rhetoric calling for the destruction of Israel, the one Jewish 
homeland in the world, and the annihilation of all Jews.
    Though this anti-semitic storm has been brewing for a long time, it 
did not make landfall in the lives of most Jewish employees until after 
October 7, when unions began funneling their resources to virulently 
anti-semitic and anti-Israel projects. One example of this is the UE 
union filing unfair labor practice charges against MIT because the 
university suspended some of the pro-Hamas rioters who blocked access 
to campus buildings and threatened Israeli and Jewish students.
    Instead of siding with the victims of Hamas' terror and the crude 
anti-semitism of the ``protesters,'' the UE is using union dues and 
union lawyers to support the perpetrators of these hateful actions. 
(See Exhibit 3, a UE unfair labor practice charge against MIT for 
disciplining the ``protesters''). Such union misconduct is being 
repeated all over the country by other unions like the UAW, which went 
on strike in California to protect pro-Hamas ``protesters'' who seized 
university property and set up ``encampments'' while threatening Jewish 
and Israeli students. The UAW apparently claims this is all ``protected 
concerted activity'' and union free speech under the NLRA, state law, 
and/or the U.S. Constitution. (See Ex. 4, a lawsuit by the University 
of California against the UAW to end the strikes).
    The National Right to Work Legal Foundation's attorneys have been 
working with Jewish and Israeli employees to vindicate their statutory 
and civil rights in the face of this union abuse, but the law as it 
currently exists is woefully inadequate to the task.
    For example, Foundation lawyers have filed Beck-related unfair 
labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board because 
the UE union at MIT lied to employees and falsely told them they must 
join or pay full dues, with no reduction for political and ideological 
expenditures, even though the union knows that its money goes to 
support pro-Hamas rioters on campus. (See Ex. 5, two UE emails sent to 
all MIT students to coerce them into joining and paying; see also Ex. 
3). The Beck decision says otherwise, but the lies and 
misrepresentations about being ``required'' to join the union and pay 
full dues persist.
    Unions have no incentive to tell employees about their Beck rights, 
and every pecuniary incentive to hide the truth and try to get 
employees to pay excessive dues. An NLRB Beck settlement with the UE 
union at MIT required the union to go back and notify all 3,000 
graduate students of their true legal rights (see Ex. 6, the UE 
settlement in Will Sussman's case), but shortly thereafter the union 
turned around and denied another graduate student's Beck objection, 
necessitating yet again another unfair labor practice charge that the 
NLRB regional office found to be meritorious. (See Ex. 7, Katerina 
Boukin's unfair labor practice charge). I expect more such litigation 
will be necessary to enforce Beck rights.
    NRTW lawyers have also filed five separate charges of religious and 
ethnic discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
(EEOC) against the same UE union at MIT (see Ex. 8), because that union 
denied several Jewish graduate students' request for a religious 
accommodation, telling them, in effect, that the union bosses know more 
about their Jewish religion, ethnic identity and ancestral homeland 
than they do. (See Ex. 9, UE denial letter). I expect more Jewish 
employees around the country will have to initiate litigation and file 
EEOC charges to see their civil rights honored.
    Beyond what I have learned through my conversations with Jewish 
employees faced with anti-semitic unions, the attached media reports 
(Ex. 10) demonstrate that this sort of harassing anti-semitic union 
behavior is going on at unionized workplaces all over the country. I 
also attach material showing discriminatory teaching materials being 
pushed by teachers' union members in Oakland, CA (Ex. 11). Finally, I 
attach anti-Israel resolutions and statements being pushed by the 
SEIU's medical intern and resident division (known as CIR-SEIU), the 
National Education Association, and SEIU Local 1199. (See Ex. 12).
    The bottom line is this: No worker in America should be threatened 
with discharge from his or her workplace for refusing to pay dues and 
fees to a private organization he or she may despise. No worker should 
be forced to be represented by a private organization and its officials 
who perform poorly in the workplace, or place their own interests above 
those they purport to represent, or act corruptly to steal from the 
very employees they claim to represent, or who espouse hateful rhetoric 
and pro-terrorist policies. No worker should be forced to subsidize, as 
a condition of employment, the political schemes and candidates of a 
private organization of which they disapprove.
    That is the reality for millions of private sector workers today 
under the compulsory dues and monopoly bargaining regimes of the NLRA 
and the Railway Labor Act. In the face of this abuse, Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act and the Beckdecision are not nearly strong enough 
protections of employees' rights. As long as unions can force workers 
to pay anything to get or keep their job, employees will be denied 
their full freedom of association, speech and conscience. The Janus 
decision was a small step for employee freedom in the public sector. 
Now this Congress must pass the National Right to Work Act in the 
private sector to end the problem of coercive forced unionism, and the 
particular problem of compelling Jewish and other religious employees 
to fund unions whose views and activities they find hateful, 
threatening and deeply offensive.
    The National Right to Work Act does not complicate federal labor 
law. Rather, it repeals one legal section passed in the 1940's that 
restricts individual employees' free choice about funding unions. 
Restoring individual employees' right to provide or withhold money from 
unions would hold Hamas-supporting unions (and indeed, all unions) 
accountable to the workers they claim to represent. Employees who like 
their anti-semitic and anti-Israel unions can keep them. Employees who 
do not want anything to do with these hateful ideologies should be able 
to defund and disaffiliate from them. What could be more American than 
that?
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairman Good. Thank you, sir. Under Committee Rule 9, we 
will now question witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I will 
wait to ask my questions, and therefore I recognize Mr. Wilson 
from South Carolina for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you witnesses for being here today. Particularly, I am very 
grateful, Mr. Taubman, that the National Right to Work 
Committee has appreciated, is truly the champion for workers' 
rights, promoting freedom since 1955.
    That is just extraordinary, to have such a strong life, and 
so successful. It should achieve a majority of the American 
states to enact right to work laws for protecting workers' 
freedom of choice. In South Carolina, it was instrumental in 
working with creating 10,000 jobs at the Boeing aircraft 
company, with its suppliers to build 787 jetliners several 
years ago in Charleston, Orangeburg, Aiken and Lexington.
    I was grateful to be working with Governor Nikki Haley, 
U.S. Senators Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham, and Attorney 
General Alan Wilson, with the Right to Work Committee, and you 
prevailed over the corrupt National Labor Relations Act, and 
now 10,000 workers, thousands of families are benefiting from 
what the Right to Work Committee has achieved.
    The Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is working with 
Jewish and Israeli employees to protect their statutory and 
civil rights in the face of antisemitism. Can you discuss these 
workers' reactions to their unions, supporting antisemitic and 
anti-Israel causes, despite having a legal duty to protect the 
interest of all members they represent?
    Mr. Taubman. Thank you very much, Congressman Wilson, for 
that question. As I said in my statement, it is heartbreaking 
for me, as a Jewish American, and as a Zionist, to have my 
phone ringing off the hook every single day since October 7th 
by students, workers, teachers, legal aid lawyers, doctors, 
saying how do I get out of this?
    I am surrounded by vicious people attacking me as a Jew, 
attacking me as a Zionist. I have friends in Israel. I have 
family in Israel. I have friends who served in the IDF, the 
most moral Army in the world, perhaps second only to the United 
States Army, and they are attacked in their workplace, so that 
is the reaction that I am seeing.
    Unfortunately, I cannot say to all of these people exercise 
your Constitutional rights to get out because under the 
National Labor Relations Act, they cannot get out. They are 
forced to be part of a bargaining unit and forced to pay dues 
to a union or be fired.
    Finally, although we have heard that unions have an 
obligation to tell people about their rights, in fact, few 
unions do. If you look at the exhibits to my statement, you 
will see that in Exhibit 5, for example. This is a pamphlet 
that the union at MIT put out to students.
    They say, ``You are required--required, to sign up for 
either dues or agency fees as a condition of employment. The 
cost of dues and agency fees is exactly the same.'' That is a 
lie. The whole point of Beck is that the cost of reduced dues 
is different. You do not have to fund these obnoxious, 
outrageous, political actions, but the unions lie, and tell 
people they do.
    Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you for the Right to Work Committee 
for telling the truth. Mr. Sussman, thank you for your courage. 
Indeed, the graduate student union had an email in December 
2023, which condemned MIT administrators for setting down what 
they called peaceful protests. What were these peaceful 
protests?
    Mr. Sussman. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. The students would 
occupy buildings. They would occupy communal spaces on campus 
that were supposed to be shared, and over time they would 
escalate. I included in my testimony, the arrest records of 
several students, many of whom are graduate students in the 
union, one of whom is the Vice President who is paid by the 
union.
    Many of those arrests were violent. I believe one person is 
charged with assaulting a 60-year-old disabled person.
    Mr. Wilson. Again, thank you for your courage. I regret, 
Ms. Kopmar, I do not have time, but thank you for your courage, 
and indeed to have the associate legal aid attorneys to ignore, 
or disregard mass murder and rape. Thank you for the courage to 
stand up against that, and the Hamas puppets of the regime in 
Tehran need to be addressed. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr. Norcross 
from New Jersey for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. I want to start out by saying we 
live in the greatest country in the world. We live in a 
democracy, which we have elections, whether they are for 
Members of Congress, or for their representatives as their 
union voices, but I do want to take a moment and personal 
privilege to thank the Chairman.
    He and I agree on little, if anything, but I do want to 
thank him for his public service and wish him well in any 
future endeavors that are coming out. We really need more 
public servants, and we appreciate what you have done, and wish 
you well.
    I will start out by saying that we are in due process, I 
heard stories what is going on in this country with 
antisemitism is horrific in any form. We heard in many of our 
hearings what is going on in college campuses, and I could not 
agree more. We live in a country that is a democracy, and 
unfortunately many of those views are something that I 
personally disagree with, as many of us.
    In this country, and to quote our friend from the 
Institute, Mr. Taubman, we did not choose, and we do not want 
many of our elected officials. Some might even be in this room, 
and we are forced to fund them, whether it is a union or our 
government.
    The idea or a suggestion that because of a few bad actors, 
which we make no excuses for, are being antisemitic, and 
smearing the entire representatives or workers, I think is no 
different calling unions antisemites. You could call 
Republicans racist. You can call Democrats socialists, but it 
does not make it true.
    If we look back in our history, we certainly did have 
racists that served in this House, but the idea that somehow 
this is breaking out--I am sorry, did you say something? You 
are looking to yield time from me, Chairman?
    Chairman Good. Are you finished with your time?
    Mr. Norcross. No. You were talking. I thought you were 
wanting me to yield some time.
    Chairman Good. I thought maybe you were talking about the 
Southern Democrats and the KKK.
    Mr. Norcross. No. I claim back my time.
    Chairman Good. That is what you are talking about?
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, you are done. In more than one 
way. The idea of what we are doing each and every day is how 
democracies work. My question goes back to whether they have 
votes on authorizing strikes, ratifying contracts, union 
leadership, the votes that go on each and every day.
    This is not the top down this is a bottom up. This is 
something that we believe in in our Nation, and certainly in 
the unions. Dr. Lofaso, can you talk to us a little bit more 
detail, what you started to talk about, where those rights of a 
union member when it comes to dues, when it comes to the votes 
on where that union comes together, but at the end of the day 
they have a vote, whether they agree with it, or they do not, 
just like we do in this country when we have votes.
    Could you expand on some of those issues, particularly 
right to work states versus non-right to work states?
    Ms. Lofaso. Okay. First of all, no worker can be compelled 
to join a union in any State. In right to work states, they 
also cannot be compelled to pay their dues. I think that we 
agree on that. In non-right to work states, or fair share 
states, the only thing that-union represented employees have to 
pay are their agency fees, which is, as Mr. Taubman pointed 
out, they are reduced fees.
    The Supreme Court has stated very clearly that unions 
cannot force anyone to pay for their political activities, or 
non-representative activities. There is a big difference in 
right to work states, and non-right to work states. Also, with 
respect to a national right to work law, there already is a 
solution for that too, which is to lobby.
    The states can do that. Every State can do that if they 
want, and it would have the same effect. West Virginia was one 
of the most democratic states until recently. It was not right 
to work, and now it is recently right to work, sorry.
    Mr. Norcross. No. We understand. The idea that they do have 
a choice, they are represented by agency fees, we understand 
all of that, but the idea of having a hearing, one of only 
maybe a dozen a year, making this your highest priority, I have 
yet to have, and I live in a very Jewish area, one person come 
up to me and talk to me about unions being antisemitic.
    This goes with to the case of what we are doing here.
    Chairman Good. The gentleman's time is expired. Thank you, 
sir.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you for giving me those additional 10 
seconds, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate it. You have a good 
day.
    Chairman Good. I will now recognize Mr. Walberg from 
Michigan again, for 5 minutes. Thank you.
    Mr. Walberg. I thank the Chair for holding the hearing 
today, and again, I would State it is not anti-union. We are 
anti-union abuse of their power, and violation even of the law. 
That is what our concern is with today and has been. About a 
month ago, this Subcommittee held a hearing where I highlighted 
a Wall Street, courageous, Wall Street Journal opinion piece 
written by Mr. Sussman.
    I am pleased to have Mr. Sussman here today to again be 
courageous and stand, and hopefully produce other young people 
that are willing to stand, not for republican, not for democrat 
ideals, but for American ideals, and decency that goes on--that 
ought to go on with this country.
    I thank the Committee for its work in highlighting this 
important issue. Mr. Sussman, your written testimony notes that 
the graduate student union threatened to terminate anyone who 
refused to pay for their so-called activism. In all reality, 
that would virtually expel you from MIT, not for academic 
problems, not for disciplinary problems, but the fact that they 
were not willing to be represented by an entity that spoke 
against you and your beliefs.
    You filed a charge against the GSU with the National Labor 
Relations Board, regarding the union violating your Beck 
rights, which allow workers to opt out of paying the portion of 
union dues that pays for political activity. You are following 
the law. My question is while the NLRB agreed that your rights 
had been violated, do you believe it adequately addressed the 
illegal union activity?
    Mr. Sussman. I do not. They required the union to send out 
a PDF stating our rights, and that was basically the last we 
heard of it. They continued doing the same exact tactics that I 
charged them with last November, but the NLRB closed the case 
anyway, and they refused to require training of the union 
agents, so that they would not make the same mistake.
    Mr. Walberg. Still have not. In your written testimony, Mr. 
Sussman, you detail numerous examples of the GSU, and its paid 
staff engaging in extreme anti-Israel, and anti-American. We 
must not forget that--anti-American activity. For example, 2 
days after October 7th attack on Israel, a paid GSU organizer 
told reporters, and I quote, ``Those who rebel against 
oppression cannot be blamed for rebelling against that 
repression.''
    Despite the union that represents you engaging in behavior 
that is inconsistent with your beliefs, you have no choice but 
to associate with it, or to leave MIT. Question, do you think 
current Federal labor law needs to be reformed to allow workers 
who have moral objections to a union's political stances to 
disassociate completely from the union that represents them.
    Mr. Sussman. Absolutely, yes. I have tried to use the law 
as it exists, and at every turn the law has failed me.
    Mr. Walberg. Yes. In some ways it is absurd to think, we 
are talking about a union of students, very much different than 
what union, steel workers union I was a member of at one time, 
and others had in mind. Mr. Sussman, an attachment to your 
written testimony shows that a December 2023 email from the 
graduate student union at MIT.
    The email condemned MIT administrators for shutting down 
what it calls a peaceful anti-Israel protest and highlighted 
the importance of First Amendment rights. You responded to my 
colleague, Mr. Wilson, about some of those activities. Do you 
believe that the GSU has respected the First Amendment rights 
of the Jewish graduate students they represent?
    Mr. Sussman. No. They have not respected our rights, 
specifically speech, religion and association.
    Mr. Walberg. In fact, they have stepped on them. They 
pushed them down, pushed them back, tried to discourage any 
dissent from that, and still expected you to pay up, while 
people that should be representing you fight against you, your 
belief, your nationality, religion, and your American ideals as 
well.
    Mr. Sussman, I would encourage you to continue standing 
firm. I believe others are watching. I believe there are others 
that will gain strength and courage themselves to follow you. 
It will not be easy, as Mr. Taubman has identified in his 
efforts for 40 years, but it must be done for America, as well 
as freedom, and First Amendment liberties, and I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Ms. Jayapal 
from Washington for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been appalled 
at the rising level of hate crimes against the Jewish community 
that followed Hamas's terrorist attack on Israel on October 
7th, and I believe it is absolutely critical that we speak out 
against antisemitism, that we recognize the severity, and we 
condemn and confront it authentically.
    President Biden's national strategy to counter 
antisemitism, importantly recognizes that, ``Protecting the 
Jewish community from antisemitism is essential to our broader 
fight against all forms of hate, bigotry and bias, and to our 
broader vision of a thriving, inclusive, and diverse 
democracy.''
    I am also very proud to come from Washington State, which 
is the third most unionized State in the country, and because 
of that we have the highest minimum wage of any State in the 
country. We have an incredible paid leave policy in our State. 
We have the third best environment for small businesses of any 
State in the country.
    Unions have been an absolute, incredible partner to 
achieving justice and equality for all communities. Unions have 
long recognized the interconnectedness of all our issues, and 
that conditions on the job are impacted by conditions in the 
world. From the civil rights movement to marriage equality, and 
protections for undocumented workers, unions have been on the 
forefront of social and socioeconomic progress.
    UAW Local 2325, which is under scrutiny by my Republican 
colleagues, has a history of activism opposing the Vietnam War, 
apartheid in South Africa, the Iraq War, and instances of 
police brutality. I am disappointed that my republican 
colleagues are convening this hearing to question a union 
exercising its First Amendment rights, especially at a time 
when there are real issues of antisemitism that we all need to 
address.
    Unionized workers are standing up in record numbers to 
secure contracts that guarantee that they receive their fair 
share of corporate profits through dramatically raised wages 
and increased benefits. It seems to me that this hearing is 
really about criticizing unions, which has always been a 
Republican position, to try to undermine unions, instead of the 
real issues that we should be talking about.
    We have heard a lot of attacks today directed at UAW Local 
2325 for adopting a cease-fire resolution. Dr. Lofaso, can you 
share the process behind how this resolution was adopted?
    Ms. Lofaso. I can share the process of how it is likely to 
be adopted because I do not actually have any firsthand 
knowledge of the UAW local. What normally is done is that 
unions have bylaws, and a constitution that they are ratified 
by majority vote, so it is a democratic process.
    Then they--anything--then those are the rules by which they 
have to live by. After that a resolution like this would have 
to go by their rules, and if they did they would be democratic. 
Now, if sometimes democracies fail us, and so when there are 
dissenters. We have two dissenters here. They are important.
    Their voices are important, because the law in this country 
has recognized that we do not need to protect popular speech. 
We do, but we do not need to because it is popular. We need to 
protect unpopular speech.
    It is very important what they have done, and I think they 
prove my point, which is they had recourse, and to the extent 
they did not feel that they had recourse, which I can 
appreciate, like in Mr. Sussman's case, I think part of that is 
the underfunding of the NLRB. Sorry.
    Ms. Jayapal. Yes. I agree with you there. I have a couple 
more questions I just want--but I want to point out some 
important things you said. It is a democratic process, right?
    Ms. Lofaso. Yes.
    Ms. Jayapal. Constitution, bylaws, democratic vote, it was 
adopted through a vote, and has always been the case, I think 
we have to understand that labor unions are an extension of 
democracy in the workplace.
    Ms. Lofaso. Yes.
    Ms. Jayapal. That is the way that they are structured. Can 
you discuss just briefly, because I do not have much time, how 
workers are impacted, how it impacts their ability to organize 
when Congress issues subpoenas over votes that the union, as a 
democratic institution, has taken as the Republican majority is 
doing?
    Ms. Lofaso. Well, any time Congress issues a subpoena, it 
is going to have effect of repressing that institution because 
Congress is a scary body, right? It is the government. It is 
asking, it is compelling you to come to it. That would be 
something that would repress that democratic institution, and 
something that is odd for an elected body to do.
    Ms. Jayapal. Extremely odd, and extremely undemocratic. 
Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Mr. Allen 
from Georgia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the 
witnesses for your courage and your honest testimony this 
morning. You know, the battle rages on in the country about, 
you know, like who are we? One of the values that we enjoy in 
our workplace, in the greatest workforce, the greatest military 
on the face of the earth, and what are those values based on?
    For example, this hearing is in the House of 
Representatives. In our Chamber we have above the flag etched 
in stone, In God We Trust. In fact, it is on our currency. Is 
that God the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob? Genesis 12:3 is 
very clear about the circumstances that we are dealing with 
right now.
    We have the full face of Moses looking down on that body, 
who gave us the law, which is the basis of our values that we 
enjoy. Most of our leaders ask for God to bless America. Well, 
that is covered very well in Genesis 12:3. God says, ``If you 
bless Israel, I will bless you.''
    Then he says, ``All the nations would be blessed through 
Israel.'' In my State, of Georgia, we are a right to work 
State, the 27 states. Lots of states are doing well, but 
Georgia has had the distinct honor to being the best State to 
do business in the last 10 years in a row.
    Georgia has great companies, who value their employees, 
both union and non-union. It is damaging to these great 
companies, those who are non-union, to say that they are bad 
actors because they are not union. Folks, we have a modern 
workforce, and based on the values I just described, the 
scriptures are very clear on how you deal with your workforce.
    The folks that work for you. They are very clear, and I do 
not have time to line all that up today because I have got a 
lot of questions to ask. The bottom line is we have got to 
decide where we want to be as a Nation. Right now, we are in 
crisis because we are a lawless land, and that is why we are 
having lots of these discussions, which are very difficult for 
a lot of the citizens of this country.
    Mr. Taubman, under Communication Workers of America versus 
Beck, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that workers 
represented by a union continues to opt out of paying the 
portion of dues that funds union political activity. In your 
experience, do labor unions respect workers' decisions to 
exercise their Beck rights?
    Mr. Taubman. Thank you, and the answer is absolutely not. 
It demonstrated in part by what we have in this case at MIT. It 
is in the exhibits to my testimony. The union tells people you 
must pay full dues, or you must pay an equal amount of agency 
fees, equal, which is false, and that is what they tell these 
graduate students.
    Mr. Allen. Are workers well informed of these rights?
    Mr. Taubman. Not in the least.
    Mr. Allen. Can you discuss some ways that labor unions have 
used members' dues to support antisemitic, and anti-Israel 
activities?
    Mr. Taubman. It is all in the attachments to my statement. 
The unions, instead of trying to protect Jewish students from 
these pro-Hamas rioters, when the schools finally get up the 
nerve to suspend or expel the pro-Hamas rioters, the unions 
file lawsuits, and unfair labor practice charges against the 
schools to stop them from suspending the pro-Hamas rioters.
    Mr. Allen. Ms. Kopmar, I have got 30 seconds. In your 
opinion, have any ALAA members stopped participating in unions 
because of the rancor leading up to the passage of the 
resolution calling for the cease-fire?
    Ms. Kopmar. Yes, definitely, I mean, many of us have been 
stifled. We are not able to be as vocal as we can. There as I 
mentioned on Gaggle, Gaggle is this email listserv that members 
are able to post their emails, but Zionist members are 
constantly being bullied on it. It is not a safe space for any 
of us.
    Me, I will never go on Gaggle because I know that I am 
going to be ridiculed and threatened, so I will never. My voice 
is stifled. Every time we go on a Joint Council meeting, we are 
also--a Joint Council meeting is a membership wide meeting, 
again, our voices are stifled.
    We are called despicable names. We are bullied constantly, 
in front of leadership. It is not just a few bad actors.
    Mr. Allen. That is why the leaders of this Nation have got 
to decide to protect our citizens, and Mr. Sussman, I have more 
questions for you. I will submit those for the record, and Mr. 
Chairman, I apologize, I ran over my time.
    Chairman Good. My apologies to everybody for letting you go 
that long. Thank you, Mr. Allen. I recognize Mr. Courtney from 
Connecticut. I now recognize Ms. Manning from North Carolina 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, and I 
want to thank our witnesses for sharing your stories. I am 
deeply disturbed about what you have been through, and I want 
to be very clear that antisemitism has no place in any 
workplace, in any school, in any union, or any other facet of 
American life.
    It is simply unacceptable, and I want to emphasize that 
President Biden's national strategy to counter antisemitism 
actually requires the Department of Labor to disseminate 
resources to unions on recognizing antisemitism, and the 
importance of combating this hate in relation to workers' 
rights.
    The national strategy, which I have put into my Combating 
Antisemitism Act would offer real tangible solutions to combat 
antisemitism in our country, and that is why I am asking once 
again, that we mark-up my legislation, and support the 
President's proposed strategy to take serious action to fight 
against the uptick of antisemitism, and despicable hatred in 
our communities.
    Both of these could also be addressed by increasing funding 
to the EEOC and the OCR. With that said, Ms. Lofaso, you 
highlighted the legal duty of unions to fair representation and 
non-discrimination. Discrimination based on religious views in 
union organizations is illegal, according to Federal law. Is 
that correct?
    Ms. Lofaso. Yes.
    Ms. Manning. Ms. Kopmar has highlighted her case in which 
four members of the Association of Legal Aid attorneys filed 
charges to expel her from the union. These charges came after 
Ms. Kopmar secured a temporary restraining order to stop a 
union wide vote from taking place on an anti-Israel, 
antisemitic resolution.
    Do these filings to expel Ms. Kopmar constitute retaliation 
in your opinion.
    Ms. Lofaso. Under those facts as you gave them, that sounds 
like retaliation to me.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. Ms. Kopmar, I want to turn you. I 
want to thank you for bravely coming here today to discuss your 
appalling experience in facing antisemitism within your union, 
your workplace. You consider yourself generally a pro-union 
person, is that correct?
    Ms. Kopmar. That is very much correct.
    Ms. Manning. Would you agree that unions are instrumental 
in fighting for higher wages, better working conditions, and 
inclusivity in the workplace? Would you agree with that.
    Ms. Kopmar. Yes, I would.
    Ms. Manning. Like the ALAA, other unions, including the 
NEA, have weighed in on this issue. Does engaging in divisive, 
political resolutions help support these goals, the goals of a 
union?
    Ms. Kopmar. No. It does not.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. As part of your effort to 
strengthen the union, and protect yourself from antisemitism, 
you mentioned that you filed charges with the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission. Is that correct?
    Ms. Kopmar. Yes. That is.
    Ms. Manning. In your experience, would giving more funding 
to the EEOC help them provide the action that they need to help 
resolve claims like yours?
    Ms. Kopmar. I believe so because I think I know that we 
have been waiting for a while to receive a response from the 
EEOC, so more funding would then lead to a quicker response.
    Ms. Manning. Do you believe that legislation that increases 
education about workplace antisemitism in combating anti-Jewish 
hatred for union members would help address this problem?
    Ms. Kopmar. I think so.
    Ms. Manning. As you have emphasized, the EEOC is a much-
needed tool for union members, and all Americans who have 
experienced discrimination in any form. We have had other 
hearings on this topic, and it has become clear that there are 
also awareness issues that workers simply do not know that they 
can turn to the EEOC, or students do not know that they can 
turn to the OCR, when they experience Jewish antisemitism, or 
anti-Jewish hatred, so more funding would be appropriate.
    Let me just close by saying that if my Republican 
colleagues are serious about combatting antisemitism in the 
workplace, or on college campuses, they need to do more than 
holding hearings.
    They need to stop presenting us with budgets that 
drastically cut the funding for the EEOC, or the OCR, and they 
should bring my Countering Antisemitism Act to the House floor 
for a vote, so that we can give the government the tools they 
need to fight this rising form of discrimination. With that, I 
yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Mr. 
Burlison for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sussman, in your 
testimony you noted that the GSU, the graduate student union, 
they illegally threatened to terminate anyone who refused to 
pay for their activism. You filed a charge against the GSU with 
the NLRB regarding them violating your Beck rights.
    While the NLRB did agree that your rights had been 
violated, do you believe that they addressed the issue 
adequately?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Burlison. Can you elaborate?
    Mr. Sussman. Sure. They require that the union send out a 
PDF stating our rights, and then the union officers continued 
to do exactly the same thing that they had been doing all 
along.
    Mr. Burlison. They just continued. They are not doing any 
enforcement whatsoever.
    Mr. Sussman. That is correct.
    Mr. Burlison. Have you noticed other examples of 
politically motivated activity within the GSU where they pushed 
on their members?
    Mr. Sussman. They spent all of their time protesting 
against Israel.
    Mr. Burlison. I am sorry. I did not hear that.
    Mr. Sussman. They spend all of their time protesting 
against Israel.
    Mr. Burlison. Okay. They are spending so much time pushing 
against Israel, do they take any steps whatsoever to protect 
the rights of their Jewish members?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Burlison. That you can recall?
    Mr. Sussman. Not that I can recall.
    Mr. Burlison. That is tragic. Mr. Taubman, in your 
testimony you say that since October 7th, and the attack on 
Israel, labor unions have become organizers of hateful, anti-
Jewish and anti-Israel propaganda, and resolutions. From the 
discussions that you have had with workers, and it is tragic to 
hear that you are getting phone calls from all over the Nation, 
have unions--I will ask the same question.
    Have you seen where unions have stepped in to take steps to 
protect the Jewish members who are being discriminated against 
at this time?
    Mr. Taubman. Never once, and I have taken calls from all 
over the country, universities, hospitals, legal aid, not one 
employee has ever said to me oh, the union has helped me, or 
oh, I can go to the union, and they will help me. None.
    Mr. Burlison. Mr. Taubman, I hesitate to bring this up, but 
I just--there has been--I know that in my State, for example, 
there have been lawsuits and complaints against labor unions, 
particularly, you know, we have areas where there are a high 
percentage of minorities, and yet the labor unions have a very 
low percentage of minorities in the single digits.
    There has been--there has often been a history, and I do 
not know if you have any comments about it, but it is just the 
nature of this system to create somehow emboldens 
discrimination within labor unions, and the history of that?
    Mr. Taubman. Sure. I think the bottom line is the old adage 
absolute power corrupts absolutely. If I can tell you pay me, 
or you are going to lose your job because I can get you fired, 
I would call that absolute dictatorial power in the workplace. 
Unions spend other people's money.
    Justice Scalia in a Supreme Court Case called Davenport, 
recognized that unions have a unique privilege in this country, 
the privilege of demanding other people's money, which they can 
then go use on all of these sorts of far left, intersectional 
woke politics, right? It is a lot more fun to go running around 
and riot on behalf of Hamas, than it is to say let us do a 
workplace grievance and see if we can get better wages in this 
place because that is boring.
    That is work. It is more fun to be intersection or leftist.
    Mr. Burlison. Do you think the Beck decision was kind of a 
compromise rather than throw out? I think that the forced 
unionization is a violation of the First Amendment rights of 
associations, so do you think the Beck decision was a way to 
kind of split the baby and say you do not have to join, you do 
not have to be a member, but you still have to pay.
    Many of the examples are that you have to pay the exact 
same amount, and so the question is do people truly have a 
right of an association?
    Mr. Taubman. Well, yes. All of these decisions have been 
split the babies. If you go back to the original duty of fair 
representation decisions, Steel v. Louisville and Nashville 
Railroad, where the unions were discriminating against black 
workers, and refusing to let them join, the Supreme Court said 
oh, we do not want to strike down the Railway Labor Act, and 
these Federal laws.
    We will create this thing called the Duty of Fair 
Representation, and that will fix the problem. Instead, they 
should have struck down these laws which violated people's free 
association rights. We are going to continue to litigate to 
make that happen, and hopefully it will happen in my lifetime.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you for what you do, and I appreciate 
your comments. My time is expired.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Scott from 
Virginia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Lofaso, 
is it true that those who belong to unions generally get higher 
pay than non-union members?
    Ms. Lofaso. Yes.
    Mr. Scott. Do they get safer workplaces?
    Ms. Lofaso. I am sorry, I did not hear the question.
    Mr. Scott. Safer workplaces.
    Ms. Lofaso. Yes.
    Mr. Scott. Better pay?
    Ms. Lofaso. I have actually written on that.
    Mr. Scott. Better benefits?
    Ms. Lofaso. Yes.
    Mr. Scott. Now, in paying union dues you said that they 
could opt out of paying the full dues, and just pay for those 
that go to representational expenses. Is that right?
    Ms. Lofaso. That is in fair share states. In right to work 
states they do not have to pay any dues.
    Mr. Scott. They get all of the benefits of the union 
efforts?
    Ms. Lofaso. That is correct. There is a duty of fair 
representation.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. Now, if you are paying your fair share, 
and not the full dues, do you have to pay for political 
activities?
    Ms. Lofaso. No. No one has to pay for political activities.
    Mr. Scott. How about the annual summer cookout?
    Ms. Lofaso. No.
    Mr. Scott. How about the end of the year holiday party?
    Ms. Lofaso. No.
    Mr. Scott. Just the representation of what the union is 
legally required for representation, the benefits that they 
get?
    Ms. Lofaso. That is correct, and if they do not do those 
things, they can be sued, which I know Mr. Taubman knows very 
well, because that is what he does.
    Mr. Scott. Now, in terms of your right to pay the lower 
dues, that is your Beck right, is that right?
    Ms. Lofaso. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. People are--you are required to give your notice 
to opt out of the union. Is there any effort to let people know 
that they can opt into the union?
    Ms. Lofaso. No.
    Mr. Scott. Is that stacked against workers?
    Ms. Lofaso. In my opinion, yes.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. Now, you have heard from the gentleman 
from Missouri, the well-known fact that equal opportunity in 
unions is not always the case. If you find religious or racial 
discrimination in a union, what agency can you go to for 
relief?
    Ms. Lofaso. The EEOC.
    Mr. Scott. What do you think of cutting funding for the 
EEOC if that is your goal?
    Ms. Lofaso. It would be very difficult to enforce the 
rights of people.
    Mr. Scott. For those of us who are interested in protecting 
workers' rights, what do you have to say about the law that 
allows employers to fire workers, and often not have to pay 
anything?
    Ms. Lofaso. I think that that is selfish, actually, because 
it puts a burden on every other person to pay for their 
representation. If then that person is fired, the union still 
has to represent them, and that costs them money, and that 
individual does not have to pay the union anything.
    Mr. Scott. For those that do not belong to the union, the 
union has to represent you the same as they would a union 
member?
    Ms. Lofaso. Yes. Otherwise, it would be a breach of their 
duty of fair representation.
    Mr. Scott. Does that mean that they have to, if it is an 
individualized grievance, not just a general grievance, but an 
individualized grievance, a nonunion member has the right to 
the same representation as dues paying union members in right 
to work states?
    Ms. Lofaso. Yes. Actually--the Supreme Court expressly said 
that in City Disposal.
    Mr. Scott. I have introduced a bill, Protecting the Right 
to Organize. It says employers who fire workers who are trying 
for union activities can often escape without any sanctions. Is 
that true?
    Ms. Lofaso. Yes.
    Mr. Scott. What is the sanction for illegally firing a 
worker?
    Ms. Lofaso. It would be back pay and reinstatement, minus 
mitigation.
    Mr. Scott. Minus mitigation means if you left a nonunion 
shop, and got a good union job, and made more than you were 
making before, there would be no sanction?
    Ms. Lofaso. That would be correct.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Dr. Foxx 
for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Kopmar, you 
discussed in your testimony how the ALAA's pro-Palestine 
resolution impacted you and other dissenting union members. 
ALAA leadership later voted 124 to 18 against the resolution, 
condemning Hamas, and requesting the release of hostages.
    A paid union staffer said all union membership that you 
sought to distract the union from its support for Palestine. 
What does the outcome of the leadership vote on releasing 
hostages say about those leading your union, and the 
individuals they have hired to staff the union?
    Ms. Kopmar. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. By voting down the release 
of the--by voting down that resolution to release the hostages 
in such an overwhelming manner, and overwhelming numbers, the 
union showed its true face that the lives of Jews do not 
matter.
    They dehumanized the hostages, including American hostages, 
including hostages that came from New York, from Long Island, 
by not recognizing that they were abducted violently, and still 
being kept in Gaza. They demonized us for showing our support 
of Israel. I mean the things that were said in Gaggle, and the 
Joint Council meeting that night was so shocking to all of us, 
all of the Zionist members.
    It showed the true face of the union on that night. They do 
not recognize that hostages are entitled to freedom, and human 
rights. The simple reason for that is because they are Jewish. 
To us, to me, that is antisemitism in its most basic form.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Taubman, for decades 
you have litigated cases to protect the rights of individual 
workers who want to limit their association with labor unions 
who they want no part of. After the October 7 attack on Israel, 
was there an increase in the number of calls to you from 
workers seeking to associate from the union?
    Mr. Taubman. Thank you for your leadership, Dr. Foxx. The 
answer is that my phone has been ringing off the hook, and my 
colleagues' phones have been ringing off the hook from doctors, 
from teachers, from legal aid, from people all over the country 
wondering how they can get out of these horrible, antisemitic 
unions.
    Mrs. Foxx. What were the Jewish union member's experiencing 
at the workplaces?
    Mr. Taubman. The other people on the panel, like Mr. 
Sussman can tell you, because they are there on the frontline. 
I can tell you anecdotally what I hear. Let me just read you 
from what some Jewish employees at CUNY City University of New 
York have said recently.
    ``Nails were found in their tires. Antisemitic flyers 
distributed all over the campus. Malicious and relentless 
campaigns to get them fired because they were Zionist. 
Discussions that observing Jews were undesirable for 
membership. Requests to remove observant Jewish faculty 
members.'' This is virtually Nazi like from out of the 1930's, 
and that is what these people are seeing on their campuses.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Sussman, your written 
testimony notes that in April the graduate student union at MIT 
pushed through a cease-fire resolution that does not mention 
peace, hostages or Hamas. The divisive resolution passed with 
very low voter participation. Did the union ever seek out the 
opinion of Jewish graduate students who they represent before 
pushing this resolution forward?
    Mr. Sussman. They did not, and some Jewish students 
attended the general membership meeting where they discussed 
the resolution, and asked the Committee members who did they 
discuss the resolution with. They said they looked inside 
themselves.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much. I want to thank our 
witnesses for being here today to shed additional light on the 
antisemitism that is occurring within unions, and let the 
American people understand how deep, pervasive, and harmful 
this is to our Jewish citizens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Houchin from 
Indiana for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 
Ranking Member. Thanks for being here to testify before us 
today. Really appreciated all of your opening statements.
    I have made very clear to this Committee my stance on 
unionization, which has been heavily influenced by my own 
state's success as a right to work State, the State of Indiana, 
and I am supportive of Federal right to work legislation 
because I recognize that under current Federal law, workers 
individual liberties, and their right to make decisions 
currently concerning unionization are poorly protected.
    In your testimony, Mr. Taubman, you mentioned how some 
American unions are now discriminating against, and threatening 
Jewish workers, and that has been especially prevalent 
following the October 7th attacks on Israel. What legislative 
reforms do you suggest to Congress that we should consider to 
protect workers' rights with respect to unions?
    Mr. Taubman. Thank you for that fantastic question. No. 1, 
certainly is a national right to work law. This should not be a 
State issue. This should not even be a partisan issue. Nobody 
tells you, you have to join a specific church, or a specific 
group, or you have to pay money to a private organization.
    That does not happen anywhere else in American life except 
for the privileged labor unions that have been doing this since 
the 1930's and the 1940's, that is the first thing. Pass a 
national right to work law. The second thing is if you are not 
going to pass a national right to work law, there are things 
like recertification elections automatically.
    Every member in this room stands for an election 
automatically every 2 years. Every Senator every 6 years. Do 
you know how often unions automatically stand for re-election? 
The answer is zero. They never have to stand for re-election 
unless the employees can band together to throw them out, and 
in a place like MIT with thousands of grad students that rotate 
through for one or two, or 3 years, that will never happen.
    Ronald Regan said the closest thing to eternal life on 
earth is a government program. I can tell you the closest thing 
to eternal life on earth for these unions is to represent a 
bunch of graduate students.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you. Dr. Lofaso, in your written 
testimony you have a section about compelled worker--compelled 
union dues, and you note that under Beck, employees who work in 
right to work states can't be compelled to pay any dues or 
fees. I am certainly glad that my State of Indiana is a right 
to work State, so that people are not compelled to pay union 
dues or fees, even the cost of representation.
    However, you State that under Beck, employees who work in 
non-right to work states, can only be required to pay their 
``fair share'' of the cost of their representation. My question 
to you is what constitutes fair share for the cost of 
representation to an organization that is politically and 
ideologically opposed to some of their members very being.
    Ms. Lofaso. Well, under the that question, they would not 
have to pay for any of those activities.
    Ms. Houchin. They do have to pay for fees. Is that correct?
    Ms. Lofaso. They would, but they could also withdraw, they 
can withdraw, by doing a section 19 NLRB objection, so that 
means they would not have to pay any of those dues to the 
union.
    Ms. Houchin. It seems like that we have had some 
conflicting testimony to that today that there are compelled 
fees that must be paid, and we will get to that. You also 
mentioned in your opening statement----
    Ms. Lofaso. That would be unlawful.
    Ms. Houchin. Sorry, I am going to reclaim my time. You also 
mentioned in your opening statement that Congress and this 
Committee should focus on real problems, instead of what we are 
talking about today. Do you not believe that eradicating 
antisemitism from labor unions is a real problem?
    Ms. Lofaso. I do actually, but I do not think that that is 
the problem that is the--is what is going on here. What we have 
heard today is that unions are----
    Ms. Houchin. I am going to reclaim my time. Would you not 
tell these other panelists that you have heard their stories, 
that what they are dealing with is not a real problem?
    Ms. Lofaso. My personal opinion is irrelevant.
    Ms. Houchin. Would you concede that Mr. Sussman's testimony 
constitutes a real problem? Yes or no? I have got only 46 
seconds left.
    Ms. Lofaso. I do not have--I do not wish to give my 
personal opinion about anything.
    Ms. Houchin. You are not going to answer whether you think 
that the testimony we have heard here today from the fellow 
panelists, constitutes real problems. Thank you for that. Okay.
    Ms. Lofaso. I think that they are a real problem.
    Ms. Houchin. I am going to move on to Mr. Sussman, your 
written testimony notes that the union that represents you, 
illegally threatened to terminate anyone who refused to pay for 
their activism.
    You filed charges against GSU with the NLRB. The NLRB 
agreed that your rights had been violated. Do you think they 
adequately address the illegal union activity?
    Mr. Sussman. They did not adequately address it. No.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you, I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize the Ranking 
Member, Mr. DeSaulnier for 5 minutes.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By expression, I 
think a high school teacher told us that the only absolute you 
should deal with is the absolute you should not deal with 
absolutes. What we are dealing with here is very binary in both 
instances of the labor movement, my view, in antisemitism.
    Often times, and it should be binary in the sense of the 
rules. You should not be antisemitic, period. You should value 
workers, and their employers, in a balanced way. Doctor, you 
talked about this. To the witnesses, particularly Ms. Kopan and 
Mr. Sussman, we probably disagree on a lot of things, but I 
agree that your minority rights should be protected.
    They are minority rights. We lose elections, those of us 
who believe in democracy, unless there is a demonstratable 
legal analysis of unfairness, you accept the results. In that 
context, Doctor, you mentioned this a little earlier. Could you 
go a little bit further on how the law is meant to protect 
minority rights, but also the rights of the majority through 
the electoral process and the union movement.
    One other thing, there was a comment earlier about unions 
being historically not including equity. I am from California. 
The California building trades is 85 percent minority and 
women. The labor federation is a little bit below that. 
Nationally, women now are a majority of the labor movement.
    African Americans are at a higher percentage in a union, 
and people of color than in nonunion working places, 
historically we changed over time on regional bases, and other 
basis, but just for clarity, unions are very, very, very 
diverse right now, and that diversity is protected.
    Not absolutely, so Doctor, with those comments would you 
care to speak on any of that protection of minority rights, and 
a level of diversity in the union movement?
    Ms. Lofaso. Yes. First of all, I would like to--I feel my 
testimony was mischaracterized, that I do think antisemitism is 
a huge problem, but I just feel that I am here to talk about 
labor law. I am not an expert in that type of thing, and 
therefore my opinion does not really matter about that.
    What really matters is what these people are experiencing, 
and they are saying, and our great justice system, will--
they'll be able to go through it, and they will get remedies. 
Now, unfortunately, NLRA remedies are very weak, and therefore 
they cannot get the remedies that they need. I think if the 
NLRB were funded, then they would maybe could afford training, 
or more staffing to get this through.
    In terms of minority rights, there are many things that if 
the union discriminates against anyone, including Jews, any 
type of religion, any person of any race, then that would be 
against the law. That would be against Title 7, and then that 
would be investigated by that agency.
    They also could, and even if they do that, I think there is 
a difference between what about people who are breaking the 
law, and what the law is. Obviously, we have laws because 
people break laws. We do not regulate things that are not a 
problem, so we have solutions here for minority rights.
    That is important. What we do not have, and that is what I 
meant by the real problem, are workers' rights that are 
meaningful, that can enforce this. Obviously, antisemitism is 
absolutely wrong, just like all hate.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. You have said that the majority party's 
union members Right to Know Act is a solution in search of a 
problem, an example of over regulation. Would you expand on 
that?
    Ms. Lofaso. Sure. We have already regulated this area. We 
have Ronald Coase, who was a great libertarian economist said 
you only regulate when there is a market failure. He has often 
misstated as never regulations. We only regulate when there's 
market failure.
    Here what we have is what the Committee seems to be 
focusing on is the stuff that is already regulated, and has 
remedies, instead of what the real problem is, which is getting 
remedies for unfair labor practice. Mr. Sussman had an unfair 
labor practice problem. That is the real problem.
    If a union actually will say that he had to join, if a 
union said that he had to join them, they were wrong, and they 
violated the law, and they should be prosecuted.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. I now recognize myself for 5 
minutes. Mr. Taubman, I am thankful to live in and represent 
Virginia, a right to work State, where employees thankfully 
cannot be forced to pay union dues. I certainly did not choose 
to pay any union dues when I was working in a unionized auto 
factory during my college time.
    God forbid that we should ever have realized into law the 
democrats dream of this PRO Act, which essentially says to 
every employer across the country, ``Embrace a union or close 
your doors,'' two options that would result from that.
    You have noted, as incredible as this is today, that under 
Federal law, Jewish workers who live in non-right to work 
states, who suffer in non-right to work states, can be forced 
to pay union dues that express hateful--pay dues to a union, I 
am sorry, that expresses hateful antisemitic rhetoric or views.
    You noted, but I will just ask you again, can you say any 
other aspect of American life where an individual is forced to 
fund a private entity that expresses speech that they find 
hateful, threatening or objectionable?
    Mr. Taubman. Thankfully, I know of no other example.
    Chairman Good. Let us hope that this becomes the isolated 
example that we have to fight versus some occurring more 
broadly in our society. Ms. Kopmar, it seems that the terrible 
offensive cease-fire resolution, that you have described, that 
was 3 days after the October 7 brutal attack, never mentions 
the Hamas terrorists, and was ultimately adopted by the union.
    That was really a continuation, was it not, and an 
escalation of the union having allowed antisemitism to fester 
under the surface for months, was it not?
    Ms. Kopmar. Yes. That is true.
    Chairman Good. Can you talk about that? How it had been 
allowed just to continue prior to that resolution?
    Ms. Kopmar. Yes. Actually prior to the ALAA's resolution 
there were two additional resolutions that had been introduced 
by other ALAA chapters, namely the Bronx Defenders, as well as 
Camda Chapters. Those particular resolutions were also very 
antisemitic. The Bronx Defenders resolution actually was 
advocating, or at least it advocated for the Hamas violence 
against Israel.
    There was this hostile work environment that had already 
been fomented by these other chapters. There had been 
interoffice emails that were at Legal Aid, the city, where 
people were questioning whether or not Jewish attorneys can 
actually represent our clients. There had been this, sort of 
like this turmoil that had been going on that fomented itself 
with this resolution that was introduced in November.
    Chairman Good. You referenced in your testimony verbally, 
and your written testimony about some of these terrible, 
hateful, offensive messaging through the Gaggle, the internal 
message board of ALAA, things as you referenced, and you said 
that we were called ``fascist,'' ``genocide deniers,'' 
``snitches,'' and ``Zionist goals,'' we were told to ``go kill 
ourselves.''
    The slogan, ``From the River to the Sea,'' was routinely 
used, and so forth. In light of this did ALAA leadership ever 
intervene, or condemn these messages, or even call for some 
semblance of civility in the face of what the Jewish members, 
who they purport to represent, who having to suffer through?
    Ms. Kopmar. Never. They never stopped the bullying. They 
never called anyone out to stop the bullying, and to stop the 
vitrail, and in fact they doubled down right after that one 
Joint Council meeting that we had where we introduced the 
Release the Hostage resolution.
    That very next day a paid ALAA staffer actually blamed the 
Zionist minority for all of the issues that it was having. They 
blamed us, and so they actually have been promoting this. They 
have actually been dividing the membership. They have been 
fostering the hostile work environment, so no, they have done 
nothing to tamp it down, and it is only been getting worse.
    Chairman Good. Everyone should be concerned about the 
unique, horrific situation in the world, and in the country 
today, but when Israel can be horrifically attacked is blamed 
for an attack, and when Jews are discriminated against, 
harassed, intimidated, threatened and harmed, Jews are blamed 
for that. That is unique, and it should be condemned, 
unequivocally across the country, and everyone should be 
concerned about that.
    With that, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member for 
his closing remarks.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would agree with 
your overall sentiment that I found it frustrating as a long-
time supporter of Israel's right to exist and having a very 
good relationship with the Jewish community in the San 
Francisco Bay area in California for 35 years in elected 
office.
    Being a pro union in this instance, pro-democracy. One of 
the reasons I support Israel's right to exist is it is a 
democracy, but within that just like in America, that does not 
mean I agree with the current, or at any particular time, 
administration. I disagree with the policies after October 7th 
of the current administration in Israel.
    That does not make me antisemitic. That makes me a believer 
in democracy, and we get in trouble in democracies, just my 
observation of history, when we start assuming that if you 
disagree with the majority party, of any democracy, that you 
are inherently against their God, or you have the moral 
authority.
    We all have to reflect on that because I think liberals do 
it, conservatives do it, we just have to reflect and 
proportion. In relationship to what the testimony we have had 
here today, Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to talk to you 
about how we can further minority rights to make sure they are 
protected because I think it does a tremendous disservice, and 
your testimony here, the disservice of a majority of people who 
are in the labor movement, who I would hope very strongly would 
not do what you have described in your examples.
    I make that an offer. I would be happy to meet with you as 
well to see if I can help make sure that the disincentives are 
there to protect minority rights. Combating antisemitism and 
other forms of hatred transcends political divisions. I am 
being a little bit repetitive here.
    It is a moral imperative that demands our unwavering 
commitment. We must ensure our workplaces are not only safe, 
but also inclusive, fostering environments where every 
individual, regardless of their background, can thrive and 
contribute fully. This hearing also importantly highlighted the 
many ways that law provides recourse for workers who feel they 
may have been mistreated by unions.
    As I have said, I would be willing to work on remedies, if 
that's not the case, including funding agencies and 
disincentives for people who do violate the law, as well as the 
short falls of our current law when it comes to informing 
workers of their right to organize with their coworkers, free 
of employer coercion. I extend my sincere appreciation to the 
witnesses, experts, and advocates, whose contributions have 
enriched today's discussion.
    Thank you all for being here and taking the time to prepare 
for this hearing over the July 4th holiday week. Moving 
forward, we must strengthen our support of issues, in my view, 
like the PRO Act, that bolster protections for workers, and 
uphold their rights in the workplace.
    By doing so, we can build an economy that prioritizes 
fairness and opportunity for all, and I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. I now recognize myself for 
closing remarks. I want to apologize to Jewish Americans here 
today, and across the country, for the necessity of having this 
hearing. The concerns here today have been specifically 
directed toward union bosses and union leadership across the 
country.
    Again, how we got to the point where this hearing is 
necessary, but it is demonstrated by the content of what has 
been discussed here today, and by the testimony of our 
witnesses, and what they have experienced. While this might be 
a difficult topic, I am glad today's hearing could shine a 
light on the continued problems of antisemitism in this 
country, much of which is unique to our Jewish friends, 
including again, among the leadership of our Nation's labor 
unions.
    For some reason, many union leaders would rather double 
down on defending a terrorist organization, than focus on local 
workers' issues. They would rather sow division than unite 
workers around areas of common interest, and they are willing 
to abandon pro-Israel, Jewish employees, that have to face who 
then have to face coercion or retaliation as they fight 
themselves for the rights.
    It reinforces my belief that unions have long outlived 
their usefulness. I will say it again. Unions have long 
outlived their usefulness in this country. As always, it is 
worth noting and repeating, that thankfully, private sector 
unionization is at the lowest level ever recorded in America, 6 
percent.
    The first priority of the union should be protecting the 
rights of its members, and unions that fail to do so should be 
held accountable. This Committee will continue to examine ways 
to strengthen current law to protect union members from abuses, 
and misguided pursuits.
    I thank our witnesses for taking time today to share your 
stories and your insights, and your experiences today. Without 
further objection--without objection, there being no further 
business, this Committee stands adjourned.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]