"Out of Touch: When Union Politics Leave Workers Behind"
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsMark DeSaulnier
That imbalance shows up everywhere you look. From 1979 to 2023, wages for the bottom 90% of Americans rose 40%, while income for the top 1% skyrocketed by more than 180%. Let me repeat that. Lower 90%, which is almost all of us, 44%. Top 1%, 180%.
It's the largest concentration of wealth in the history of this country right now. Republicans have prioritized corporate interests over working families and have done nothing to lower the cost of living to improve working people's lives. Instead, millions of people are losing their healthcare while corporations and the wealthy enjoy tax breaks due to Republicans' big ugly bill. Committee Democrats have a different vision. One where working people have power instead of billionaires.
That's why we must pass the Protecting Right to Organize or PRO Act, which would ensure workers can freely organize and earn the benefits of union membership by a process of democracy, elections, and that they're fair. The PRO Act would ensure workers can freely organize and earn benefits of union membership. Bigger paychecks, better benefits, and safer workplaces. Gives them a voice. And alongside it, we must pass the Let's Protect Workers Act, which would hold law-breaking companies accountable for raising penalties for worker right violations.
So today, I hope we can have an honest conversation about the real issues facing workers, rather than the same attacks on unions and American workers we have heard again and again in this subcommittee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Burgess Owens
Ranking member yields. Pursuant to committee rule 8C, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5:00 PM 14 days after this hearing. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I will now turn to the introduction of our four distinguished witnesses. And I want to thank you for joining us today.
Our first witness is Mr. Thomas Jones, president of the American Accountability Foundation in Washington, DC. Our second witness is Mr. Akash Chougule, president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity in Washington, DC. Our third witness is Dr. Adam Dean, associate professor of political science at the George Washington University in Washington, DC. And our last witness is Mr. Greg Mourad, vice president of federal affairs at the National Right to Work Committee in Springfield, Virginia.
Again, we thank the witnesses for being here today and we look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to committee rule one, I ask that each of you limit your oral presentation to a three-minute summary of your written statement. The clock will count down from three minutes as committee members have many questions for you. However, pursuant to committee rule 8D and committee practice, we will not cut off your testimony until you reach the five-minute mark. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information to this subcommittee.
So now I will first recognize Mr. Jones for your opening testimony.
Speaker 4
Chairman Owens, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, thank you for having me here this morning. I think a simple question animates the issue that we're here to address this morning. And look, the question is simple. Do you think the country's better off with President Trump and Vice President Vance, or would it have been better off with Kamala Harris and Tim Walz? Would America be better with Speaker Mike Johnson or with Speaker Hakeem Jeffries?
For most of you on the on the dais, that's a simple question. And for for a lot of Americans, that's a simple question. But when you walk down into the the factories where autoworkers work, into railyards, you talk to electricians, you talk to steelworkers, that question's a coin flip. Some places it's 60-40 for Trump, some places it's 40-60 for Trump. But it's it's an open question.
But what becomes really important and what I think we're here to address this morning is what the answer to that question is with those men and women's voice in Washington. And when you go to the men and women that represent union members across the country in Washington, D.C., their lobbyists and their leaders in Washington, it's not a close question. And how do we know it's not a close question? Because AAF spent the last three months looking at the spending out of labor unions on who they support. And the numbers are over 90 percent in favor of one party.
And so I'm going to walk through some of the numbers because I think they're important to illustrate what happens within the labor unions. If you look at the engineers, the BLET union, a Teamster member, 99 percent of party committee money went to Democrats. In 2024, 24 checks went to Democratic committees, two went to Republicans. SMART-TD, train conductors, 97 percent of contributions went to Democratic committees. 1.03 million to Emily's List.
Why on earth do train conductors care about funding a pro-choice left-wing lobby? The UAW, 5.3 million dollars to Democrats, 45,000 to Republicans. A two-million-dollar check to the Democratic Governors Association. And and this is all before you get into how these unions are wasting members' money on other things. You look at the IBEW, 11.2 million dollars to Democrats, 252,000 to Republicans, 98 percent.
This is before you look at the 10 million dollars one union spent wrapping a NASCAR to advertise their union. Before you get into the millions and millions of dollars that unions continually spend promoting baseball teams and advertising in stadiums. Before you get to the 3.9 million dollars one union spent at Caesars in Las Vegas last year.
Ever get a better pension or a better job in a steel mill, in an auto factory, or working for a railroad. So a lot of times when witnesses come up to speak to you, they give you a kind of a legislative solution. I want you to support HR 123, an act of Congress is going to fix this problem. I'm not going to do that today because I don't think an act of Congress is what's going to fix this problem. What's going to fix this problem is members of this committee demanding that the union's voices in Washington behave like a truly bipartisan organization representing a diverse interest group.
Every other special interest in Washington understands this. The pharma guys, the defense guys, the tech guys, ag guys, they all understand this. They understand that look, they've got to work with both sides, they've got to support members on both sides of the aisle to be considered truly bipartisan. So look, my recommendation is that you guys stop working with the leadership of the unions and cut them off. Look, no amendments, rules, you know, are not going to make your amendments in order, your priorities are not going to get a hearing until you take us seriously and are respectful of Republicans and Democrats, not just one side.
And then the most important thing you need to do is go around union leadership and speak directly to members. President Trump has a compelling America First agenda that resonates with union members. Reshoring manufacturing in the United States so there's high-paying jobs. The one big beautiful bill that provides tax cuts so that those high-paying jobs keep more of the money in the household and a secure border so that jobs are not cut off by illegal immigrants for folks starting their career in trades and other jobs. So you have the ability to directly go to these members, explain to them who their union is and what the real America First worker agenda is, cutting off the union leadership in Washington.
So I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to talk about this morning and I look forward to talking to you more about solutions for American workers.
Rick Allen
The gentleman yields. I now recognize Mr. Shogli for your testimony.
Chairman Allen, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Akash Chougule, I'm an honorary senior fellow at the Institute for the American Worker and president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity. Unions operating on a model built for the economy of 1935 need to adapt to the workforce of today, lest they risk stagnating themselves into further irrelevance as their numbers dwindle. A 2022 Gallup poll showed that just 11% of non-union workers were extremely interested in joining a union. 58% were not interested at all.
Let me begin by affirming, worker freedom is not antithetical to workers' right to organize, nor does it prevent unions from exercising their First Amendment right to engage in the political process. To allege that greater freedom, transparency, and accountability within labor organizations undermines the right to organize or engage in political speech is false. It is simply a matter of fact that the status quo in organized labor is completely broken. 87% of union political spending benefited the Democratic Party in the 2024 cycle. In the 2024 election, 45% of union households voted for the Republican candidate for president.
Despite union members' broad support for right-leaning candidates and causes, union leaders largely do not adopt a political strategy that reflects their members' views. Union leaders oppose many policy proposals that union members overwhelmingly support, such as those in the Employee Rights Act. For example, the Employee Rights Act requires that unions receive opt-in permission from a union member before using his or her dues and fees on political advocacy or politics, a provision which enjoys 81% support from union households. The divide between union leaders and members on politics and policy is wide, but the situation is often even worse in the workplace and at the bargaining table. A timely example is the Faster Labor Contracts Act, which the House of Representatives passed in June 2026.
The FLC would shift power away from workers toward union leadership and outside decision-makers. Union leaders also routinely oppose efforts to provide transparency on their own actions, spending, and decisions within the union.
This is a common-sense reform that would give workers more control over their own data and protect them from unwanted solicitations. In addition, the ERA would ensure that union dues are used for their intended purpose: representing workers in collective bargaining. It would require unions to obtain affirmative consent from workers before using their dues for political activities or other non-representational purposes. This would give workers a say in how their hard-earned money is spent and ensure that unions are accountable to their members. The Employee Rights Act is a pro-worker, pro-freedom piece of legislation that would modernize our labor laws and empower workers in the 21st century.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bill and stand up for the rights of American workers. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you. The gentleman yields. Next, I recognize Professor Dean for your testimony.
Thank you, Subcommittee Chair Allen, Subcommittee Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and members of the subcommittee. I'm an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at George Washington University, where I've taught since... I'm honored to join you today to share some of my research on labor unions. My name is Adam Dean.
Need your microphone turned on, please.
It's on.
Oh, is it? Okay.
Adam Dean
Can you hear me? Okay, thank you. I've researched labor unions for 15 years, and I've published two peer-reviewed books and 15 academic articles. Today, I hope to explain how labor unions not only provide benefits for the workers that they represent, but also protect the broader American working class, our nation's public health, and our democracy. First, labor unions make sure that workers that they represent share in the benefits of economic growth.
Although economic theory predicts that workers' wages will automatically rise with productivity, in the real world, we see that wage growth often lags far behind productivity growth. My research shows that unions can help solve this problem. I examined data from 117 countries around the world and found that wages are much more likely to rise along with productivity when workers have strong unions and well-respected labor rights. Related research by other professors finds that labor rights and strong unions are associated with lower levels of income inequality in countries around the world, including here in the United States. Second, labor unions fight for policies that protect non-union workers too.
One recent example comes from the state of California, where the United Farm Workers helped to win the nation's first outdoor heat standard. This law in California provides workers the rights to water, rest, and shade on hot days. My research found that California's law was associated with a 33 to 51 percent reduction in heat-related deaths for outdoor workers. These benefits, to be clear, extend to all outdoor workers in California, not just the 2 percent of agricultural workers represented by the United Farm Workers. Extending such heat protections across the United States could save between 1,000 and 1,500 workers' lives each year.
Importantly, my research finds that these simple, life-saving heat protections were inexpensive and had no negative economic impact on California's agriculture and construction industries. Third, labor unions often fight for policies that improve public health for everyone. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, unionized nursing homes were much safer places for elderly nursing home residents as well as healthcare workers that care for them. My research found that unionized nursing homes in the state of New York, for example, had 30 percent lower mortality rates during the first months of the pandemic.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, unionized nursing homes were much safer places for elderly nursing home residents as well as healthcare workers that care for them. My research found that unionized nursing homes in the state of New York, for example, had 30% lower mortality rates during the first months of the pandemic. Why? Because unions fought for PPE and infection control policies that protected workers and lowered transmission between workers and the residents that they care for. Around the United States, unionized nursing homes had 7% lower infection rates for healthcare workers.
As unionized healthcare workers often said during the pandemic, if we get sick, you get sick. Fourth, unions protect democracy itself. In a new book I'm writing, I've studied every democratic transition around the world over the last 75 years. In countries where unions helped to lead the struggle for democracy, new democratic governments quickly increased labor rights, economic inequality fell, and democracy survived. Where businesses and other non-union groups led the struggle for democracy, new democratic governments failed to increase labor rights, economic inequality rose, and democracy was far more likely to collapse into authoritarianism.
Given the broad benefits that labor unions provide, it's no surprise that 71% of Americans now approve of labor unions. For Americans under 30 years old, support for unions is now at 88%. And many workers who are not union members would like to join a union. A 2023 survey found that 43% of employed non-union workers would vote to join a union if they had the opportunity. In short, the majority of Americans support labor unions and as many as 56 million non-union workers would like to join a union if they could.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my expertise with the subcommittee. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Greg Mourad
Thank you, Chairman Allen and Ranking Member DeSaulnier. I'm Greg Morad, Vice President of the National Right to Work Committee, a non-partisan organization with one mission, one that 80% of Americans agree with, and that is to see that no American worker is forced to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment. The title of this hearing has it right, and I'd like to give you the reality behind it. In 2024, union households split roughly evenly between the two presidential candidates, and the only union I know of that actually polled its members showed a split more like two to one in favor of President Trump. But in that same cycle, unions reported spending nearly $2 billion on politics, most of it from forced dues and the vast overwhelming majority of it to one political party.
A worker who voted for this administration had a part of every paycheck taken away against his will, without his consent, and watched it be spent to fight against the man he was voting for. And fight it they did, and the fight didn't stop with the elections. Unions have filed suit against this administration on roughly 18 fronts. They've filed suit to block the reforms at the Department of Education. They've rallied against the president's budget.
When federal agents had to arrest the president of the SEIU California in an immigration raid, the AFL-CIO staged protests in cities across the country. Their national federation even demanded that the president change the arms export policy of the United States. None of that is a wage, a benefit, or a working condition. It is a political program, and in the 24 states without a right to work law, the workers paying for it cannot say no. Ask Charlene Carter, a Southwest flight attendant who had resigned from her union but was still forced to pay into it.
When she objected to the union spending her dues money to march against the newly elected president, it ended up costing her her job, and it took eight years before the courts finally vindicated her.
The clearest case may be President Trump's executive order 14251, which restored the government's ability to run security-related agencies without giving the unions a veto. The union sued, of course, arguing that the order punished them for opposing the administration, which at least was a frank admission that they had indeed been spending their members' money to oppose virtually everything this administration set out to do. This sort of thing is why Franklin Roosevelt himself understood that collective bargaining, I'm quoting, cannot be transplanted into the public service. He was right. It is bad in principle, it is bad politics, and it is bad policy.
There is one fix that reaches all of it. Make union support voluntary. The twin pillars of union power are monopoly bargaining and forced dues. Congress created this problem when it passed the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 and it is up to Congress to solve it. A union that has to ask for workers' support instead of compelling it is a union that will have to listen to its workers.
That's all the National Right to Work Act does, and 151 members of the House and Senate have already signed on. The workers I've described are not anti-union, many of them are union members. They just don't believe their dues should be spent on lawsuits they never asked for and that have nothing to do with their workplace or a campaign against a president that they voted for. Pass the National Right to Work Act and they will have a union that finally has to earn their support. Thank you and I welcome any questions.
Burgess Owens
The gentleman yields. Now under committee rule nine, we will now question witnesses under the five-minute rule. First, I'll recognize the chairman of our full committee, Mr. Walberg, for his five minutes of questioning.
Tim Walberg
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for the hearing. I think it's worth talking about. I've mentioned numerous times that when I worked at US Steel South Works, South Side of Chicago, same place my dad had, I had a much better work experience there, benefits, safety, than my father had. And it was because of the union effort. They changed a lot that went on.
And I was grateful for it, as was my dad. But that doesn't, that doesn't change the fact that in the United States, we want to encourage people to be able to express their positions and join their associations voluntarily. Michigan, Mr. Mourad, as you know, for almost a decade, had employees' right to work. Worked so well that union members in my district, which is a strong union district, had the choice and some chose to continue with their membership, others said I don't need it. And they made that choice.
And then when the Democrat administration took over and controlled all three houses, they quickly changed that, taking away the employees' free choice act. I don't think that's helped the unions at this point. We know in my district, a portion of the district formerly represented by the lion of the House, John Dingell, that portion of my district, strong union district, strong supporter for President Trump, overwhelmingly supporting President Trump. The fact of what you're seeing now, the UAW coming out endorsing El-Sayed, my union rank and file think that's crazy.
That's not common sense, it's just crazy, it's socialism. They don't want that. They want the right to work, they want the opportunity to work, they want good wages, good benefits, but they don't want their dues being used for that. Each of you expressed, have expressed some of the percentages of support that go by the unions to the Democrat Party and liberal, liberal regimes. Mr. Murad, when a union's political arm is that lopsided year after year, is it still fair to call it a labor organization engaged in politics or has it become a political operation that collects dues?
Greg Mourad
I would argue that it is indeed become a political operation that collects dues from rank-and-file workers. Its primary spending is on politics, not on organizing, not on workplace issues, but on politics. And yeah, there's no doubt it's more, it is more a political organization than a worker support organization. Indeed it's exploiting those workers to support its own political agenda.
Speaker 8
Indeed they do, at least expense of spending things that they wouldn't expend their, their finances on. If the union dues were, were commensurate with the money the union actually spent representing those workers' actual interests, dues could be a lot lower and they'd all have more money in their pocket.
Yeah, and appreciate the union.
Indeed as well.
Tim Walberg
Mr. Chogule, your written testimony discusses the Faster Labor Contracts Act. You raise a concern that nothing in the bill limits what a contract may cover, which could result not only in contracts workers never get a chance to vote on, but also union contracts that stray into social and political issues that have no bearing on the workplace. Elaborate a bit more on your concerns in this regard.
Rick Allen
Absolutely. So as I mentioned in my written testimony, the FLCA essentially allows unelected arbitrators to impose a contract for two years on workers that they never voted for. There are no limitations in that legislation about what they can bring to the table. We have seen time and time again that unions motivated primarily by progressive politics put forth issues that are completely irrelevant to the day-to-day well-being of workers and the issues that traditionally unions should be negotiating over: wages, workplace conditions, etc. Countless examples that include diversity, equity, and inclusion mandates, anti-Israel policies, such as the United Auto Workers in Michigan, your, your home state as you mentioned Mr. Walberg.
They voted to divest from Israel as they say. The resolution cites the billionaire class and Israel's contribution to, quote, "undermine global worker unity." These are not issues that are relevant to the day-to-day concerns of rank-and-file workers, and yet these might become the floor by which arbitrators are, are abiding by when they impose a contract were the FLCA to become law.
Overall worker disunity in many cases because of this.
Rick Allen
Exactly. It, what it does, one of the, you know, unfortunate side effects is that it creates unnecessary divisions in the workplace. I think one of the beauties of our pluralistic society is that workers who disagree on any number of issues, people, you know, reasonable people can disagree on these questions. These are strongly held beliefs on questions, you know, foreign policy and things like that.
My time is, my time has expired, but thank you so much. I yield back.
Speaker 11
Chairman yields. Now call on Mr. Courtney for your five minutes of questioning.
Joe Courtney
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I sort of find it ironic that the title of this hearing is Out of Touch, because as Professor Dean indicated that if anything we are going through a moment right now where support for unions across the country is pretty much almost at an all-time high. And again, I've been on this committee long enough to remember when Gallup polls came in below 50 percent in terms of union support. You know, again, I think it's just clear to all of us on this side of the witness table to understand that, you know, the American people are feeling the pressure right now in terms of the economy and, and they basically feel that there is an imbalance in terms of their ability to, to change that in terms of wages and benefits.
And again, I would just cite, Mr. Chairman, the American Conference of Bishops' Labor Day statement that they issued a few days ago, hardly members of the DSA, who basically point out that roughly one quarter of the workforce today are low-wage workers, among them 72% lack stable and secure jobs and more than half are people of color. And again, this description of America, Labor Day 2026, from the American Conference of Bishops, I think underscores the fact that that is what's driving that Gallup poll, which again, Mr. Dean sort of walked through in his testimony. Again, it's a pleasure to have you here, Professor, who grew up in the second congressional district in Connecticut, in Waterford, Connecticut. And again, one of your comments in your testimony about the fact that actually having higher wages drives increase in productivity is playing out right now on the shoreline in eastern Connecticut. The UAW in 2025 negotiated a contract with General Dynamics Electric Boat at the shipyard there, a five-year contract, 9% pay increase in year one, 5%, 5%, 5%, and 4.5% and no give-backs in terms of any, you know, health and pension.
Again, this is happening at a time when the country is investing in tens of billions of dollars to recapitalize our submarine force. And in fact, we're seeing now with the new hires that this is generating, that actually productivity and the production cadence in the shipyard is actually on an upward trajectory, which again, as I think many of us know, this is a critically important enterprise for the country right now in terms of our strategic position globally. So again, Professor, you know, can you talk a little bit about that sort of connection between giving people a decent wage in terms of creating higher productivity in our economy?
Adam Dean
Thank you, Congressman, for the opportunity to share more about my research. I think an important thing to keep in mind is that the economy doesn't work the way that we're often taught about it in economics textbooks. And so for example, the idea is that workers are going to automatically share in economic growth through their wages rising with productivity. And the reality is that we only see that happening where workers have strong union representation. Without that, bargaining individually, their wages tend to lag far behind productivity growth, meaning that they are not keeping up with the sort of quality of life that's possible here in the United States.
Joe Courtney
So and I found it interesting that you cited in support of your position Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations, who is obviously, you know, one of the patron saints of, you know, sort of the laissez-faire economics in this country. But again, even he saw what you just described. Can you talk about that a little?
Adam Dean
Yeah, absolutely. Adam Smith understood that in a negotiation between one individual worker and an employer, it's a question about how long you can hold out before coming to an agreement, and an employer can hold out much longer than an individual worker who needs to ultimately earn a living to afford food and housing and the basic quality of life. So without the ability to hold out, workers often settle for much less than an employer is able or willing to pay. And it's only through a union that they can hold out if you have strike benefits, you can negotiate collectively for a fair share of the sort of economic pie.
Joe Courtney
Thank you. And again, Pope Leo's predecessor, who you took the name Leo, issued an encyclical, Rerum Novarum, back in the late 1800s, which laid out exactly that same need for, again, rebalancing what was happening as the world was industrializing. And the new encyclical that just came out, Maxima Humanitas, from Pope Leo XIV, reiterated that point with the artificial intelligence issue. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that the Labor Day statement of the Conference of Bishops be admitted into the record.
Without objection.
Thank you. Yield back.
Burgess Owens
The gentleman yields. Now I will recognize myself for five minutes for questioning. First, I will have to say that, you know, the workforce has changed drastically in this country. The modern workforce is very entrepreneurial. We've seen a growth in those who are performing, like concrete finishers now own their own concrete companies.
And that's kind of what's happened in my business, which was construction. Ironworkers are now, you know, subcontractors erecting steel and supplying steel. So it's been a change. We've had ESOPs now that are available to employees. There's all kind of opportunities and incentives for those folks to be part of the solution rather than have this controversy.
And I think people, that's what they want. They want those opportunities, those incentives. Mr. Jones, one of the troubling things that we've seen is UAW President Shawn Fain wears an "Eat the Rich" T-shirt and says billionaires do not have a right to exist. However, your report found that he had several board members and they spent $94,000 at a Sheraton casino resort in Puerto Rico for what was billed as a week-long meeting. What does this tell you about the internal oversight of union treasuries?
Speaker 4
Yeah, so when we dug into the reports of the spending at the unions, we see this happening unfortunately everywhere, that there is a significant line items expenditures at really opulent resorts. We've got hotels and conferences from the UAW totaling $76 million over 10 years. That's a lot of meetings, and it's not at the Holiday Inn in Poughkeepsie. It's at the Caesars in Las Vegas. So what I think we're seeing here is an out-of-touch leadership that believes they can use the union treasury as their own kitty to go to resorts and spend money and live high on the hog while their members are struggling making $75,000 a year while they're making six-figure salaries.
So unfortunately, oversight is asleep at the switch when it comes to union spending. And it's throughout, whether it's massive spending on sponsoring baseball teams so they can get access to luxury boxes or NASCAR, it's throughout the labor unions.
Burgess Owens
So follow-up question: Do you believe current federal reporting requirements on union spending are effective at highlighting this kind of spending for union members, and what can Congress do about it?
Speaker 4
So there's two parts to that. So I'm a research nerd fundamentally, and I'm one of like the two people in the world that actually likes looking at LM-2 reports. And they provide a lot of information. The Trump administration is expanding that and providing a requirement that there be more detailed information on what is disclosed. We actually get a decent amount of information.
That's why I can tell you about what happened here. But I think the real problem is taking the transparency that exists and converting it into publication, of making people understand.
Burgess Owens
Well, the members should know it, right?
I mean, it should be disclosed to every member, like, okay, we just spent this money.
Speaker 4
100%, like, you know, if I'm working, if I work for Norfolk Southern and I come home at night after, you know, 10 hours in the railyard, I'm not going to the Department of Labor site to dig into the LM-2 to find out, you know, what, you know, what the union spent my dues on. So what needs to happen is, I think it's to a certain degree incumbent upon members that every time a member of a union writes you about a labor issue, I think you need to, one, obviously respond to their concern, but you need to say, hey, look, uh, your union has spent on X, Y, and Z things. And if they're, you know, if you're okay with that, that's great, but if you're not, I think you need to understand a little bit better. And so to the extent that members and groups like ours can publicize where the money is going, I, I think that is going to really go a long way to tamping down the disconnect between the members, because the members are going to say, hey, knock it off.
Burgess Owens
I've just about out of time and I've got to ask Mr. Giugni, I introduced H.R. 4154, the Employee Rights Act, which requires unions to receive opt-in permission from a union member before using his or her dues and fees on political activity or policy advocacy. Why do you support an opt-in system and how would it help workers?
Rick Allen
Nobody should be forced to fund political speech or policy advocacy with which they disagree. The status quo is completely turned on its head where workers have to proactively opt out of having their dues and fees spent on politics if they do not wish to see it that way. This is a common-sense reform. The Employee Rights Act creates a voluntary opt-in system so that union dues are treated like every other political dollar in this country, which is that they are voluntary to be spent on those causes.
Okay, and I'm out of time and I yield back. And now I call on Ms. Lee from Pennsylvania for your questioning.
Summer Lee
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is the very last committee, subcommittee hearing that we're going to have until November. And we're not talking about the affordability crisis, we're not going to talk about how one in five Pennsylvanians are going to lose their health coverage and thousands more will because of Republicans' Medicaid cuts. We're not going to talk about the mass firing of federal employees or the unemployment rate for Black women and how it's at the highest that it's, at its highest point in four years, or any number of issues that are within the jurisdiction of this committee. But we are going to have another conversation, another hearing where Republicans accuse unions of being out of touch instead of looking inward.
They're attacking union spending based on intel from a dark money organization while shilling for corporations that spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on union busting. Millions corporations could be spending to increase the wages of the union workers that they've been asking for. Take Amazon, a company whose profits increase by billions each year while the number of their workers who rely on SNAP benefit and Medicaid has tripled since 2020. This is the same company that spent $20,000 a week per union-busting consultant. Talk about out of touch.
Last week on Labor Day, as per usual, I marched through Pittsburgh with our hundreds of our union siblings. It is a tradition in Pittsburgh where we are a proud labor town despite all of the barriers that union-busting corporations place on our workers who are desperately attempting to unionize or to bargain in good faith. The labor movement has always been politically engaged because they know that whatever is won at the bargaining table could be undermined and has been before undermined by people on this very committee. But union members will never agree on every single thing, nor should they. For instance, as it was pointed out for in the occasion of this hearing, many members of unions are Republicans, but it doesn't mean that they want to vote, that they want to vote for Republicans' anti-worker agenda.
They have the ability to do that. The point is, is that by being in a union, they have a voice.
If members are unhappy with their leadership, they can change it, just like your constituents can change their leadership in November if they don't agree with your agenda that doesn't meet the needs around affordability or gas prices or grocery or healthcare or childcare or housing or student loan debt or many other things. And unions definitely don't need Congress intervening to tell them how they should or shouldn't be spending their voluntary dues. If we're gonna talk about money in politics, let's talk about the super PAC that's paying incarcerated people in Oklahoma to make phone calls, political phone calls, for Republican candidates. Where's the concern for these workers? Of course, conservatives don't actually care about the ethics of money in politics, nor how workers are being left behind.
They want to undermine unions because they are a stronghold of our democracy. Professor Dean, what does research tell us about the connection between the strength of a country's labor unions and the likelihood of collapse into authoritarian, and what actions do you see against labor unions from governments that lack democracies or are beginning to backslide?
Adam Dean
Thank you very much for the question. I think to understand today's crises of income inequality and democratic erosion or collapse around the world, it's really important to look back to the original struggle for democracy in each country. And what we see is that there were really two patterns: one where unions helped lead those struggles and one where they didn't. In the pattern where unions helped lead the struggle, those new democracies very quickly protected labor rights after the transition: new labor legislation, constitutions that protected workers' rights to unionize, to collectively bargain. In those countries, we saw declining income inequality, the growth of strong unions, and a much lower chance of reverting back to authoritarianism.
And so you can see from the very beginning that where unions were an important part of the struggle for democracy, that country went on a path towards stronger unions, lower economic inequality, and a more robust and sustainable democracy.
Summer Lee
Certainly. I have less than a minute, but I just want to ask really quickly: despite 70% of Americans supporting unions, over 50 million workers wanting to unionize, the majority of workers are not represented by a union in our nation. Why is that? And how is the deck stacked against these workers who are seeking to join a union in the United States?
Adam Dean
Yeah, thank you so much. In the classroom with my students, I always point out that there's a huge gap between the number of workers in the United States who say they want to join a union, roughly 43%, and only 6% of workers in the private sector are members of unions. A lot of that gap is because of labor rights violations in the United States. So employers will will often fire union organizers without facing any fines or penalties. They'll hire expensive union avoidance consultants.
They'll have captive audience meetings where they force workers to listen to these consultants give anti-union debate or talking points. And then last, even once a union wins an election, employers will often drag their feet in negotiations, not coming to a first contract for often over a year.
Burgess Owens
The gentlelady yields, and now I call on Mr. Owens from Utah for your line of questioning.
Thank you, thank you so much. The point of a union is to advocate for the interests of the workers they're paid to represent. However, it seems that some union leaders have lost sight of this and use their position and workers' dues to advance their own political priorities. I'm grateful for our witnesses today that are helping to pull back the curtain on how union leaders are spending the dues of money of their workers and whether union actions are actually serving those that they represent. I'm going to actually ask that you bear with me.
I have a few questions that are a little bit redundant, but it's so important that union members understand this is not about union or not union. It's how is our money being used? Is the money being used for the purposes of what the workers are working hard to do and to save for? And it appears that that's not the case here. But Mr. Moorhead, in June, the AFL-CIO, the country's largest labor federation, adopted a resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza and a halt to arms transfers by the United States government.
To your best knowledge, did the AFL-CIO seek input from rank-and-file members before adopting this resolution?
Greg Mourad
Thank you for the question.
No, to the best of my knowledge, they did not. In fact, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has represented a number of Jewish union members in recent years who only found out about their union's hostility to their own agenda and to the state of Israel when they saw those unions acting on it.
Burgess Owens
And how often do the unions poll their membership before passing resolutions on foreign policy issues that are totally disconnected from the mandatory subjects of collective bargaining, such as wages, hours, and working conditions?
Greg Mourad
As far as I know, it is virtually non-existent. These union leaders really like spending other people's money on their own political agenda. They have no incentive whatsoever to go proving that what they're doing is functionally immoral and against the wishes of their members, so they don't bother asking.
Burgess Owens
Okay. Mr. Ciafardini, your written testimony says that unions are operating on a model built for the economy of 1935 and need to adapt to today's workforce. Can you describe the differences between then and now and why you believe unions have not adapted?
Rick Allen
Yeah, I think the model of 1935 relies on a significant amount of animosity between workers and employers that I just don't think is reflective, as the Chairman alluded to, for many workers today. You know, and one of the members of the minority raised the point about affordability, a major concern. The data has shown, and my testimony alludes to the Mercatus Center's analysis, that oftentimes voluntary unionism, less rigid structures, can actually help workers financially in the long run through greater investment, greater job growth. Right-to-work states, for example, enjoy greater real growth in disposable personal income, higher cost-of-living-adjusted per capita disposable income, lower rates of welfare dependency. And so the economic gains of worker freedom have been apparent for many, many years at the state level.
And I think what you see is that voluntary unionism both protects a fundamental First Amendment right and can help grow the economy in a way that ultimately benefits workers throughout the economic ladder.
Burgess Owens
Thank you. Yeah, somehow choice brings that merit process into practice here. Mr. Jones, your organization reports documents more than two million dollars in casino and resort spending by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, another 2.3 million by the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division, and over 10 million by SMART-TD. LM-2 forms allow unions to file spending at Las Vegas resorts under the general overhead or union administration. How can Congress improve disclosure categories so that actual transparency and that the members can see how their dues are being spent?
Speaker 4
Yes, so I think there's two parts to this. One is the information has to become more accessible to the members. It's there, but man, you've got to dig into the weeds at this website to really pull the information out. And look, it's something that people other than research nerds like me are just not going to do. So one, I think the Department of Labor and Congress needs to work with them to ensure that union members are getting detailed, easily digestible information about where their union dues and where the treasury from their union is spending the money.
I think they're going to be shocked that these events are happening at places like Caesars and in Puerto Rico and things like that because the people attending those events are the leadership of the union, the leadership in the locals. It's not the rank-and-file members, and I think they're going to be really upset when they find out about that. Unfortunately, the second part of it is making sure they find out about it. Like again, I think when members get letters from folks on labor issues, they're usually ginned up by a local union. I think part of the response should be, hey, here's where these dues went that got you to gin up a letter to me about XYZ issue that is a priority for someone in DC, not necessarily a priority for someone in Bardstown, Kentucky, where I live.
Okay, thank you. I yield back.
Burgess Owens
The gentleman yields. Now we'll recognize Mr. Khanna from California for his five minutes of question.
Mark Takano
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the United States, wealth inequality is at record high levels. While American workers' productivity has boomed, wages have stagnated over the last 50 years. Companies are reporting record high profits, but almost half of all Americans cannot afford everyday necessities. Now, Professor Dean, I want to direct my questions to you.
According to your research, why are wages stagnating even as worker productivity goes up?
Adam Dean
Thank you for the question. I think it's a story about weak unions in the United States. We've seen since union density started to decline in the late 70s and early 80s, that's where we see a sort of breaking off of wage growth lagging behind productivity growth.
Mark Takano
Well, thank you. As you note in your testimony, workers have far less bargaining power than their employers. Protected labor rights and strong collective bargaining power ensure that workers also benefit, also benefit from what they produce, not just their employers. Now, Professor, according to your research, what happens to wages when workers unionize?
Adam Dean
When workers unionize, the union bargains on their behalf with their employer and almost always increases wages for those workers.
Mark Takano
And in your testimony, you note that only 6% of American workers are unionized despite a 71% approval rating of unions. Why are so few workers unionized? You said before, but I'd like you to repeat it now.
Adam Dean
In short, because employers make it difficult for them to do so by violating American labor law.
Mark Takano
And there are ways that we could strengthen those labor laws so that labor unions, workers could organize easier.
Adam Dean
That's right. One option is passing what's called the PRO Act, which would increase violations on employers who violate labor law.
Mark Takano
So the fact that we have such a low rate of unionization is really a result of the laws and rules around organizing. Would you say it's maybe stacked against the worker? It's like the worker has an uphill battle to organize.
Speaker 23
Absolutely. It's a policy choice that people in the United States have made, or policymakers in the United States have made. If the 43% of workers who would join a union if they had the opportunity were actually in a union, union density today would be as high as it's ever been in the United States.
Speaker 19
So the assertion that low rates of unionization is because that union, you know, workers don't want to be in unions, that's really not the case because we know survey evidence shows that they really want to be in unions.
Adam Dean
Workers' wages have been lagging behind productivity. Income inequality is far higher than it would be otherwise. If you look around the world, you see countries with stronger unions and better protection for workers' rights to organize have much higher wages and much lower income inequality.
I see absolutely no support for the argument that only 6% of workers want to be in a union. Survey evidence suggests it's closer to 43%.
Now, how do you see low union density affecting American workers' economic well-being today?
I also believe this has an impact on the health of our democracy. So many folks that are not economically well off, this produces a lot of discontent and politicians easily being able to divide and blame the discontent on other things.
Absolutely. The latest research shows that if you look around the world at countries whose democracies have been eroding or backsliding, one of the main predictors is increases in income inequality.
Mark Takano
Professor Dean, how do these attacks on workers' bargaining power and massive social cuts impact the broad scale wealth inequality?
Mark Takano
And based on your research, does unchecked wealth inequality impact the functioning of a democratic society? We've discussed this.
Adam Dean
Yeah, absolutely. Looking around the world, we see income inequality is a main predictor of democratic erosion and collapse.
Mark Takano
You know, as a former union member myself, I can tell you firsthand that unions are a necessary institution of democracy. Unions epitomize the American ideal that if you work hard, you can reap the benefit of your work. You can pull yourself into the middle class, and unions work to build a country that works for everyone, not just for billionaires. But of course, I think it's not wise to think that you can do it all by yourself as an individual worker. You do have to band together with other workers, organize, and form a union, and then you have a chance to get some negotiating power to get yourself in the middle class.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Randy Fine
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Two months after October 7th, 2023, the single worst day for Jews since the Holocaust, where 1,200 were killed and 250 were taken hostage, two months, 60 days, when hundreds were still being held hostage, the UAW called for a quote "permanent ceasefire", presumably leaving these hostages to be abandoned over there. In July of 2024, again, when hostages were still being held, including Americans, by the way, seven national unions demanded that President Biden immediately halt all military aid to Israel. Now, setting aside the fact that I would presume some of the places where these weapons are made are unionized, so you're actually putting out something that would hurt your membership, saying buy less stuff from the places that make it with union workers. I'll start with you, Mr. Murad, because you're smiling, so I assume you have something interesting to say.
What does Gaza or the status of the Gazan Arabs or Muslim terror have to do with the mission of any of these unions?
Greg Mourad
Well, the short answer, of course, is absolutely nothing at all, which doesn't necessarily stop the leadership.
So why do they do it?
Greg Mourad
Well, because the union leadership for the most part these days is not coming from the rank-and-file worker. It is Harvard and other left-wing educated people coming in to take professional leadership of these organizations, working off the back of these workers to fund their own political agendas, their ideological ideas.
Randy Fine
And is it fair, you all are experts at this, is it fair to say when you're saying stop selling weapons to Israel, you're actually hurting union workers who theoretically make a lot of the stuff?
I think that's fair to say.
Randy Fine
Okay. So, Mr. Jones, again, talking about beyond moving beyond the fact that these unions have decided to fully embrace Muslim terror, IBEW President Kenneth Cooper's been an outspoken critic of President Trump. He described the working families' tax cuts, which to be clear, said no tax on overtime and no tax on tips to hourly workers, as the great betrayal. Now, I've never been in a union, but do union workers oftentimes get overtime in their jobs as part of their contracts?
I don't know, just answer a stupid question from someone who's asking one.
Speaker 4
Certainly. And I think your questions here get to the core of what this hearing is about. This hearing is really getting to that unions have transformed from representing the hardworking men and women of America into an adjunct of the Democratic Party. The UAW endorsing Zohran Mamdani in New York City, how is that relevant to their members? How is it relevant to their members when they are calling for a ceasefire in Israel?
How is it relevant to working men and women to donate to a pro-choice fund that exists only to elect Democratic women? It's not relevant because they're not an organization representing hardworking men and women in a bipartisan manner. They are a well-funded adjunct of the Democrat Party that is working to elect Democrats nearly exclusively.
Randy Fine
Well, perhaps if they're looking out for their interests, that might be one thing. But when Cooper, IBEW President Kenneth Cooper said enacting no tax on overtime is a quote great betrayal, wasn't he then not engaging in a great betrayal of the person that he's supposed to represent?
Speaker 4
He was. And I guess I think you're using logic here and I think you got to kind of flip it on its head.
That's the difference between our side and the other.
Speaker 4
Right. Like Cooper's role is not to represent the men and women of the IBEW. His role is to help Democrats and to help the Democrat Party and to stymie the efforts of President Trump and his America First agenda. So even if what he says and what he promotes is hostile to the interests of his workers, but you know, sympathetic to the interests of the Democrat Party, he's going to do that. And that's like, that's the mindset that has to flip here from, hey, these guys actually represent their members to no, they actually represent the Democrat Party, they just don't have that cool blue logo with the D on it.
Randy Fine
Look, I think if they want to represent the interest of their workers, that's fine, but if they want to engage in fraud, which is what I think is largely going on here, that is not. So thank you all for being here today and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 38
Thank you. I'd like to now represent my, recognize my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross. I'm sorry, Mr. Meany, I'm sorry.
Donald Norcross
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This hearing is taking place a week after Labor Day and like many of my colleagues, I was in my district celebrating the hard-fought achievements of the labor movement and the great contributions that have been made to this country by American workers. And when I met with union workers back home, what they tell me paints a much different picture than what the majority in this committee would have you believe. First, they're overwhelmingly proud of their union membership and the benefits that come with it. They includes fair wages and better working conditions and protections.
And second, they're concerned about the constant attacks that are coming from this administration directed towards working people and the right to organize as well as the illegal termination of collective bargaining agreements for federal employees that were duly negotiated in good faith. So it's clear by now that tackling inflation is more than an empty campaign promise, much like the statements of no tax on tips and no tax on overtime when in fact overtime and tips are still taxed.
So let's be clear about the truth. Wages in this country are continuing to not be able to keep up with rising costs and many industries are hurting from the president's erratic trade policies. And unfortunately we've seen corporate interests routinely prioritized over the voices of the people. We're seeing actions of pay-to-play where big corporate donors are getting what they asked for, ending investigations. That's happening when it comes at the expense of everyday Americans.
Yet members of this committee will continue to turn a blind eye to that and they have resorted to the same playbook of trying to discredit unions and mischaracterize how they operate. Unions have a powerful voice and this administration wants to squelch that voice. But that voice has been there for the American worker regardless of which party is in office in Congress and in the White House. I know from firsthand experience that union leaders occupy a position of trust and they honor that trust by following the rules and acting in the best interest of their members. In fact, they are duly required to do so, to act in good faith, or they can be removed from that elected position.
And again this all happens through, as I stated, a democratic process. If workers are unhappy with their representation they can change it and that's a good thing. It's how it's supposed to work. I was elected to union office two times and was proud to represent teachers, school psychologists, social workers, and others. The people that I represent went across the political spectrum and were a good reflection of the suburban school district that I represented.
So my questions are for you, Professor Dean. If union members do not like the decisions or strategy of their leaders, do they have any recourse and what is that recourse?
Adam Dean
Thank you for the question. My understanding is that since 1959 all US union leaders have been elected by secret ballot elections at the local level. For national leaders, unions have a choice. They can hold direct elections for national leaders or they can elect local delegates who then select the national leader at a national convention. This is very similar to the way that the US House of Representatives works where local constituents elect a Congress member who comes here and then as a delegate chooses the Speaker of the House, an extremely powerful national-level leadership position.
Donald Norcross
And when union leaders continue to be reelected, what does that indicate?
Adam Dean
Obviously rank-and-file members have a choice to change their union leaders, usually every three years at the local level and roughly every five years at the national level.
Speaker 32
Thank you. I would now like to recognize my friend from Missouri, Mr. Onder.
Robert Onder
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chiguluri, do you know what percentage of Teamsters rank-and-file members supported President Trump during the 2024 presidential election?
I believe it was around 60%.
Robert Onder
Yes, I believe that's right. Do you know, did the Teamsters make an endorsement in the 2024 presidential election?
I do not believe they did.
Robert Onder
Okay. So it seems kind of odd that the Teamsters with a very large margin of their of their of their workers supporting President Trump that the Teamsters declined to make an endorsement. Had it been the other way around if 60% of Teamsters supported Kamala Harris I suspect it would have been otherwise. I suspect there might have been an endorsement.
I suspect that as well.
Why do you think this is?
Rick Allen
I think as we've pointed out repeatedly in this hearing the priorities of union leadership are not at all reflective in many instances of the priorities of the workers they claim to represent. And the point has been made frequently that you can change your union representatives or union leaders. What has not been pointed out is it's nearly impossible under federal law to actually change or remove the union that claims to represent you which is why less than 5% of members have ever voted for the union. It is almost impossible under federal law to decertify a union if you would like to bring in a new one or no longer be unionized. I think many members of the Teamsters union have probably found that out the hard way over the last two years.
Speaker 28
You know that is why when I was in the Missouri Senate in 2018 we passed a comprehensive public sector labor reform bill and one one part of that was recertification elections because yes just because your great-grandfather voted for a union doesn't mean you should be be bound to that same union. Yeah not not represent the values of their workers. You mean like like demanding that a company allow different pronoun pins perhaps or as my colleague Representative Fine pointed out demanding anti-Israel policies out of the out of the company. I saw in your written testimony and thank you for this that you highlighted my my my bill the Endorsement Transparency Act that would require that HR 6156 that would require that before a union endorse a presidential candidate it poll its members and share the results with them. Yeah thank you for that.
Yeah it does seem seem especially these days that that many of these unions are radically out of step with not the politics necessarily politics yes but the values of so many of their members. Now and and I think that's excellent. Can you would you also like to like to explain for a second the Faster Labor Contracts Act which I'm sorry to say passed through this chamber how does that undermine the rights of the workers specifically that those rights embodied in a in a a secret election?
Rick Allen
Yeah I mean as as many members of this committee have pointed out one of the purposes of a union is that you band together to have a voice and you get to vote on the contract. The Faster Labor Contracts Act completely undermines that entire concept of a labor union. It hands that power over to unelected arbitrators who can impose a contract that then stands for two years that the workers never have the right to vote on. I think it's completely antithetical to the supposed democratic representation that a union is supposed to put in place.
Speaker 28
Yeah it's undemocratic. Yes. Mr. Murad I think I think all of this points out to and I've been involved in labor bills over my entire political career in Missouri and here it seems to me at the end of the day ultimately the solution is that workers have a choice whether to join and whether to support a union. Because isn't isn't freedom of association a value embodied in our Constitution and the fabric of American society?
Greg Mourad
It is, and it has been a tragedy of labor law for 80 years now that labor law ignores that freedom to associate, or rather the freedom not to associate with a labor union, and instead compels association whether you like it or not.
Speaker 28
Yes, and that's how I've often put it. Yes, there is a natural law right to associate, including to associate and join together with other workers in a labor union, but isn't the corollary to that there is a right not to associate?
There should be.
Jahana Hayes
Gentleman yields, now calling Mrs. Hayes from Connecticut for five minutes of questioning.
Good morning, and thank you to our panelists for being here today. This is now our sixth hearing on this committee attacking unions. I've listened a lot of what you said, and there is a reason why you've seen unions endorse more Democrats, if you will, because much of what we're talking about, much of what we're hearing are anti-labor policies. Doesn't matter the R or the D or the person that's running, it's the policies that are put forth. I do want to push back a little bit because we've heard that unions are, you talk about unions in the abstract.
They're made up of the members. Union leaders are not just people who instill themselves, as we've heard over and over, it is a democratic process, the people elect their leaders who then make decisions on their behalf. Mr. DeMoat, I heard you refer to other people's money, it's actually the members' money. I was a union member for many years, I paid into the Good Government Fund because I could never make a max-out contribution to a political candidate as a classroom teacher. But I knew that by paying four dollars into this fund every week that supported our PAC, we could pool our resources to support candidates who shared our values and would come to Congress or go to the State House and fight for those things.
So the people elect their leaders, they can choose to not re-elect them, and to your point, even to decertify a union or to, if the membership disagrees, we're not talking about changing how that works, we're talking about tearing apart unions altogether, which is anti-labor no matter how you look at it. I do also want to add one other thing because it's come up a few times about the resolution that union leadership just didn't just put forth the resolution. It was brought up from local state unions, voted on, and the membership adopted it. However, and this is the part that you failed to include in your statement, AFL-CIO national leadership stepped in a few days later and retracted that resolution because they said it fell outside of their normal policies and the work that they do. So if you're going to tell the truth, tell the whole truth.
Tell the whole story. Talk about how it worked its way through the process and then national leadership stepped in and said this falls outside of the work that we are tasked with doing. But that being said, our union members show up every day and it is just a gross misunderstanding to think that all they care about is wages and workplace safety conditions. They care about the communities they live in, their public schools, their housing, their healthcare, their neighbors, their friends, immigrants, these are membership, people who live and work in these communities who are full and complete people who, yes, they care about other things, so their choice of what happens in policy they want it to reflect that. But these are not activist campaigns.
This is workers protecting and defending their rights, their rights to organize, their rights to speak up, and what we should be doing not only on this committee but in the Department of Labor is strengthening those rights because that is the task of the United States Department of Labor to protect the workers. And we have a lot of conversation about corporations and what it means on the other side, but what we should be talking about is our relationship of workers to those things and making sure that their democratic rights are protected so that they can go in and say what it is they would like to see, and anyone who is a student of history knows how we got here.
No one just woke up one day and said we should be nicer to workers. That's just not how it worked out. A whole lot of things happened that required workers to organize, that required them to fight for labor laws, that required the federal government to step in. And the work of this committee should be to leave us better than where we came where we began, not to turn back the clock by 50 years. But since you're here and there's no one from the Department of Labor who ever comes before this committee, I guess I have to question the witnesses in front of me.
So, Dr. Dean, can you highlight key ways that unions have strengthened protections for the broader working class in recent decades and the work that we have to do? And I know you mentioned things like protecting the right to organize and different things, but can you just take a minute to highlight that?
Adam Dean
Thank you very much for the opportunity. I think the most important or some of the most important organizing we're seeing today from labor unions is the push for outdoor heat standards both at the state level and at the national level. Again, these are are low-cost, simple laws that that grant workers the right to rest, water, and shade on hot days.
Jahana Hayes
Which is not radical, which is not outside of the norm, which does not fall beyond protecting workers, which is what we should be supporting. I'm sorry, I digress.
Adam Dean
No, it's okay. I'll just say that extending California's law across the country could save 1,000 to 1,500 lives every year.
Speaker 25
Thank you. That's the work we should be focusing on in this committee. And with that I yield back.
Burgess Owens
The gentlelady yields. Now I call on the rank ranking member Mr. Scott of Virginia for his line of five minutes of questioning.
Robert Scott
Thank thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Dean, we've had a we've heard a lot of complaints about the spending of leadership. What check and balance can the members exercise if they find abusive spending?
Adam Dean
I suppose the simplest would be to vote for a different national union leader.
Robert Scott
And what about if they are participating in contributions, political or type contributions, they don't like those, same thing?
Adam Dean
My understanding is that union members can request to opt out of those payments.
Robert Scott
Now, there's a lot of concern about which party the unions prefer. In healthcare, is there a difference between the parties in terms of healthcare?
Adam Dean
I'll say that in general, unions and and the workers they represent monitor very closely the legislative behavior and voting decisions of policymakers here in Washington, D.C. Going back over 100 years, Samuel Gompers, an early American labor leader, used to talk about rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies. And I think that's what workers in unions continue to do today, supporting policymakers that support pro-union, pro-worker bills and punishing those that do not.
Robert Scott
And what about health what about healthcare specifically after the big ugly bill cut a trillion dollars out of healthcare, whereas the last large bill we passed actually cut premiums and made healthcare more available, more people signed up? In terms of pensions, are you aware of how many Republicans voted to save a million union members' pensions, including 300,000 Teamsters?
Robert Scott
Well, zero. In terms of worker safety, you mentioned the heat standard. Are you aware that Republicans consistently cut back on regulations that worker safety, while Democrats try to strengthen worker safety?
Adam Dean
I do know that Bill Cassidy, Republican Senator, and 17 other Republican Senators sent a letter recently to OSHA calling for them to stop moving forward on a national heat standard, which again could save between 1,000 and 1,500 American workers' lives a year.
Robert Scott
And if you misclassify a worker as an independent contractor, you lose your right to minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, worker compensation, and the right to organize. Are you aware that Democrats are trying to minimize the misclassification and Republicans are trying to increase the possibility of misclassification?
Adam Dean
My understanding is that the PRO Act would help to address that concern, giving gig workers and other independent contractors the federal protections to unionize.
Robert Scott
And do you, are you aware that at this point in Biden's administration, four years ago, he had created over 10 million jobs and in this administration, President Trump hadn't even created the first million?
I don't have those numbers in front of me.
Robert Scott
And so in terms of job creation, one party is, so it makes sense if you're going to contribute to one party or another, you'd want to contribute to the one that's doing the, doing the right thing. Let me ask Mr. Chouguley, you indicated you wanted a opt-in on contributions. Would you have the same attitude for corporate contributions, money that could have been sent out as dividends, that all stockholders opt in to political contributions?
Rick Allen
It is not my understanding that in any state anybody can be forced to fund any kind of corporate activity against their will. In 24 states, workers can be forced to fund labor unions as a condition of employment, and I would note that aside from direct...
Robert Scott
Is that, is that a no, you would not support an opt-in on dividends that I could have gotten from a corporation rather than given to a political party that I don't agree with?
Rick Allen
Nobody in a corporation is forced to fund the corporation's PAC as a condition of their employment.
Robert Scott
So that's I guess that's a no. Mr. Dean, the percentage of income going to workers of the general economy is the lowest it's been in 60 years. What can unions do to address that inequality?
Adam Dean
Unions, both in the United States and around the world, fight for higher wages for workers, collectively bargain for better working conditions, and are associated with lower income inequality around the world.
Robert Scott
And so if we join a union itself, will increase, will deal with that inequality.
Adam Dean
I believe that unions have been shown in my research and others to increase wages, to make safer working conditions, and in many ways save workers' lives and protect the broader public health.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Burgess Owens
The gentleman yields, and now I call on Ms. McBath, Ms. McBath from Georgia, for her five minutes of questions.
Lucy McBath
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I have actually read all of your testimonies. But it's no surprise that the current Republican majority would use their last week to hold hearings before the election to slander working people and their unions. Unions are not out of touch with the reality of working people. Congress and the President are the ones that are completely out of touch.
I believe the American people are tired of being scolded by a President and a class of politicians who don't even do their own grocery shopping. People who have never known or have forgotten what it's like really to struggle. That is why people are turning to unions in record numbers, because Americans know their unions will actually get out on the ground and fight for them.
This majority is so determined to silence working people and their unions that they have changed the very name of this committee that we're in today from Education and Labor to Education and Workforce. The Republican majority would rather erase the word labor than make any real effort to work with Democrats to make everyday life easier for working people in this country. The majority is not holding this hearing because unions have an agenda that is out of touch with their members. They're holding this hearing because that agenda is just not something that they support. They know that more for everyday Americans means less for the people at the very top.
For those benefiting from an economy that rewards wealth, family ties, and personal connections over hard work and individual merit. The truth is is that this majority actively opposes unions because Republicans oppose efforts to raise wages, keep workers safe, and protect workers' pensions. Unions are organizations of workers, and since the majority supports an an agenda that is in direct conflict with the needs of working people, it is clear why they oppose unions. Unions listen directly to their members. My office and Ranking Member Scott released a report last week from the Government Accountability Office proving that the Department of Defense's use of intergovernmental support agreements is directly undermining federal wage and benefit protections for our workers.
And I would like to submit the report digitally for the record.
Without objection.
Lucy McBath
Thank you. Our report found that not only is the Department of Defense using these agreements to pay workers less than they would under the Service Contract Act, they also aren't able to prove that these efforts actually saved any taxpayer dollars. GAO found that the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force did not have procedures to verify the accuracy of these cost saving estimates. And according to this report, the Department of Defense could be actively going out of its way to spend more taxpayer dollars to pay the American people less money. This report only happened because an organizer with the Operating Engineers in my home state of Georgia spent years fighting to make this an issue.
He knew these agreements were taking work away from his coworkers and lowering wages for all workers, both union and non-union, on military bases all across the country. Their union had spent years trying to get someone in Washington to take them seriously. And once the report finally came out, it proved exactly what they said had been happening all along. Three out of five of the jobs the GAO studied paid workers less than what they would have been paid under the Service Contract Act. Our government should be supporting policies that pay people more, not paying them less.
It's clearly this Congress and this president who are completely out of touch with the American people, not the American people or their union. And I yield.
Speaker 41
The gentlelady yields. I now call on Mr. DeSaulnier, ranking member of the committee of the subcommittee, for your five minutes of questioning.
Mark DeSaulnier
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions, in the context of my opening comments and my remembering John Kenneth Galbraith talking about the importance of countervailing institutions in democracy, consistent with, and I bring this up frequently, a Republican economist who was an advisor to Richard Nixon, just reminds me when I hear these hearings how much the majority party has changed in its relationship and the problems we face in this country. We're not talking about corruption like Donald Trump Jr. taking a donation for his wedding from an oligarch in Russia. We're talking about union members electing their leadership and trying to have a say in countervailing institutions. As Lincoln said, wages and capital must always be balanced.
If capital ever gets the upper hand, you've lost democracy, which unfortunately is where we are right now on the border of. This graph is one I like. Just since Citizens United was passed by a lot of the people who fund some of the organizations in front of us in your research, this is the amount of money that's being spent by billionaires, just billionaires, in independent expenditures in presidential elections. Since 2024, according to Brookings, business PACs, business groups are outspending labor groups by 16 to 1. So let's put this in context.
This is the battle that Galbraith talked about is a balance, and it's not a balance right now. If it was up to me, there'd be public financing of campaigns, but the US Supreme Court won't allow that. So Louis Brandeis once said that you can have democracy or you have concentration of wealth by a few people in America. And according to the Federal Reserve right now, the top 1% has over 31% of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 50% of Americans collectively have 2.5%. In fact, this is one of the largest wealth gaps, according to the Federal Reserve, in the history of this country, if not the largest.
Not only are the rich getting richer obscenely, but workers are not seeing their wages keep up. That's why they need unions. Since the 1980s, productivity has grown nearly three times more than workers' compensation. These numbers are not a fluke. They're a result of decades of policies that benefited corporations over working families.
You can just read what the Koch brothers' father, when he started the John Birch Society, advocated for. He had a voice, but now that voice is dominating our politics. Professor Dean, as Brandeis said, democracy and concentrated wealth are incompatible. Can you discuss the research you have done about the role labor unions play in producing and maintaining a strong democracy, i.e., a countervailing institution, one that is just somewhat competitive against the concentration of wealth in this country?
Adam Dean
Absolutely. I think that unions have been shown to play both an economic role and a political role in defending democracy and making sure that democracy survives. The economic role is to bargain for higher wages for workers and to lobby for public policies that increase wages and incomes for workers throughout the working class. That level of income inequality, that economic dynamic, sort of insulates the working class from the appeals of authoritarians. It leads to broad working-class support for democracy, support for the democratic status quo.
That's the economic dynamic through which unions benefit democracy. Politically, unions as an organization, when they're powerful enough to do so, mobilize workers to the polls, they mobilize workers in the streets, all in defense of democracy. So looking again not just in the United States but around the world, we see strong unions playing both this economic and this political role in defending and sustaining democracy.
Mark DeSaulnier
And just briefly in a historical context, I remember Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican president and a progressive, a defining moment in his life was going not far from where his family home was in Manhattan and seeing kids rolling cigars when we had no laws.
So what I'm interested just in closing is the repetition we go through in this country. There's an interesting series of books by statistical historians about the four turnings, and the fourth turning is here. How we keep going through this pattern economically. Could you respond to that?
Adam Dean
I think today we're now seeing income inequality in the United States as high as it's ever been, now surpassing the level of income inequality before World War I, the period of the robber barons. And so in terms of this sort of pendulum swinging back and forth, I think yes, we're back to a period of extreme income inequality, which is posing a direct threat to our democracy.
Mark DeSaulnier
And the antidote to that in history has been working people's unionizing.
Absolutely.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Burgess Owens
The gentleman yields, and looks like that we everyone has asked their question, so I'll now ask the ranking member for your closing remarks.
Mark DeSaulnier
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this hearing. We really should be talking, and this and hopefully we will soon in January, talking about the real impacts of the economy and the benefit for everyone if everybody has opportunity. And we could be talking about AI right now, and we will be in the future in this committee about how it's displacing the workforce, not unlike it has in other periods of technological advances. And that's coming from somebody in this who represents the San Francisco Bay Area and the fifth wealthiest district in the country where we have a lot of investments in AI, but we're really concerned and our responsibility to the future of humankind, but also as far as this jurisdiction comes, starting with protecting American workers. And I'm disappointed that we're not talking about these kind of things, Mr. Chairman, to be honest.
I know firsthand that America's labor movement gives workers the power to win higher wages, better benefits, and safer workplaces. At a time of great economic inequality where life is unaffordable for millions of working families, we should be strengthening workers' unions' rights, not undermining them. I hope that when we return in November, we can put in the work, in the work, this in our work to make this happen. It's in the benefit of the whole country, as Lincoln said, that we address this inequality and allow American workers to have a full voice, an equal voice to corporations and the great concentration of wealth that exists in this country right now and their elections and this democracy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back. Oh, just one last thing, I'm sorry. I'd like to submit, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the record, as I'm being reminded by our staff, a news story from US News titled Revealed: How a Shadowy Group of Far-Right Donors is Funding Federal Employee Watchlists. Project 2025 architects are among those behind the American Accountability Foundation and their blacklist targeting people of color. I ask unanimous consent.
Without objection.
Robert Scott
Unanimous consent to introduce into the record a report entitled The Case for Tripling Union Membership.
Burgess Owens
Okay, without objection. Any further introductions? Okay, with that, I'll close us out. I thank our witnesses for sharing your perspectives on the subject of today. The testimony highlights the ways that union leadership is falling short in its duty to represent workers when they funnel dues dollars to politicians and causes that are out of step with workers.
Unions have a privileged position as the exclusive representative of millions of workers. It's only right that we ask unions to listen to their workers, steward their dues well, and wield their influence in a way that honors the diverse views of their members, and I for one think that's very important that we shine a light in this dark spot. As the testimony shows, union leaders are engaging in politics almost exclusively to support liberal and progressive causes and to undermine President Trump and his administration's effort to dig this country out of a hole that was caused of four years of just basically mismanagement. At the same time, roughly half of workers in many unions voted for President Trump and support his policies. Unions should represent all of their members fairly, even those they disagree with.
I look forward to working with members and the administration to support the freedom and dignity of workers and find ways to encourage unions to be more responsive to their workers. Again, I'd like to thank the witnesses for your time to testify before the subcommittee today, and with that objection, there being no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned.