U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–824 PDF 2016

COMPULSORY UNIONIZATION 

THROUGH GRIEVANCE FEES: 

THE NLRB’S ASSAULT ON 

RIGHT–TO–WORK 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 3, 2015 

Serial No. 114–17 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 3, 2015 ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby,’’ Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce ............................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bruno, Robert, Dr., Professor, School of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Chicago Illinois, Chicago, IL ....................................... 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27 

Gould, Elise, Dr., Senior Economist and Director of Health Policy Research, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC .................................. 42 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44 

Hewitt, Walter, Mr., Management Information Systems Director, United 

Way of Southeastern Connecticut, Uncasville, CN .................................... 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Mix, Mark, Mr., President, National Right to Work Committee, Springfield, VA ......................................................................................................... 65 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 67 

Ricketts, Hon. Pete, Governor, State of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE .................. 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Additional Submissions: 

Mr. Bruno: 

Research Report: Free-Rider States dated September 2, 2014 .............. 132 

Mr. Hewitt: 

Addenda to Testimony .............................................................................. 164 

Tally of Ballots - UD Election .................................................................. 166 

Letter of Concern from the Southeastern Connecticut Central Labor 

Council .................................................................................................... 164 

Jeffries, Hon. Hakeem S., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: 

Table 709, Individuals and Families Below Poverty Level and by 

Rate to State .......................................................................................... 120 

Pocan, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin: 

Wisconsin Contractors Coalition, Business Members ............................ 86 

Mr. Scott: 

Dimished Collective Bargaining Coverage Means Higher Wage Inequality Across 32 Countries ................................................................ 8 

Workers Produced Much More, but Typical Workers’ Pay Lagged 

Far Behind ............................................................................................. 6 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

COMPULSORY UNIONIZATION THROUGH 

GRIEVANCE FEES: 

THE NLRB’S ASSAULT ON RIGHT–TO–WORK 

Wednesday, June 3, 2015 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, Wilson, Foxx, Thompson, 

Walberg, Salmon, Rokita, Messer, Byrne, Brat, Carter, Bishop, 

Grothman, Curbelo, Stefanik, Allen, Scott, Hinojosa, Grijalva, 

Courtney, Fudge, Polis, Sablan, Wilson, Bonamici, Pocan, Takano, 

Jeffries, Clark, and DeSaulnier. 

Staff present: Lauren Aronson, Press Secretary; Janelle Belland, 

Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; Ed Gilroy, Director 

of Workforce Policy; Callie Harman, Staff Assistant; Tyler Hernandez, Press Secretary; Marvin Kaplan, Workforce Policy Counsel; 

Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; John Martin, Professional Staff Member; 

Zachary McHenry, Legislative Assistant; Daniel Murner, Deputy 

Press Secretary; Brian Newell, Communications Director; Krisann 

Pearce, General Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane 

Sullivan, Staff Director; Alexa Turner, Legislative Assistant; 

Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin 

Barbera, Minority Staff Assistant; Amy Cocuzza, Minority Labor 

Detailee; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Christine Godinez, 

Minority Staff Assistant; Carolyn Hughes, Minority Senior Labor 

Policy Advisor; Kendra Isaacson, Minority Labor Policy Detailee; 

Brian Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Kevin McDermott, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Richard Miller, Minority Senior 

Labor Policy Advisor; Amy Peake, Minority Labor Policy Advisor; 

Veronique Pluviose, Minority Civil Rights Counsel; Dillon Taylor, 

Minority Labor Policy Fellow. 

Chairman KLINE. A quorum being present, the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce will come to order. 

Good morning. I would like to begin by extending a special welcome to Governor Pete Ricketts. Governor, we are grateful to you 

for taking time out of your schedule to join us as a testament to 

the importance of this issue, and your dedication to the people of 

your state. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

We are here to discuss the latest in a series of actions by the National Labor Relations Board, designed to empower big labor at the 

expense of America’s workers. 

In recent years, the President’s appointees at the NLRB have undermined employee free choice through an ambush election scheme, 

stifled employee freedom through micro unions, and restricted employee access to secret ballot elections. 

Now, the board is setting its sight on the freedom of choice provided to employees under the state right-to-work laws. In 1947, 

Congress passed a number of amendments to the National Labor 

Relations Act. One of those amendments allowed states to prohibit 

compulsory union membership. This important policy, known as 

right-to-work, simply means union membership cannot be a condition of employment and employees cannot be required to pay union 

dues or fees. 

Today, 25 states have enacted right-to-work laws, with Indiana, 

Michigan, and Wisconsin recently joining the ranks. Union leaders 

vigorously oppose right-to-work because it leads to less control over 

workers and fewer dollars flowing to union coffers. But this isn’t 

about what is best for unions, it is about what is best for workers. 

Every worker has a fundamental right to decide whether or not 

to join a union. Those who decide not to join a union shouldn’t be 

punished for that decision, especially when the punishment denies 

a worker the chance to provide for his or her family. That is why 

it is deeply troubling the Obama Labor Board is trying to undermine a policy embraced by workers and state leaders across the 

country. 

In April, the Board requested public comment on whether it 

should adopt a new rule permitting unions to charge nonunion 

members grievance fees in right-to-work states. We have long 

heard complaints from labor leaders about so-called ‘‘free riders’’— 

the idea that workers who opt out of union representation and associated fees still avail themselves of the provisions laid out in the 

collective bargaining agreement. 

When it comes to the grievance process, this argument is deeply 

flawed for a simple reason: workers have no choice. The grievance 

process is outlined in the collective bargaining agreement, and even 

nonunion members are bound by its requirements. There is no 

other recourse for nonunion members to resolve grievances aside 

from the process stipulated in the labor contract. 

If we adopted Big Labor’s logic, workers would be stuck between 

a rock and a hard place. They would either have to pay the union 

fee or forfeit any opportunity to resolve grievances with their employers. That is not what Congress intended nearly 70 years ago, 

and it is not what Congress intends today. 

Despite the complaints of labor leaders, current policies governing grievance fees have been board precedent for decades and 

have been upheld in federal court. These policies shouldn’t be discarded by an unelected and unaccountable board of bureaucrats. 

For those who would argue we are getting ahead of ourselves, I 

would simply note that we have been down this road before. The 

board has a track record of seizing routine cases as a means to impose sweeping changes on our nation’s workplaces. We have no reaCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

son to believe this case will be any different, and America’s workers are once again expected to pay the price. 

Right-to-work is an important tool for state leaders trying to attract new businesses and good-paying jobs. Employers at home and 

abroad are increasingly drawn to right-to-work states. No doubt, 

Governor Ricketts will explain for us why that continues to be true. 

Working families win when companies like Volvo, BMW, and 

Volkswagen build factories here in the United States. With millions 

of Americans searching for full-time work, why would we discourage that kind of investment in our nation’s workers? 

Just as importantly, why would we accept a policy that undermines the right of workers to decide whether or not they want to 

join a union? The board needs to pull back and leave employees in 

right-to-work states alone. 

Before closing, I want to make a brief comment about our witness panel. Staff received word late last night that one of our intended witnesses had expressed publicly a number of offensive 

views. The views expressed by this individual do not reflect the 

views of this committee or its members, and that is why the committee withdrew the invitation for this individual to testify. It is regrettable this occurred, and we look forward to a productive hearing on the important issue at hand. 

With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member Scott for his 

opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning. I’d like to begin by extending a special welcome to Governor Pete 

Ricketts. Governor, we are grateful to you for taking time out of your busy schedule 

to join us; it is a testament to the importance of this issue and your dedication to 

the people of your state. 

We are here to discuss the latest in a series of actions by the National Labor Relations Board designed to empower Big Labor at the expense of America’s workers. 

In recent years, the president’s appointees at the NLRB have undermined employee 

free choice through an ambush election scheme, stifled employee freedom through 

micro-unions, and restricted employee access to secret ballot union elections. Now 

the board is setting its sights on the freedom and choice provided to employees 

under state right to work laws. 

In 1947, Congress passed a number of amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. One of those amendments allowed states to prohibit compulsory union 

membership. This important policy, known as ‘‘right to work,’’ simply means union 

membership cannot be a condition of employment and employees cannot be required 

to pay union dues or fees. Today, twenty-five states have enacted right to work laws, 

with Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin recently joining the ranks. 

Union leaders vigorously oppose right to work because it leads to less control over 

workers and fewer dollars flowing to union coffers. But this isn’t about what’s best 

for unions; it’s about what’s best for workers. Every worker has a fundamental right 

to decide whether or not to join a union. Those who decide not to join a union 

shouldn’t be punished for that decision, especially when the punishment denies a 

worker the chance to provide for his or her family. That is why it is deeply troubling 

the Obama labor board is trying to undermine a policy embraced by workers and 

state leaders across the country. 

In April, the board requested public comment on whether it should adopt a new 

rule permitting unions to charge nonunion members grievance fees in right to work 

states. We have long heard complaints from labor leaders about so-called ‘‘free riders,’’ the idea that workers who opt out of union representation and associated fees 

still avail themselves of the provisions laid out in the collective bargaining agreement. 

When it comes to the grievance process, this argument is deeply flawed for a simple reason: workers have no choice. The grievance process is outlined in the collecCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

tive bargaining agreement and, even nonunion members are bound by its requirements. There is no other recourse for nonunion members to resolve grievances aside 

from the process stipulated in the labor contract. 

If we adopted Big Labor’s logic, workers would be stuck between a rock and a 

hard place; they would either have to pay the union fee or forfeit any opportunity 

to resolve grievances with their employers. That is not what Congress intended 

nearly 70 years ago and it is not what Congress intends today. Despite the complaints of labor leaders, current policies governing grievance fees have been board 

precedent for decades and have even been upheld in federal court. These policies 

shouldn’t be discarded by an unelected and unaccountable board of bureaucrats. 

For those who would argue we are getting ahead of ourselves, I would simply note 

that we have been down this road before. The board has a track record of seizing 

routine cases as a means to impose sweeping changes on our nation’s workplaces. 

We have no reason to believe this case will be any different, and America’s workers 

are once again expected to pay the price. 

Right to work is an important tool for state leaders trying to attract new businesses and good-paying jobs. Employers at home and abroad are increasingly drawn 

to right to work states. No doubt Governor Ricketts will explain for us why that 

continues to be true. Working families win when companies like Volvo, BMW, and 

Volkswagen build factories here in the United States. With millions of Americans 

searching for full-time work, why would we discourage that kind of investment in 

our nation’s workers? 

Just as importantly, why would we accept a policy that undermines the right of 

workers to decide whether or not they want to join a union? The board needs to 

pull back and leave employees in right to work states alone. 

Before closing, I want to make a brief comment about our witness panel. Staff received word late last night that one of our intended witnesses has expressed publicly 

a number of offensive views. The views expressed by this individual do not reflect 

the views of this committee or its members, and that is why the committee withdrew the invitation for this individual to testify. It is regrettable this occurred, and 

we look forward to a productive hearing on the important issue at hand. 

With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member Scott for his opening remarks. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, on 

that last remark, I appreciate that could happen to anyone. And I 

am delighted that you took the action you took. 

Mr. Chairman, the title of today’s hearing, ‘‘Compulsory Unionization through Grievance Fees: The NLRB’s Assault on Right-toWork’’ fundamentally distorts the legal issues in a pending appeal 

before the NLRB. That appeal has to do with whether a union may 

charge a nonmember a fee to process a grievance when they request the union’s assistance. The NLRB has solicited amicus briefs, 

but has not acted. Regardless, the case doesn’t have anything to do 

with the right-to-work laws. I think we ought to let the NLRB process go forward, in any case. 

I represent a district in Virginia, which is a right-to-work state 

and has been since 1947. That means that workers who are employed at a unionized workplace in Virginia cannot be required to 

pay union fees as a ‘‘condition of employment.’’ 

However, this hearing does give us an opportunity to highlight 

serious policy questions beyond the narrow issue of grievance fees, 

such as whether the vast majority of workers are better off with 

stronger or weaker union representation. 

Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 that allows states 

to pass these right-to-work laws that allow workers to get all of the 

benefits of union representation without the responsibility of paying anything for it. 

Over the last 58 years, state legislators have passed so-called 

right-to-work laws in 25 states. Since unions have the duty of fair 

representation to represent members and nonmembers alike, they 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

are obligated to incur the costs of representing free riders, who are 

not paying union dues, and it forces actual members to pay higher 

dues to cover the expenses of the free riders, which creates a further disincentive to be a union member. 

When a grievance goes to arbitration, the cost to the union can often exceed $5,000 a case, an expense that dues-paying members 

must shoulder if the grievance is brought by a nonmember. 

Again, this isn’t a discussion about the right to work. It is a 

question of whether one desires a stronger or weaker union movement. The economic research is clear, stronger unions are better 

than weaker unions for building and sustaining a strong middle 

class. Stronger unions reduce wage inequality and help ensure that 

the increased wealth generated by growing productivity is fairly 

shared by the workers. 

Falling union participation exacerbates the troubling economic 

conditions we are seeing today: stagnant wages and extreme levels 

of inequality in wealth and income. And this chart shows part of 

the problem. It shows from 1948 to 1973, as productivity grew 97 

percent, wages went up 91 percent. But since 1973, worker output 

has soared another 74 percent, but income—but the hourly wages 

have gone up only 9 percent. 

[Additional submission by Mr. Scott follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 93704.028
7 

Again, this sharp divergence can be seen on the chart. And, coinciding with that divergence, there has been a reduction in union 

participation. 

Strong unions are needed to help close the gap between wages 

and productivity growth and to reduce inequality. The International Labor Organization recently evaluated wage inequality in 

32 countries. And this chart shows that those with stronger union 

representation have less inequality; those with less union participation, like the United States, have extremely high levels of inequality. 

[Additional submission by Mr. Scott follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 114 here 94824.114
9 

The ILO’s data illustrates a remarkably consistent relationship: 

low levels of collective bargaining coverage associated with high 

levels of inequality. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I don’t expect us to agree today on the value 

of strong labor unions. But, reconsideration of the case law regarding grievance frees is not an overreach. 

I would note that it was a Republican NLRB chairwoman, Betty 

Murphy, who issued a concurring opinion in a 1976 case declaring 

that non-discriminatory grievance fees may well be permissible 

without running afoul of the National Labor Relations Act. In an 

opinion involving a Virginia mechanical parts manufacturer, she 

stated ‘‘a bargaining representative requiring a payment of a reasonable fee for all employees for processing a grievance imposed on 

members and nonmembers alike cannot be discriminatory treatment of either group, and such a fee paid by nonmembers on the 

same basis cannot be unlawful.’’ 

I would caution the committee that we should respect the adjudicative process that is now underway before criticizing the NLRB’s 

decision to simply ask for more input by soliciting amicus briefs. 

So rather than rushing into judgment on the nuances of this case, 

we should allow the NLRB to deliberate and render an opinion. 

Briefs are not even due until mid-July. And if the NLRB issues a 

decision that the parties feel is unlawful, they can obviously appeal. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today, particularly those who had to travel a long way. And I look forward to 

their testimony. 

Yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Ranking Member 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Mr. Chairman, the title of today’s hearing ‘‘Compulsory Unionization through 

Grievance Fees: The NLRB’s Assault on Right-to-Work,’’ fundamentally distorts the 

legal issues in a pending appeal before the National Labor Relations Board. That 

appeal has to do with whether a union may charge a non-member a fee to process 

a grievance when they request the union’s assistance. The NLRB has solicited amicus briefs, but has not yet acted. Regardless, the case has nothing to do with socalled right-to-work laws. 

I represent a District in Virginia, which is a right-to-work state and has been 

since 1947. That means that workers who are employed at a unionized workplace 

in Virginia cannot be required to pay union fees as a ‘‘condition of employment.’’ 

No matter how the NLRB rules in the grievance fee case, Virginia will remain 

a right-to-work state. This case has nothing to do with whether a worker must join 

a union or pay an agency fee as condition of employment. It is misleading to suggest 

that the policy issues in this case are in any way related to the inflammatory title 

of this hearing. 

However, this hearing does highlight serious policy questions beyond the narrow 

issue of grievance fees, such as whether the vast majority of workers are better off 

with a stronger or weaker union movement. Congress passed the Taft Hartley Act 

in 1947—over President Truman’s veto—with the intent to weaken the finances of 

labor unions. It allowed states to pass these right-to-work laws that allow workers 

to get union representation without paying for it. It authorized states to create a 

class of workers who can get something of real value for nothing. While some refer 

to these individuals as free-riders, I call them free-loaders. 

Over the past 58 years, state legislators have passed so-called right-to-work laws 

in 25 states. Since unions have a duty of fair representation to represent members 

and non-members alike, the costs of representing free riders weakens unions by 

draining their treasury. Alternatively, it forces members to pay higher dues to cover 

the expenses of the free riders, which creates further disincentive to be a union 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

member. When a grievance goes to arbitration, the cost, even if split with the employer, runs the union upwards of $5,000 a case, an expense that dues-paying members must shoulder if the grievance is brought by a non-member. Again, any discussion of right-to-work is really about whether one desires a stronger or a weaker 

union movement. 

The economic research is clear—stronger unions are better than weaker unions 

for building and sustaining a middle class. Stronger unions reduce wage inequality 

and help ensure that the increased wealth generated by growing productivity is fairly shared with the workers. Falling union density exacerbates the troubling economic conditions we 

have today in this country: stagnant wages and extreme levels of inequality in income and wealth. 

Show Chart A (EPI). 

Part of the reason for growing inequality in our country is due to workers’ limited 

bargaining power to secure a fair share of the increase in productivity, which is a 

measure of output per worker-hour. The hourly compensation of a typical worker 

grew in tandem with productivity from 1948 to 1973 , as productivity grew 97 percent matched by a 91 percent increase in real hourly wages. That can be seen in 

the Chart on the screen. 

However, since 1973 output per worker hour has soared 74 percent, while hourly 

compensation for the typical worker has increased only nine percent. Again, this 

sharp divergence can be seen on the chart. Coinciding with this divergence has been 

a reduction in union density. 

Strong unions are needed to help close the gap between wages and productivity 

growth, and to reduce inequality. The International Labor Organization recently 

evaluated wage inequality in 32 countries. See the chart on the screen. 

Show Chart B (ILO) 

The ILO found that those countries with collective bargaining coverage rates 

under 15 percent, such as the United States and South Korea, have extremely high 

levels of inequality. 

By contrast, countries with as much as 95 percent collective bargaining coverage, 

such as Belgium, Austria and Sweden, have far lower rates of inequality. 

The ILO’s data illustrates a remarkably consistent relationship: low levels of collective bargaining coverage are associated with high levels of inequality. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t expect us to agree today on the value of strong labor 

unions, but reconsideration of the case law regarding grievance fees is not an overreach. 

I would note that it was a Republican NLRB Chairwoman, Betty Murphy, who 

issued a concurring opinion in a 1976 case declaring that non-discriminatory grievance fees may well be permissible without running afoul of the National Labor Relations Act. In an opinion involving a Virginia mechanical parts manufacturer, she 

stated: 

‘‘A bargaining representative requiring payment of a reasonable fee for all employees for processing a grievance, imposed on members and non-members alike, cannot 

be discriminatory treatment of either group, and such a fee paid by non-members 

on the same basis cannot be unlawful.’’ 

I would caution that this Committee should respect the adjudicative process that 

is now underway before criticizing the NLRB’s decision to simply seek more input 

by soliciting amicus briefs. 

Rather than rushing to judgment on the nuances of this case, we should allow 

the NLRB to deliberate and render an opinion on the merits. Briefs are not even 

due until mid-July. And if the NLRB issues a decision that the parties feel is unlawful, they can seek judicial review in the Court of Appeals. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today, particularly those who 

had to travel a long way, and look forward to their testimony. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman, however much we may 

disagree. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all members will be permitted 

to submit written statements to be included in the permanent 

hearing record. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for 

the official hearing record. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

11 

I will now introduce our distinguished witnesses. The Honorable 

Pete Ricketts is the Governor of Nebraska. Governor Ricketts was 

sworn in as Nebraska’s 40th governor on January 8th, 2015. Prior 

to his election as Governor, he worked to support Nebraska entrepreneurs and start-up companies. He has also previously held various leadership roles in TD Ameritrade. 

Mr. Walter Hewitt is a director of technology with the United 

Way of Southeast Connecticut in Gales Ferry, Connecticut, and is 

testifying on his own behalf. Mr. Hewitt is responsible for all information technology initiatives at United Way of Southeast Connecticut. Prior to joining United Way in 2007, Mr. Hewitt worked 

at TriVIN, CCEH, and Pfizer. 

Dr. Robert Bruno is a professor at the University of Illinois in 

Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Bruno is the director of the labor education program, and his research focuses broadly on working-class 

and union studies issues. 

Dr. Elise Gould is a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute here in Washington, D.C. Her research areas include wages, 

poverty, inequality, economic mobility, and health care. 

Mr. Mark Mix is President of the National Right-to-Work Committee in Springfield, Virginia. Prior to joining National Right-toWork Committee in 1990, Mr. Mix worked for several state level 

right-to-work groups. 

I will now ask our witnesses to stand and to raise your right 

hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

You may be seated. I can’t imagine the day when a witness doesn’t 

answer in the affirmative. But there we are. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me once 

again briefly explain our lighting system. It is a little antiquated, 

but it is pretty straightforward. You have five minutes to present 

your testimony. And by the way, I have yet to gavel down any witness who ran over in presenting their testimony. But I would encourage you, please try to stay within that, because we want to 

give all members the chance to participate. 

When you begin, the light in front of you will turn green. When 

one minute is left, the light will turn yellow. And when your time 

is expired, the light will turn red. 

I will point out that I will be less forgiving for members of the 

committee, as we will adhere to the five-minute rule. 

I would now like to recognize Governor Ricketts. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. PETE RICKETTS, GOVERNOR, STATE OF 

NEBRASKA, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA 

Governor RICKETTS. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Scott, 

and members of the committee, I thank you for examining the new 

and serious threat to state right-to-work laws from the National 

Labor Relations Board. 

Should the NLRB’s threat be carried out, the board’s actions 

would seriously impair employees’ personal freedom, the economies 

of 25 states that have the right-to-work laws, and the U.S. economy. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

12 

According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, Nebraska has the 

lowest unemployment rate, at 2.5 percent. We know our right-towork laws present a competitive advantage for us and contribute 

to this because it sends the right message to employers and employees. 

When I was president of Accutrade, a subsidiary of what is now 

TD Ameritrade, we were looking to expand outside the state and 

we were going to create several hundred jobs. One state, Oklahoma, approached us. And when we found out they were not a 

right-to-work state, we stopped the conversation. There wasn’t any 

point going further. We know that being a right-to-work state is a 

competitive advantage in being able to attract businesses and new 

jobs. 

Last year, I was elected as governor of Nebraska. Nebraska has 

a long history of defending freedom. In fact, in 1946, Nebraska 

voted 60 percent to 40 percent to adopt a right-to-work law prohibiting compulsory union membership. This was even before Congress had passed the Taft-Hartley Act, reaffirming the power of 

states to approve and enforce such laws. 

Like the overwhelming majority of my constituents, I am a 

strong supporter of the nearly seven decades of the right-to-work 

provision in Nebraska’s constitution. Along with other like-minded 

Nebraskans, I will fight with determination against any and all attempts by the Federal Government to undermine the power of the 

states to protect employees within our borders and forced union affiliation. 

Now, the NLRB is threatening to undermine the power of the 

states and impose fees on free people by board fiat. The board 

would grant private sector union officials compulsory workplace 

grievance privileges. The intended consequence will be to undermine the right-to-work freedom currently granted by Nebraska and 

24 other states. 

Requiring a nonmember to pay for a union’s participation is unreasonable and unfair. And it makes perfect sense that both the 

courts and the NLRB have consistently barred organized labor 

from charging nonmembers in right-to-work states to get their 

grievances processed, when union members can have their grievances processed for free. 

But now the NLRB seems poised to do an about-face on its own 

precedent going back to 1953. The NLRB’s apparent eagerness to 

suddenly give a green light to forced grievance fees is especially 

disturbing to Nebraskans. Right-to-work supporters in our state 

fought this battle over a decade ago and thought we had won up 

until the spring when the NLRB made their announcement. 

Over 10 years ago, officers in the AFL–CIO had lobbied for a bill 

called L.B. 230, which would be very similar to what the NLRB is 

now proposing. L.B. 230 would have entitled organized labor to 

charge agency fees to nonunion members and then actually sue 

those workers who refused to pay it. Effectively, you know, forcing 

them to accept the fees. 

Supporters of this legislation managed to attach the language of 

L.B. 230 into a high-priority workers’ compensation reform bill. But 

grassroots opponents, assisted by the National Right-to-Work Committee, kept fighting back. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

13 

Finally, State Senator Adrian Smith, who I am happy to say is 

a member of the U.S. House of Representatives today, vowed he 

would lead a protracted fight to stop the workers’ comp reform bill 

if it came to the floor with the forced unionization language still 

attached. In the end, the forced grievance fees provision was not 

enacted. 

Mr. Chairman, the battle that occurred in the early to mid-2000s 

to defeat L.B. 230 in Nebraska was a classic example of representative government in action. It is unfortunate and would be a travesty if the NLRB would now choose to bureaucratically override the 

will of the people. This is an issue of precedence and State’s rights. 

This is about the people I represent, who respect the right to organize and respect the right to decline. 

Nebraska and 24 other states protect the rights of workers to 

handle the grievances as they see fit. This is a proposal that is a 

solution in search of a problem and would hurt individual rights, 

employers, and continued economic growth. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here to testify. 

[The testimony of Governor Ricketts follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 94824.001
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 94824.002
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 94824.003
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 94824.004
18 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, Governor. And thank you for staying within the five minutes. That is a good example. 

Mr. Hewitt? 

TESTIMONY OF MR. WALTER HEWITT, MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIRECTOR, UNITED WAY OF SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT, (TESTIFYING ON OWN BEHALF), 

UNCASVILLE, CONNECTICUT 

Mr. HEWITT. Chairman Kline, distinguished committee members, 

thank you for providing me with this opportunity to talk to you 

about the importance of right-to-work in the workplace. 

I want to start out by saying that I am not anti-union, in spite 

of many of those assertions from various union members after I 

agreed to come here today. Unfortunately, I do live in a compulsory 

union state. By virtue of the fact that my company, the United 

Way of Southeastern Connecticut has a union, I am forced to be a 

union member, whether or not I wish to be. 

We have had certain issues recently which have convinced us, 

the members, to do some research and determine what our rights 

actually are. Luckily, we discovered that we do, in fact, have the 

right to disassociate. Let me give you some background about that. 

Basically, during recent contract negotiations with the OPEIU, 

our current union, our union officials, refused to bring any issues 

to the table to talk to the employees at all about what was presented to them, what issues were on the table, what was being negotiated. Most infuriating to us was the fact that the union representatives agreed to—and they claimed to—they claimed that 

they agreed that management had encouraged them and required 

them to keep a veil of secrecy and that no one could present anything to the employees during this negotiating process. 

During this period, I stood up at a union meeting and noted the 

employees’ strong displeasure with the secret negotiating process, 

which limited the union’s ability to communicate with membership. 

I stated my belief to the union officials that failure to communicate 

with employees prevented them from faithfully fulfilling their duty 

to represent us. 

In addition, I asked that those officials would consider signing a 

prospective document assuring that never again would they agree 

to any such process that would limit their ability to communicate 

with membership. The union, unfortunately, declined to make any 

such pledge. 

Our members—many members stood up and agreed with me and 

noted their own displeasure with the entire negotiating process. 

Employees expressed frustration with the way the union officials 

were treating employees and had treated us for many years. Employees who dared to question the union were treated extremely 

rudely at this and other meetings. 

We were, quite frankly, amazed that it is possible that this union 

tasked with representing this body of people would speak to us in 

such a rude fashion and treat our collective requests with such 

wanton disregard. It was the way that the members were treated 

during those meetings that convinced me and my associates to disassociate from the union’s actions. Long-standing members of our 

union were belittled and verbally abused for simply speaking up. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

19 

The first impulse I and other members had was to drop the 

union altogether and negotiate directly as individuals or find another union, perhaps. But we learned—and a simple Google search 

allowed me to determine that there is a way to decertify. So we set 

about, we collected a petition with over 50 percent of our members 

agreeing. It was my belief, our belief, that we could submit this to 

management prior to the signing of the next contract and we could 

continue to move forward without the union. 

Unfortunately, there is a contract bar rule, which provides only 

a small window of opportunity for that petition to be submitted. I 

went to and did another Google search. I was lucky to find Glenn 

Taubman at the National Right-to-Work, and he explained that 

there was this other provision, a way to disassociate and at least 

not be forced to pay another three years of union dues and have 

no one listen to us. 

The bottom line is we really do not want to have to sit there and 

be ignored for another three years. There is absolutely no other 

way for us to get their attention to get them to work on our behalf 

and do as we ask, other than to have a vote and be able to say 

look, enough is enough. We had that vote; on April 30th 62 percent 

of the membership, in fact, voted yes, we do want to disassociate 

with this union. 

However, the union raised an objection and indicated that—falsely, I might add—that I had some contact with the management 

that encouraged me to do this process. It couldn’t be farther from 

the truth, and it should be immaterial. Irregardless, we are still 

waiting for the NLRB to issue the decision to certify the results of 

that election and allow us to move on. 

In closing, I would like to say that without right-to-work, unions 

are all but guaranteed to become complacent and lazy in responding to the wishes of their members. This behavior borne of the ability to force dues from all employees or to get them fired is guaranteed to cause a rift between the union members and the union 

leadership, and will ultimately result in the collapse of the unions 

themselves. 

Without right-to-work freedom to chose, any claim of solidarity is 

an obvious farce. The only way individual members can have influence over union officials is through the power of the pocketbook. 

Our ability to de-authorize the union dues clauses from our contract, in essence, is a line item veto of compulsory financial participation, and it has given us the chance to encourage the OPEIU 

union to act in the employees’ best interest and to earn our voluntary support. 

I think passage of a national right-to-work act would strengthen 

every worker in the United States who works under a monopoly 

bargaining arrangement. And I think that the NLRB must be 

stopped as it tries to weaken and undermine these rights with this 

parallel de-authorization process. 

[The testimony of Mr. Hewitt follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 94824.005
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 94824.006
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 94824.007
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 94824.008
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 94824.009
25 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. Bruno you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT BRUNO, PH.D., PROFESSOR, 

SCHOOL OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Mr. BRUNO. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Kline, Ranking 

Member Scott, and members of the committee. My name is Robert 

Bruno, and I am a professor of labor and employment relations at 

the University of Illinois. 

My testimony addresses four key points. First, I provide an explanation of what is meant by right-to-work laws. Second, I explain 

why the ostensible focus of the hearing today is mislabeled. Third, 

I describe how right-to-work laws raise fundamental equity issues. 

And fourth, I summarize findings from a substantial body of evidence on the negative impacts of right-to-work on workers, middleclass opportunities, and societies at large. 

A right-to-work law has nothing to do with the right of an individual to seek and accept gainful employment. Instead, a right-towork law is a government regulation that bars employers and labor 

unions from including union security clauses in collective bargaining agreements. 

Since 1947, workers have not been forced to join a union anywhere in America. But labor unions must, by law, unconditionally 

represent, at times at great cost, all employees in a workplace. 

In my opinion, it is premature to be commenting on the elements 

that may be at play in the Buckeye, Florida case. Consistent with 

decades of past practice, the board has simply requested that interested parties submit briefs on a set of questions. 

Additionally, it is important to point out that whatever the findings of the board turn out to be, the current case does not revisit 

or affect in any way the standing of right-to-work laws. Nothing in 

the Buckeye case affects the power of a state to adopt such a law 

or affects any such laws currently on the books. 

While there is little value in speculating on the Buckeye case, 

right-to-work raises serious equity issues. In right-to-work settings, 

workers can choose to receive 100 percent of the sizable benefits of 

a collective bargaining agreement, while making no contribution to 

the cost of providing those benefits. This arrangement violates one 

of the most cherished values of American society: the fairness principle. 

Right-to-work, contrary to basic social tenets of individual autonomy and responsibility, celebrates—even encourages—shifting the 

burden of sustaining an equitable employment relationship onto 

others who have freely made a decision to pay their fair share. 

Now, as of June 2015, there are 25 states with right-to-work 

laws and 25 states, plus the District of Columbia, where fair share 

agreements are permitted. This difference in statewide labor policy 

creates a natural laboratory in which researchers have analyzed 

economic impacts. So let me now briefly address six of those impacts of right-to-work laws. 

First, there is no significant impact of right-to-work laws on overall employment in a state economy. And corporate decision makers 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

26 

repeatedly do not identify right-to-work laws as a defining factor in 

business location decisions. 

Number two, right-to-work policy causes a loss in worker earnings and lowers both employer-provided health insurance and pension coverage. 

Number three, by lowering worker earnings, right-to-work is associated with a drop in tax revenues and an increase in the need 

for government assistance. Workers, for example, in right-to-work 

states receive more in tax relief from the Earned Income Tax Credit than workers in collective bargaining states. By earning higher 

incomes, contributing more in tax revenues, and receiving less in 

government assistance, workers in collective bargaining states are 

subsidizing the low-wage model of employment in right-to-work 

states. 

Number four, right-to-work lowers union membership. And 

paired with the previous impacts lends weight to claims that the 

true intent of right-to-work is an antipathy towards organized 

workers. 

Number five, unions benefit individuals and society at large, for 

example, by raising wages, increasing employment-based health 

and retirement benefits, giving workers a voice at work, and standardizing safety procedures to reduce workplace fatalities and injuries. 

In addition, people living in union households report higher levels of well-being than those residing in nonunion households. But, 

because right-to-work reduces union membership, there is a corresponding loss of these goods for individuals and society. 

And number six, the United States has experienced a prolonged 

period of income inequality. By far, the largest institutional driver 

of that inequality has been the gradual decline in union membership. The decline in unionization rates explains a fifth to a third 

of the growth in inequality in America. 

And in conclusion, right-to-work is bad public policy. Right-towork laws have no discernible impact on job growth, lower worker 

earnings and benefits, have a negative impact on the public budget, 

while increasing reliance on government assistance programs. 

Finally, right-to-work laws reduce unionization rates and the relative power of labor unions, thereby increasing societal income inequality and, importantly, restraining the growth of the middle 

class. Thank you. 

[The testimony of Dr. Bruno follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 94824.010
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 94824.011
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 94824.012
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 94824.013
31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 94824.014
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 94824.015
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 94824.016
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 94824.017
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 94824.018
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 94824.019
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 94824.020
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 94824.021
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 94824.022
40 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 94824.023
41 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 94824.024
42 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. Dr. Gould, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ELISE GOULD, PH.D., SENIOR ECONOMIST 

AND DIRECTOR OF HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH, ECONOMIC 

POLICY INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. GOULD. Thank you. Good morning. Chairman Kline, Ranking 

Member Scott, and members of the committee, thank you for the 

invitation to speak here today on the important issue of the economics of unionization. 

My name is Elise Gould, and I am a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute. I have three important points to share with 

you today. 

First, wage growth for typical workers has been sluggish for a 

generation despite sizable increases in overall productivity, incomes, and wealth. 

Second, a key factor in the divergence between pay and productivity is the widespread erosion of collective bargaining that has diminished the wages of both union and nonunion workers. 

Third, because right-to-work laws weaken unions, it is no surprise that wages are lower and benefits are less common in rightto-work states compared to states without such laws. 

Productivity is our nation’s output of goods and services per hour 

worked. In the three decades following World War II, the hourly 

compensation of a typical worker grew in tandem with productivity. 

Since the 1970s, however, pay and productivity were driven apart. 

Between 1979 and 2013, productivity grew 64 percent, while hourly 

compensation only grew 8 percent. 

This brings me to my second point. One key factor in the divergence between pay and productivity is the widespread erosion of 

collective bargaining that has diminished the wages of both union 

and nonunion workers. In fact, the erosion of collective bargaining 

has been a key factor undermining pay growth for middle-wage 

workers over the last few decades. 

When unions are able to set strong pay standards in particular 

occupations or industries through collective bargaining, the employers in those settings also raise the wages and benefits of nonunion 

workers towards the standards set through collective bargaining. 

Over the last 30 years, the union coverage rate was cut in half. 

This weakening of the collective bargaining system has had an adverse impact on the compensation of both union and nonunion 

workers. 

The decline of collective bargaining through its impact on union 

and nonunion workers can explain one-third of the rise of wage inequality among men since 1979 and one-fifth among women. 

Furthermore, the states where collective bargaining eroded the 

most since 1979 had the lowest growth in middle-class wages. Specifically, the ten states that had the least erosion of collective bargaining saw their inflation-adjusted median hourly compensation 

grow by 23 percent from 1979 to 2012, far faster than the 5 percent 

growth of the 10 states suffering the largest erosion of collective 

bargaining. That is a gap in compensation growth of 17.9 percentage points. 

This same dynamic played out in the ability of typical workers 

to share in productivity growth. The divergence between the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

43 

growth of median hourly compensation and productivity was greater in the states that suffered the largest erosion of collective bargaining. The greater the decline in collective bargaining coverage, 

the lower was the return on productivity obtained by the typical 

worker. 

This takes me to my third point and the subject of my most recent research in the area, which is attached to this statement, the 

relationship between wages and right-to-work status. 

At their core, right-to-work laws hamstring unions’ ability to help 

employees bargain with their employers for better wages, benefits, 

and working conditions. Given that unionization raises wages for 

both individual union members as well as for nonunion workers in 

unionized sectors, it is not surprising that research shows that both 

union and nonunion workers in right-to-work states have lower 

wages and fewer benefits on average than comparable workers in 

other states. 

Wages in right-to work states are 3.1 percent lower than those 

in non-right-to-work states after controlling for a full complement 

of individual, demographic, and socioeconomic factors, as well as 

state macroeconomic indicators. 

This translates into right-to-work status being associated with $1,558 lower annual wages for a typical full-time, full-year worker. 

Related research also finds that workers in right-to-work states are 

less likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance and pension coverage. And these results do not just apply to union members, but to all employees in the state. Where unions are strong, 

compensation increases even for workers not covered by any union 

contract as nonunion employers face competitive pressure to match 

union standards. 

Likewise, when unions are weakened by right-to-work laws, all 

the state’s workers feel the impact. As unions are weakened, workers’ diminished bargaining power means lower compensation and a 

continued divergence between pay and productivity. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about this important issue. 

[The testimony of Dr. Gould follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 94824.025
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 94824.026
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 94824.027
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 94824.028
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 94824.029
49 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 94824.030
50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 94824.031
51 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 94824.032
52 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 94824.033
53 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 94824.034
54 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 94824.035
55 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 94824.036
56 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 94824.037
57 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 94824.038
58 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 94824.039
59 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 94824.040
60 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 94824.041
61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 94824.042
62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 94824.043
63 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 94824.044
64 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 94824.045
65 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Mix, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. MARK MIX, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIGHT 

TO WORK COMMITTEE, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 

Mr. MIX. Yes. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, 

members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here and talk 

about right-to-work. 

Let’s just first of all get a better definition on the table here 

about what right-to-work is. Right-to-work laws in 25 states do not 

stop any worker from joining a union. Right-to-work laws in 25 

states do not stop any worker from paying union dues. Right-towork laws in 25 states do not stop any worker from supporting the 

political campaigns and political actions of labor unions. They simply give workers the choice. 

Fundamentally, at the bottom of the right-to-work fight is a battle between union officials and the very workers they claim to represent. This is not a battle between business and labor. This is a 

battle between union officials and workers, who, if given the choice, 

may decide they don’t want to associate with a labor union. Unfortunately, in 25 states, they can be fired from their jobs for failure 

to tender dues or fees to a union. 

You know, we talk about the right to associate in this country, 

the right of association. In order to have the right to associate, it 

is fundamentally sound to believe that you must have the right not 

to associate. Yet, labor policy throws that associational privilege on 

its head by forcing workers to associate with someone and some organization which they may not want to associate with. That is the 

original injustice of what we have in this regime of compulsory 

unions and for over 80 years in this country since 1935. 

One solution, one minor solution, is to give workers the choice. 

In 1947, as the Chairman mentioned, Taft-Hartley was passed to 

basically address the issue that from 1935 from 1947, forced workers not only to pay fees to them, but actually forced them to join, 

to physically join a private organization. In General Motors in 

1963, the Supreme Court said we have gone too far. We can’t force 

them to join a private organization, but we can force them to pay 

up to 100 percent of dues or fees to keep their jobs. 

The duty of monopoly representation is something that we should 

be discussing here, and it is something that is relevant to the discussion of the NLRB’s action when it comes to charging workers for 

representational fees. You know, this so-called duty of fair representation was created by the U.S. Supreme Court interpreting 

the National Labor Relations Act in a case called Steele v. Louisville National Railroad, 1944. 

And that case was a very interesting one. Because if you look at 

it, what happened in that case is five black train workers were not 

going to be represented by the union. They were forced to join, but 

the white union officials said they would not represent those workers. And those workers went to the Supreme Court and they said 

we are forced to join this organization, we are forced to accept them 

as our bargaining agent, but yet they choose not to support us and 

not represent us; in fact, won’t let us even participate in a union. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

And the Supreme Court said in that case, said that is a pretty 

amazing power that we have given to organized labor officials. And 

because we have given them that power to control the livelihoods 

of these workers and to force ourselves in between them and their 

opportunity to speak for themselves, we believe that the statute 

also created a duty to represent those workers. That is the duty of 

fair representation. 

So you had this forced association and then you had the union 

saying we are not going to represent you—in this particular case 

because of the color of your skin—and we had the court coming 

back saying we can’t give you this monopoly bargaining power 

without the right to have workers be able to represent them as 

well, even though they don’t want to be associated with you. 

The notion that we are now coming back after 60 years of NLRB 

precedent, Supreme Court precedent, and U.S. District Court and 

federal court precedent and considering the idea that we are going 

to force workers to pay fees for grievance representation is just another example of union officials trying to get around the right-towork protections. 

I mean, I would be scared, too if I were union officials, because 

three states have passed trying work laws in the last three years. 

Eleven states had bills in their legislature. Missouri, the House 

and Senate passed a right-to-work law. In New Mexico, the House 

of Representatives passed a right-to-work law. In Maine, there is 

a debate over right-to-work; in Montana. The issue of worker freedom is spreading across the country. And one of the things that 

you could do to stop that was to give union officials new power to 

force nonmembers to pay fees. 

The court, in a case called Emporium v. Capwell, said that individual employees cannot individually use the grievance process. 

Union officials own the grievance process. That is a fact. The Supreme Court has said that, District Courts have said that, the 

NLRB has said that. And despite what Betty Murphy, the Republican member of the NLRB, said in 1975, in four instances since 

that time in NLRB proceedings, the NLRB has upheld the notion 

that you can’t force workers to pay grievance fees. 

The extant case here, the Buckeye case we are talking about, is 

about the idea of forcing this worker to pay a fee. Now, obviously, 

nothing has been happening yet on this. And we expect the NLRB 

to ask. They have asked for briefs, as the professor said. And we 

expect that the three members of that board who have changed the 

rules as to union elections and are looking to change the rules as 

to how strikes are operated are interested in changing the rules on 

how right-to-work laws are enforced. And I would be glad to talk 

to you more about that in question-and-answer. 

[The testimony of Mr. Mix follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 94824.046
68 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 94824.047
69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 94824.048
70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 94824.049
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 94824.050
72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 94824.051
73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 94824.052
74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 94824.053
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 94824.054
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 94824.055
77 

Ms. FOXX. [Presiding.] Thank you very much. Thanks to all the 

panelists for doing such a great job of staying within time. I now 

recognize myself for five minutes to ask questions. The Chairman 

had to step away and will be back. 

Mr. Mix, Mr. Bruno states that a right-to-work law is a government regulation that bars employers and labor unions from agreeing to ‘‘union security clauses in collective bargaining agreements.’’ 

This is a substantially different explanation than the one you have 

offered. And I know that Mr. Bruno’s explanation leaves out employees. 

I have two questions. First, is a compulsory union membership 

a government creation? And second, how can employees object to 

a union security clause in a collective bargaining agreement? 

Mr. MIX. Yes. The notion of compulsory unionism was developed 

in 1935 in the Wagner Act after President Roosevelt came to office. 

And using New Deal powers and the energy of the particular climate at the time, they passed a sweeping labor relations law that 

now covers private sector workers across the country. We are 80 

years into that experiment. 

So the idea of Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act is really kind of a very interesting preamble to our labor 

law. It talks about the workers’ rights to associate, the workers’ 

rights to bargain, the workers’ rights to do all of these things. And 

it says—believe it or not, it says ‘‘has the right to refrain—’’ and 

if Congress would have put a period there, we wouldn’t be here 

today because unionism would be voluntary. But they didn’t. They 

said, except to the extent that a worker can be compelled as a condition of employment, as a contract matter, to formally join a labor 

union. If Congress hadn’t said that at the end, that little phrase 

at the end of Section 7 of the Act, we would have voluntary unionism in America. But Congress established this compulsory union 

saying a worker could be fired if they did not tender dues or fees 

to a union. Twenty-five states now protect that. 

The idea of a union security clause, that is a mandatory subject 

of bargaining. If an employer refuses to bargain over whether or 

not his employees would be forced to pay dues or fees or her employers are forced to pay dues or fees, the union can file an unfair 

labor practice charge against them saying they are not bargaining 

in good faith. They must bargain over the union security clause. 

And frankly, if you are an employer and you look at this and you 

say okay, we are bargaining over wages, working conditions, all 

kinds of things. The one thing the unions put on the table is a 

union security clause, that doesn’t cost me a thing. It simply says 

I have to force all my employees to pay 38 bucks a month in order 

the work here. It doesn’t hit my bottom line, it doesn’t hit the cost 

of the contract. It is simply something that one, you have to bargain over. And two, something that the union oftentimes goes on 

strike over if you don’t agree to it and will file unfair labor practices if you won’t bargain over it. 

Ms. FOXX. When you were President of Accutrade, you employed 

hundreds of people. How did you handle employee grievances at 

Accutrade? In your opinion, is union participation necessary to resolve a grievance to the satisfaction of both the employer and the 

employee? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

78 

Governor RICKETTS. Well, I don’t believe that the union participation was necessary. When we had issues with folks who worked 

at Ameritrade, we tried to work them out. So, for instance, if someone had an issue with the manager, they would bring it to the 

manager, they would bring it to that manager’s manager, or they 

would talk with us. 

I think what you are really seeing here is it is about the employees’ right to choose. How do they want to resolve those issues? And 

the company that I was at, we tried to resolve those because we 

knew that if we had somebody who was a satisfied employee, that 

person would take care of our customers, and that is how we were 

able to grow our business. So we didn’t need a union to be able to 

do that. We knew that it was in our best interest to make sure that 

our employees were happy so they would make sure our customers 

were happy. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. Let me go back to Mr. Mix. 

We hear a lot about the issue of fairness around here. Unions 

have argued that fair share policies that require nonmembers to 

pay grievance processing fees are fair. Is this a fairness matter? 

And you alluded before about employees pursuing their agreed 

grievances outside the procedures laid out in the CBA. I wonder if 

you would talk a little bit more about that. 

Mr. MIX. Yes. Just to reiterate, the policy of the Supreme Court, 

the NLRB, and federal courts has been that individual workers 

cannot exercise the grievance process outside of union control. The 

unions own the process. That is literally the words the courts have 

used in talking about the grievance process. 

But let’s talk a little bit more about the fairness to nonmembers. 

In a right-to-work state, even in the 25 right-to-work states, in 

order for a worker to exercise those rights, they have to give up 

certain workplace rights in order to exercise their personal rights 

or their political rights. You have to resign to union membership 

in order to exercise your privileges under the right-to-work laws. 

What that means is you can’t vote on the very contract that governs your employment. It means you can’t vote in union elections. 

You can’t run for union office. You can’t participate in union activities at all. 

So on one hand, you have this Hobson’s choice of having to give 

up your workplace rights in order to protect your philosophical, economic, political rights. That is not fair to begin with. Because the 

union has the monopoly bargaining privilege. They speak for you 

whether you want it or not. You are forced to associate with them. 

In the forced-unionism states, a worker has to go through that 

same process and give up those same rights, but can be compelled 

to pay fees in order to keep their job. That is not fair. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Mix. 

Mr. Scott, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Mix, you went to great lengths to talk about the unfairness 

of union members not being fairly represented. Isn’t it true that 

even nonmembers get the benefit of salary negotiations? 

Mr. MIX. That is true. Under the exclusive monopoly of bargaining power, those workers will receive those. But they have to. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

79 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. And if the union hires people to make sure the 

workplace is safe, the nonmembers get benefit of that—of those expenditures? 

Mr. MIX. Congressman Scott, you are assuming that everything 

is a benefit to everybody. I would disagree with that contention, 

that premise. And we can discuss these. I mean— 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay, well— 

Mr. MIX.—the idea that something benefits you, I may not believe it to be a benefit. So you can talk about the equity of that— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well— 

Mr. MIX.—compulsory agreement. 

Mr. SCOTT. But you know that Virginia is an employment-at-will 

state, where the employer can fire people without cause? 

Mr. MIX. Yes, sir. And as a state legislator, you know they are 

not the same code. The employment-at-will doctrine is completely 

separate from the right-to-work doctrine. 

Mr. SCOTT. That is true. But if you are not a union member and 

the union contract says you can’t be fired without cause, you would 

benefit for that even though you are not paying dues, is that true? 

Mr. MIX. That is a burden that the union took upon themselves, 

sir. They wanted to be the exclusive bargaining agent. In fact, the 

United Steel Workers— 

Mr. SCOTT. The employee nonmember gets the benefit of that 

protection. 

Mr. MIX. Under the monopoly bargaining agreement, they are. 

The courts have recognized there is a duty of representation, that 

is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Dr. Bruno, the nonmembers get the benefit of all of 

the benefits that members get. Is it a different question when you 

talk about individualized representation that no one benefits from 

except the free rider? 

Mr. BRUNO. Well, Member Scott, if I understand your question, 

it really speaks to who benefits when the union negotiates a collective bargaining agreement and whether those benefits are equally 

accessible to all workers. And at different times in a worker’s career, one benefit may prove more valuable than another. But they 

are all equally available. They can all be equally accessed. 

And clearly, a safer workplace will benefit all workers, whether 

an individual worker conceptualizes a particular safety procedure 

as helpful or not. Safety is something that affects everyone. Wage 

increases, retirement benefits, having a voice on the job, being able 

to have an opportunity to question a form of managerial abuse. We 

recognize these generally as a way to bring democracy into the 

workplace. And that is going to be an equal benefit to all workers, 

whether individual workers have a particular need for it at a particular time. 

Mr. SCOTT. And what about—yes. But a grievance is an individual representation that runs up cost. Is that a different question 

whether a nonmember were to have access to that individualized 

representation that doesn’t benefit anybody but that nonmember? 

Mr. BRUNO. Well, it is—actually, it is—most grievances that 

occur in the workplace, whether they are happening to a union 

member or to a nonmember have implications for the entire barCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

80 

gaining unit. They set precedent. They help to shape what the bargaining relationship is going to be. 

So in effect, every worker is impacted by the way particular disputes are addressed and handled in a workplace. 

Mr. SCOTT. But that individual will benefit without paying any 

of the costs? 

Mr. BRUNO. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCOTT. We have heard that right-to-work states, Dr. Bruno, 

have competitive advantages. What is the competitive advantage 

that a right-to-work state has? 

Mr. BRUNO. Well, if you are a worker, I can’t see any. In you are 

an employer, there is some shifting of wealth shares from workers 

to the employer. But in terms of the general health of the economy 

or of workplaces, there is no clearly-defined benefit that right-towork isolated as a policy generated. 

What it ultimately does, it reduces voice. It reduces choice on behalf of workers who collectively organize. And it re-shifts power to 

management. 

Mr. SCOTT. Dr. Gould, can you talk about the benefits of union 

membership to nonmembers? To those areas where there are not— 

people are not—do not belong to unions, what a strong union movement does for them? 

Ms. GOULD. Yes, absolutely. A strong union membership sets 

standards that raise the wages of nonunion members, as well as 

union members so that the wages and benefits are higher and wage 

bargaining is stronger in both union and nonunion benefit in—for 

both union and nonunion members where unions are strong. 

Chairman KLINE. [Presiding.] Gentleman yields back. I want to 

apologize for stepping out for a minute. It is a crazy world that we 

live in. And thank Dr. Foxx for taking the chair for a few minutes. 

Dr. Bruno stated in his testimony, roughly quoting here, that 

nothing in the case before the board on grievance fees affects the 

power of a state to adopt right-to-work laws or affects any such law 

currently on the books. Roughly a direct quote. 

Governor Ricketts, do you agree with that? 

Governor RICKETTS. No, I would disagree with that. In fact, as 

I mentioned in my testimony, we have actually fought this battle 

over 10 years ago. And during the course of that discussion, our attorney general ruled—and I think other courts have found the 

same—that if you are compelling nonunion members to pay grievance agency fees, whatever it is, you are essentially compelling 

them to join the union, which is in direct contradiction of our constitution in Nebraska and, in general, the principle of the right-towork states. 

So this proposed rule would actually be a direct attack on the 25 

right-to-work states and the laws that they have passed, in our 

case, our Constitution. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. Continuing with Dr. Bruno’s testimony. He says that right-to-work policy is a misguided means to 

individual advancement at the expense of others. 

Mr. Mix, your testimony highlights how compulsory unionization 

advances certain individuals at the expense of others. Could you 

briefly summarize that section of your testimony? Let’s get clear on 

this. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

81 

Mr. MIX. Yes, it is interesting. When you think about the idea 

that a collective, no good worker can be rewarded above any other 

worker, no bad worker can be disciplined as opposed to other workers when it comes to a monopoly bargaining contract. Basically, 

even union officials and union economists have indicated this, that 

it is clear that union—compulsory union agreements and monopoly 

bargaining agreements actually hold back some of the most productive workers. And it stops them from being rewarded for their good 

work, because all of the raises or bonuses or anything have to be 

negotiated in the contract. 

So it is very clearly detrimental to some of the best workers, and 

it is very beneficial to some of the worst workers. 

Chairman KLINE. Yes, thank you. It is interesting to see the 

steady decline in union membership in the private sector. And I am 

always fascinated in these hearings and these discussions. Everybody has got statistics, boy, they have got research they are ready 

to quote. And it depends on what baseline you start with and what 

you factor in and out. 

I am looking at a little factsheet here that shows some numbers 

derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and some more stuff 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

And it gets to—again, these are—depends on where you start. 

But if you look, for example, according to this, at the growth and 

the number of residents in the state, in right-to-work states they 

are a growing by 5.4 percent between 2003 and 2013. And the 

other states are declining by 4.1 percent. So I can understand why 

some governors would be pretty strong proponents, as we have 

seen in recent months, for right-to-work laws. 

More statistics. Here again, if you look from 2004 to 2014, the 

percentage of growth in nonfarm private sector payroll employment 

in right-to-work states is 9.9 percent, in the other states it is 5.1 

percent. The percentage of growth and total private sector nonfarm 

employment; right-to-work states 16.2 percent, other states, those 

are forced-union states, 9.3 percent. Percentage real growth in private sector employee compensation; right-to-work states 15.3 percent, forced-union states 8.4 percent. 

So we have heard all kinds of other different statistics here. Dr. 

Gould had a different starting point. If you start in 1970, you get 

a different number. I think they are important. And it is important 

for us to understand where we are starting when we are looking 

at these statistics. 

So trying to—in my continuing futile effort to set the standard 

here, I am going to yield back and recognize Ms. Fudge. I think you 

are next. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you all for being here and for your testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, here we are again. We are here at the same place 

we were before talking about states’ rights. Here we are again, 

moving back in time to a place where we want to ignore established law, we want to once again put states in a position to make 

a determination as to who should work and who should not. We 

have come to a point where we are disproportionately once again 

affecting populations who are poor and populations of color. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

82 

I listen to the governor talk about what happened back in 1953. 

Mr. Mix talked about what happened in 1944. That was before the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was before the Voting Rights Act of 

1965. It was before nondiscrimination labor laws. So let’s not talk 

about the past. Let’s deal with established law. 

Professor Bruno, you talked about, or gave us examples of workers who are costing the government more money because they are 

in right-to-work states. Could you expand upon that, please? 

Mr. BRUNO. So if you take a look at the percentages of the population within states that are collective bargaining states and rightto-work states over a period of time and look at what percentage 

of their population, for example, would be receiving food stamps 

and the total dollar value of those food stamps, or you were looking 

at the Earned Income Tax Credit, as two—just two examples, and 

compare those to collective bargaining states, which would obviously have a higher unionization rate, what you find is that those 

right-to-work states are receiving a larger percentage, if you will, 

value of government assistance back to those states than they are 

contributing to the Federal Government, as opposed to the collective bargaining states. 

Illinois being one as an example, which actually pays more in 

federal taxes to the government than it gets back in federal assistance. And we can look at—also look at poverty rates and can see 

that in these three collective bargaining states, poverty rates are 

lower. So that is the issue that I was— 

Ms. FUDGE. So basically then you are saying that you have data 

to prove that people who are on government assistance are not just 

lazy, just don’t want to work? We are talking about working people; 

correct? 

Mr. BRUNO. Oh, absolutely. 

Ms. FUDGE. Just wanted to make sure about that. 

Mr. BRUNO. No question about that. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Gould, could you please elaborate on the institute’s findings 

that over the last 10 years, there has been a lost—it has been a 

lost decade for American workers? 

Ms. GOULD. Sure. Great question. What we have seen over the 

last 10 years, and unfortunately even longer than that, is very 

sluggish wage growth for the vast majority of Americans in this 

country. It is not just about the Great Recession and the losses that 

we saw there in employment and in wages. But the trends have 

been going much longer back than that. 

Ms. FUDGE. Professor—oh. Let me go back to Ms. Gould. 

In a resent paper, the Economic Policy Institute states that productivity grew by 74 percent since 1973 while hourly compensation 

of a typical worker grew just 9.2 percent. How has collective bargaining played in that, one way or another? 

Ms. GOULD. Yes, it is a great question. So collective bargaining 

we have seen—again, over that 30-year period, collective bargaining has been—the loss—the erosion of collective bargaining has 

meant that half as many people were covered by collective bargaining. We have cut the coverage rate, the union coverage rate, 

in half over that period. And that is the key reason why we have 

seen this disconnect between pay and productivity in this country. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

83 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentlelady. I am just noticing here, 

looking at statistics again and listening to Dr. Bruno, from the Bureau of the Census the welfare, the TANF recipients per thousand 

residents in right-to-work states is five and in forced union states 

is 15.6. So depends on where you measure. 

Mr. Byrne? 

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate my colleagues saying we should not ignore established laws. 

Mr. Mix, isn’t it a fact that the established law that is at issue 

here is the Taft-Hartley Act? And the provision that it has, it says 

that states can choose to enact their own right-to-work laws and 

those right-to-work laws are enforceable. Isn’t that the established 

law that is in issue today? 

Mr. MIX. Yes, that is right. Section 14(b) is one of those unique 

sections that allow a state to get out from under the federal preemption as it relates to the National Labor Relations Act and allow 

them to outlaw union security agreements that require workers to 

pay dues or fees to get new jobs. 

Mr. BYRNE. And in taking briefs in this case, as the Labor Board 

is doing, seems to me to be an effort to go right in the teeth of what 

that established law says by saying well, we are not going to make 

you join the union. But since the union has to represent you in the 

grievance process, whether you want them to or not, we are going 

to make you, an individual citizen of this country, we are going to 

force you to pay that union to do that. Isn’t that an end-run around 

the established Taft-Hartley law? 

Mr. MIX. Absolutely. I think the briefs in cases since that time 

indicate that very fact. 

Mr. BYRNE. So isn’t the real issue here today that we have got 

this 800-ton gorilla, the big unions in America that want to throw 

their weight around and take freedom and liberty away from individual citizens like Mr. Hewitt and force them to pay these unions 

money because the unions are losing membership and they are losing money? Isn’t that what this is really all about? 

Mr. MIX. I think so. 

Mr. BYRNE. So, Mr. Chairman, we come to these things and I 

hear people say well, we don’t know what the Labor Board is gonna 

do. I know what the Labor Board is gonna do. Every time we come 

in here we say we don’t know what they are gonna do. We all know 

what they are gonna do. They got three people on that board and 

they are gonna do whatever the labor unions want them to do. 

Now, heretofore, what they have done, Mr. Mix, I think is they 

have changed precedent as established by case law by the Labor 

Board. This, however, would be going into the teeth of a congressional statute. Isn’t that the difference? 

Mr. MIX. That is correct. I think that courts have ruled and 

briefs have ruled that in order for this to be changed, you have got 

to come to Congress. 

Mr. BYRNE. And instead what they are trying to do is go around 

Congress, because they know that we are not going to do what we 

want them to do. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

84 

I was listening to the testimony from Mr. Bruno. Mr. Bruno, you 

said that businesses don’t cite right-to-work laws as reasons to locate a business. I have talked with dozens and dozens and dozens 

of businesses who have considered coming to the state of Alabama, 

a right-to-work state. 

Every time they mention two things. They never talk to me 

about incentives, by the way. They talk about the quality of your 

workforce. And I am proud to say we have got great workers in 

Alabama, as I know you do, Governor, in Nebraska. And the second 

thing they say is your labor laws, particularly the fact that you are 

a right-to-work state. 

Where in the world are you getting your information that business people don’t take that into account? 

Mr. BRUNO. Well, thank you, Congressman. So there is a business magazine referred to as Area Development Magazine. And 

there is an annual survey that is done of corporations in which 

CEOs are asked about decisions to relocate their businesses. And 

there are up to 30, 40 different factors that are usually mentioned. 

And according to the research that I have done looking at—and 

others have—that labor policy, right-to-work, rarely ranks higher 

than 16 or 17. What ranks much more— 

Mr. BYRNE. Then why are all these people—why are the states— 

you just heard the Chairman give the data. Why are these states 

that have right-to-work laws, why are they growing? Why is employment growing in those statements and not in states that don’t 

have right-to-work laws? 

Mr. BRUNO. Well, actually, it is not completely true that states 

that have collective bargaining agreements or that are collective 

bargaining statements aren’t growing. Just to use Illinois again. Illinois actually created more jobs than its neighbors did in the past 

fiscal year— 

Mr. BYRNE. Well, if you—we are running out of time. But please 

send me those— 

Mr. BRUNO. There are lots of— 

Mr. BYRNE. I am going to go to the economic development conference in my state in a few weeks here. And I am gonna show 

them your research and I can’t wait to see their reaction. 

Last thing I want to go over with you. You said that wages are 

going down for people in right-to-work states. Go look at Alabama’s 

data. Since we have shed unions, our workers’ wages have gone 

steadily up. And our workers are voting with their feet by going to 

these employers that are nonunionized because they are better 

places to work, where they get better wages, wages that people in 

Alabama have never been able to dream of. And when they keep 

bringing these union elections back to people like Austal Shipyard 

in my district, the employees say we don’t want it. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think we should make those people 

pay a dime to a union if they don’t want to. Thank you, sir, I yield 

back. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Pocan, you are recognized. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the witnesses for being here today. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

85 

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think, you know, the Committee, 

the name we have for today’s hearing is a little misnamed and misguided. I think right-to-work laws prohibit union fees as a condition of employment. But grievance fees, if deemed lawful, are not 

a condition of employment. Grievance fees are not an attack on 

right-to-work laws. So the hearing is misnamed. 

In fact, I would argue that we should be talking about right to 

freeload, rather than right-to-work laws. Because that is what I see 

out of this, is really a right to freeload. In fact, Mr. Mix, in your 

written testimony you talk about this idea of someone getting in a 

cab. Well, this morning I got on the metro, all right? And I swiped 

my card to pay. If someone else decided the metro’s already going 

where they are going to, why don’t they just hop the fence and go 

in, I would consider that freeloading. 

And that is exactly what I see by people not paying their fees; 

right? I mean, we know there are cheap people in society, right? 

They don’t want to pay to get the benefits like the others. But really, it is more about freeloading more than anything else. And I 

think that is what is behind these right-to-work laws. 

We just went through this fight in Wisconsin. So I am very familiar with it. In fact, one of the other things that in addition to the 

freeloading aspect of this, it is not just that you make less money 

and you get less benefits, but also it doesn’t create jobs. And it is 

not just the anecdotal sort of this is what happens in Alabama. But 

this is Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

And I am very sensitive to these because I got PolitiFact’ed on 

this. And I got a mostly true because I said Wisconsin was dead 

last in the Midwest for job creation. Technically, we are tied for 

dead last. Nebraska was, in this particular report, tied for second 

to last. 

But right-to-work doesn’t seem to be having that magical formula 

of creating additional jobs, at least according to the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, who actually counts the jobs, rather than anecdotes about individual states. 

But the bottom line is people really do make less money. We 

know that. We know according to some studies you make $6,000. 

In other studies you make $7,000 less than states with right-towork. And then I believe you make $4,000 less than the national 

average in right-to-work states. 

So again, those are concrete numbers that show that you have 

a right to work for less in these states. But it doesn’t necessarily 

benefit any people. 

What I would like to do is that I would ask unanimous consent 

to enter into the record, I have got a list of 468 businesses in Wisconsin that oppose the right-to-work law that we just had. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

86 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 94824.056
87 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 94824.057
88 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 94824.058
89 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 94824.059
90 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 94824.060
91 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 94824.061
92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 94824.062
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 94824.063
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 94824.064
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 94824.065
96 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 94824.066
97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 94824.067
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 94824.068
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 94824.069
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 70 here 94824.070
101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 71 here 94824.071
102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 72 here 94824.072
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 73 here 94824.073
104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 74 here 94824.074
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 75 here 94824.075
106 

Chairman KLINE. Without objection. 

Mr. POCAN. And the reason I raise this is just the conversation 

we just had. You know, we talked about the dozens of businesses 

who are coming to Alabama because they didn’t have right-to-work 

laws. And yet, interestingly, in Wisconsin when we had this fight, 

some of the leading opposition to the right-to-work laws came from 

local business leaders, 468 businesses. 

So Dr. Bruno, if I could just ask you that question specifically. 

You know, we know you are gonna make less, we know you are 

gonna get less benefits, we know you can freeload by being not able 

to, you know, pay anything when you are gonna benefit from something. But why would businesses be so strongly opposed to putting 

a right-to-work law in place? Why would that happen? 

Mr. BRUNO. Well, thank you, Congressman. For a number of reasons. There are a number of studies that demonstrate that union 

workers are highly productive. There has been a series of meta 

analyses, which—or studies that look at other studies and summarize those and find that productivity gain can be, you know, 7, 10 

percent. In the construction, the unionized construction industry, 

17 to 20 percent. 

Look at the high percentage of union members actually that have 

master’s degrees or college degrees compared to similarly-situated 

nonunion workers. And we know that education is powerfully correlated with productivity. So it is a highly-productive workforce. It 

is a safer workforce. Think about workman’s comp cost. 

In fact, most employers, when they look at what really drives 

where they are gonna go, they are looking at policies, but it isn’t 

that labor policy. It is not that labor management policy. It is 

about regulations. It is about taxes. It is about workman’s comp. 

Those issues— 

Mr. POCAN. I am glad you said that. Because, I mean, 

anecdotally, you know, Ameritrade may not trust their workers to 

collectively make some decisions. But a lot of these businesses do. 

You know, and I have a union shop, just for the record. And because I have people who stay long in the business, I don’t have to 

retrain them. And because we have apprenticeship programs to 

make sure that people are highly trained so that I can get more 

business because they know that they are gonna get a better quality product. I just want to hear the anecdotal—I didn’t want it to 

just be an anecdotal. I wanted to have it from your side. 

Dr. Bruno, this freeloading argument. I mean, am I wrong to say, 

essentially you are freeloading if you are not paying a grievance fee 

and you are still getting a benefit? Isn’t that like the example of 

the metro hopping over the turnstile? 

Mr. BRUNO. It seems to be consistent with what we learned in 

kindergarten, quite frankly. 

Mr. POCAN. Yes. 

Mr. BRUNO. Right? Everybody should make a contribution. Everyone should be treated fairly. It is about accountability. You are 

receiving a benefit, a sizable benefit. That grievance could lead to 

an arbitration that saves your jobs that over a career could amount 

to thousands of dollars. You benefit not just in the moment, but 

you benefit maybe over a lifetime. And you have contributed nothing to it. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

107 

But you perceive that if you contribute nothing to it, the strength 

of the union will always be there. Notice they are saying that they 

are working for that unionized company. Because they want that 

union to work for them. They are simply looking at the options and 

saying if I can get it for nothing, some people will do that. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our distinguished guests today. 

Is there anything to prohibit a person from voluntarily paying a 

union fee? 

Mr. BRUNO. No. 

Mr. BISHOP. So if they wanted to join a union and get those benefits, they could do that voluntarily? 

Mr. BRUNO. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am from Michigan, so all of this I take very personally. We are a labor state. We are a proud labor state. For many 

years, Detroit was the arsenal of democracy. And we did very well 

back in the day. And then came about 2000 to 2010 where Michigan hit a significant downturn. Everything turned upside down. 

Jobs fled, people fled. We were one of the only states in the union 

that actually lost population. And we would have lost more if the 

housing market wasn’t so bad. People couldn’t sell their houses; 

locked in place. And we shed jobs, especially in the manufacturing 

sector. 

About 2010, the people of our state said enough is enough, they 

kicked out our former governor, brought in a whole new group of 

leaders who made some really tough decisions from 2010 until now. 

One of those decisions was right-to-work. And if you had told me 

10 years ago that Michigan would be a right-to-work, I would have 

told you, you are crazy. 

But everything you are telling me is completely contrary to my 

experience. Michigan has completely turned around. It is not just 

because of right-to-work. It is because of a lot of other things. But 

our unemployment rate is now 5.4 percent. And all those union 

workers that used to be involved in the union, who can now voluntarily belong the that union, are working again. And instead of 

being forced out of the state and being displaced, they are now 

working again. 

And to me, the decisions that were made, although tough and 

contrary to our history in terms of the culture of the state, made 

a difference. So my experience is different. So when you tell me 

these statistics, I can’t believe what I am hearing. 

But I would like to know, Governor Ricketts, I hope if you could 

just—and I would like to talk to Mr. Hewitt too and his experience 

as well. And I appreciate your being here. Because we need your 

testimony, as well. 

Put your executive hat back on again. Help me out here. Governor Snyder in the state of Michigan is trying to attract new business. How does right-to-work help your state? Can you give us 

some information? We just heard that it—there are some—some 

businesses that want the right to—or want a union environment. 

How does right-to-work help your state? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

108 

Governor RICKETTS. Sure. I think fundamentally what right-towork does is it is about freedom. It is about the opportunity to 

choose. And so when companies and employees are thinking about 

that right, they want to have the most optionality they can, or the 

greatest ability to choose. 

Certainly, in my experience in the real world, it is a competitive 

advantage. We made decisions about where we were going to expand based upon that absolute fact. And so, you know, that was 

kind of the first question. If you are not a right-to-work state, none 

of the other things are gonna matter. We are not even gonna check 

you. 

You know, we are not gonna look to see what your workforce is 

like, we are not gonna look the see what your roads and infrastructure is like if you are not right-to-work. We have got plenty of other 

states that are right-to-work that we can go find those similar 

types of things. And that is where we are gonna look to expand. 

So that is a huge competitive advantage for any company located 

in a state that is a right-to-work state to be able to draw—you 

know, to have. And why it is an advantage with states to draw 

those companies in or to look to get companies to expand there. I 

think it allows people to have more freedom, more flexibility. 

And again, it gets back the choice. You know, again, my experience in Nebraska is the people in Nebraska overwhelmingly support this. They have for almost 70 years. And it is one of the things 

that we certainly looked for when I had my executive hat on. And 

now, as governor, I am looking to make sure that we continue to 

retain that; that the NLRB doesn’t do—undercut that rule so that 

we can continue to try to attract jobs to our state. And we do have 

the lowest unemployment rate in the country and one of the highest—we do have an above national average workforce participation 

rate, as well. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Governor. 

And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to our panel of witnesses for their testimony. This 

has been a very interesting discussion that has obviously gone beyond the scope of what is suggested by the title. 

And I just wanted to make a big picture comment to start about 

some of the language. There was an analogy about union membership being analogized to kidnapping and extortion. And I think 

that kind of message is not very productive in a discussion about 

the benefits of union membership. And as some might say, not benefits. But let’s have a discussion that doesn’t inflame people. 

And interesting that I am following on the member from Michigan. I actually was born and raised near Detroit. So my grandfather worked for Ford Motor Company before 1941, before the 

UAW came to Ford Motor Company. And just looking at the differences in his workplace over time from before the UAW was there 

in terms of safe working conditions. 

And when we talk about union members, you know, we shouldn’t 

make these stereotypes with the inflammatory language. We are 

talking about teachers and firefighters and people who take care of 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

109 

sick patients. You know, there is a really broad range of people in 

unions. So let’s make sure that we are having a factual discussion. 

So I represent a district in Oregon. We were the first state to officially recognize Labor Day back in 1887, and firmly believe that 

the workers in Oregon as well as across the country should be able 

to collectively bargain for fair wages, reasonable hours, safe workplace, health care, other hallmarks of a democratic society. 

And unions continue to do things like build the infrastructure, 

help our economy grow, strengthen the innovation of America’s 

workforce has long been the key to our success as a nation. And 

looking back over history, we cannot understate the role of the 

labor movement in helping to create and maintain a thriving middle class. 

So in Oregon, I know we have had some discussions about the 

disparity in wages between union members and people who aren’t 

in a union. But for example, the University of Oregon Labor Education Research Center identified the median hourly wage for a 

certified nursing assistant in an Oregon nursing facility. And there 

was a difference—$12.15 but in a unionized facility it was $14.29. 

With insurance and retirement benefits included, a little more than 

$15 an hour. 

So when you talk about those differences in wages—and obviously, as we saw in—over history, when people have more discretionary income, they spend more so—in the marketplace. 

So I wanted to ask you, Dr. Gould, your testimony states that 

wages in right-to-work states are lower than in states without 

right-to-work. And there is obviously a difference in states across 

the country. We have a very diverse country. So can you explain 

whether and how this remains true, if there are—differences in tax 

policy, demographics, education, other types of industry. 

And I know my state of Oregon is not a right-to-work state. And 

we have businesses that love doing business there. It is a place to 

live. There are a lot of other factors that go into that consideration. 

So can you talk about that, whether there is data to show, considering those variations to the whole. 

Ms. GOULD. Sure. Absolutely. That is a great question. And I 

think the example that you gave is a great example. You are talking about within your state where the policies and laws are similar, 

the economic conditions are similar, and you are comparing a CNA 

in a union shop with a CNA in a nonunion shop and looking at 

those wage differences. 

What we do when we look at right-to-work states and non-rightto-work states is we are trying to do exactly the same thing. We 

are trying to look at individuals that are all else equal and see if 

their wages are any different. 

So to do that properly, we use multi-varied regression analysis, 

and we can control for the racial composition of that state, we can 

control for the educational attainment of people in that state, we 

can control for the occupations, the industries, all the different factors that might be different. The cost of living in one state versus 

another. And when we control for all of those things, we still see 

that right-to-work states have 3.1 percent lower wages. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And I am gonna try to get one quick 

question in. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

110 

Dr. Bruno, your testimony says that the right-to-work states lead 

to a reduced state tax collection. In part because of the Earned Income Tax Credit and increases in use of programs like SNAP. So 

what studies have been done to quantify these costs to government 

from right-to-work laws? 

Mr. BRUNO. The study that I am referencing is a study that we 

did here at the University of Illinois. I believe it is referenced in 

the written testimony that we submitted when we actually took a 

look at essentially the way in which two states—and we were looking at Illinois and other collective bargaining states and Indiana as 

a neighboring state trying to measure this. 

So there is actually a report that we did at the university that 

I could certainly make available to you that made this comparison. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Dr. Bruno. 

My time is expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Allen? 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, distinguished panel, for your testimony here today. It has been very enlightening. 

As a business owner for the last 37 years in the state of Georgia, 

I have experienced lots of activity, both with the union and nonunion workers. Actually, the company I started working with was 

union. And then when we formed our company, we elected to go 

nonunion at that time because that was sort of the trend. And that 

was in the mid-1970s. 

One of the things that I value about our employee relationship 

is the fact that, you know, we are—kind of turned the hierarchy 

upside down. The workers actually have a good bit to say about 

how we run our business. And we like it that way. And I found 

that in my union involvement, it was always a conflict. And it was 

very difficult to deal with. 

But I will say that Georgia was selected by Site Selection magazine as the number one state to locate a business in. And we have 

been a right-to-work state for a long, long time. And we too are 

very proud of our workers and our productivity, our cost of living, 

which I don’t think we have talked about cost of living or the cost 

of products and things like that make a big difference and competitiveness, makes a big difference, you know, where we are. 

And the fact that our workers love where they work. And I have 

experienced that touring many of our manufacturers throughout 

the district since I was just recently elected to Congress. And what 

I have been amazed at is the attitude of the workforce out there 

with these manufacturers. And it has been quite enlightening to 

me as far as the labor front goes. 

Mr. Hewitt, we haven’t asked you a question. And I have been 

involved in United Way. I love that organization because I think 

it is like 90 percent of what we raise actually goes to help the agencies and the folks we are trying to help. And that is what community is all about. 

And I am sure as a National United Way, you have talked to others in the—around the—I don’t—we are not union. Our United 

Way is not union. They are in Augusta. But in your talking with 

these other United Ways and your having to spend apparently a 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

111 

lot of your time dealing with these union issues, how are you doing 

that and still being able to serve the very folks that need serving? 

Can you explain that? 

Mr. HEWITT. I put in a lot of hours. Most of this behavior, all of 

this effort is done off hours, individually, via individual email. It 

is not done during company time. 

Mr. ALLEN. Right. 

Mr. HEWITT. And it is—we do—I am a little upset, because we 

do have a lot of union involvement. And there have been extreme 

threats of pulling back, pulling away and not supporting to the degree that they have. There have been claims that unions in our 

area support your organization. And because you are doing this 

antiunion thing of disassociating, we are going to pull our support. 

Now, okay, you are affecting the community because we, as the 

members, find that we are not represented; that we, in fact, do not 

have a union that works for us, but work for themselves. Because 

we are raising our hands and objecting to that and trying to exercise our rights, you want to affect the entire community? 

Mr. ALLEN. Let me see if I heard you correctly. In other words, 

the unions don’t quite understand exactly what your mission is 

here? I mean, your mission is to help folks who— 

Mr. HEWITT. It seems not to matter. It seems not to matter. 

Mr. ALLEN.—are unfortunate and can’t help themselves. 

Mr. HEWITT. Right. 

Mr. ALLEN. So they don’t care about that? 

Mr. HEWITT. That is the message. I am hoping that it— 

Mr. ALLEN. That is shocking. 

Mr. HEWITT.—was just said in anger. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. 

Mr. HEWITT. It didn’t prevent our membership from standing up 

for our rights and for saying in spite of that, we don’t feel that we 

can continue. A number of our members did, obviously. We had 100 

percent participation, but we had 62 percent who said no, we cannot continue— 

Mr. ALLEN. It is unconscionable that people in America would 

have strings attached to the cause to help the— 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. ALLEN. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Mr. DeSaulnier. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really find this 

conversation interesting. Having grown up in two states that are 

not right-to-work states, Massachusetts, and have lived most of my 

live in the Bay Area, both areas that I would argue are cornerstones to innovation in this country but also have strong historical 

labor movements. 

So while I appreciate the details of Mr. Mix and the issues about 

around what NLRB is about to do, I tend to believe that NLRB will 

do as it is designed to, as it is designed to do in the political context of who is appointed to that, depending on the administration. 

And then the courts will opine one way or the other. 

So I am more interested in sort of the macro of—Mr. Lincoln 

once said that in the United States, we should always keep capital 

and labor roughly within balance. And he also said if capital were 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

112 

to become out of balance and superior, we would lose American democracy, which is my fear sitting here today. 

And I say that as a former union member, but also as a former 

business owner of nonunion restaurants. I tended to think that if 

I treated my employees well, they wouldn’t have a reason to organize. Sort of similar to what I have heard from the governor and 

previous comments. 

So, Dr. Bruno, in the larger context, it seems irrefutable that we 

are in a period where we are in an economy that requires—is 70 

percent consumer-driven. If you don’t have people who are making 

enough income—and this is one of our challenges in the Bay Area 

where, by the way, we get a third of the venture capital in the 

United States comes to the innovative companies in the Bay Area. 

Our struggle is the cost of housing and the cost of living there. 

And it seems pretty irrefutable that we need to have higher 

wages for people to buy tech products and be able to afford to live 

there. 

So Dr. Bruno, I’d just like to ask you in your last comment, you 

said, ‘‘the gradual decline in unionization has been found to be a 

driving force in the increase in income inequality both in the 

United States and across the world.’’ 

In light of the comments that I made and the need to have a 

strong consumer class as your research, Dr. Gould, led you to believe at a larger level, we need to do some adjusting to the imbalance of capital markets and what we compensate workers for in 

America. 

Mr. BRUNO. Thank you. It is indisputable that consumer society 

is driving our economy. And workers are going to generate demand. 

They will generate that demand with the income that they are able 

to spend. And as you noted, if 70 percent of job growth is in a lowwage service sector, these are workers who are not going to be able 

to save money, they are not gonna be able to spend beyond a sort 

of basic sustenance level. 

And you are gonna need some labor market institution that can 

aggregate their interest and go into the employment relationship 

roughly on an equal balance to negotiate, to negotiate collectively. 

Let’s not forget, that union is not an isolated entity. It represents 

those workers who have freely chosen that union. They are in that 

union. Their interests are collectively brought together. They negotiate on behalf of those workers. 

That is the way in which in 1935, Congress understood that you 

could save, if you will, you could protect, you could promote capitalism, you could promote the free market by putting money into 

the pockets of workers who would have a little bit more negotiating 

capacity in the workplace. 

And, quite frankly, I have looked at thousands of collective bargaining agreements. They can be very nimble, they can be very 

smart, they can address productivity in different ways, they can 

problem-solve. 

And if I could, in 2003 a study was done that looked at this productivity question. And just to quote from it, ‘‘the evidence indicates that in the United States, workplaces with both high-performance work systems’’—and I think that is what Congressman 

Allen was experiencing in Georgia, which is wonderful, ‘‘and union 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

113 

recognition have a higher union productivity than other workplaces.’’ 

But without the union or bad set of labor relations, keep in mind 

that contract helps to settle disputes. You can keep your most talented workers in that workplace. So I don’t understand how you 

can build a strong and middle class—and we have never done it. 

We haven’t built a strong middle class in this country without an 

independent, strong robust labor union. 

And it is hard to find a similar example in an industrialized 

country that is a democracy anywhere in the world which hasn’t 

had a strong independent labor union. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Doctor. 

I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Grothman, you are recognized. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I have a couple questions for Dr. Bruno. We 

have recently been through rather significant changes in our labor 

laws in the state of Wisconsin. And both in the public sector and 

private sector. The public sector—the private sector change is fairly 

recent. Haven’t had time to analyze it. 

But at least in the public sector, I can think of a few examples 

in which, because you don’t have collective bargaining, individual 

employees were able to make more. And, of course, that is because 

under most labor union contracts, everybody is treated the same. 

And if you have one employee who is more productive than another 

employee, or you have one employee whose job is different than another employee but the labor union tries to put them all in the 

same box, people are denied their ability to make what their job 

would. 

How do you justify telling a very productive employee or perhaps 

an employee whose job description is a little different than another 

employee that they have to have their wages artificially held down 

by a union contract that they are forced to pay to negotiate? 

Mr. BRUNO. Well, thank you, Congressman. There are a number 

of things in your statement and your question. I would note, of 

course, that nothing’s holding back the employer from offering to 

pay people more. They could arrive at a negotiated settlement in 

which they do pay people more. 

And collective bargaining agreements can have a variety of different job titles, job occupations that they are doing under that collective bargaining agreement. That was true in the steel industry 

for decades. And those titles had different—they pay with different 

levels of pay. In the construction industry on a large construction 

site, what that pay is going to be for the painter or the glazier or 

for the electrician, those rates are gonna be set at different levels. 

So there is the ability to be nimble in that regard. 

But, quite frankly, if, in fact, the union and the employer are interested in finding ways to make their workers more productive or 

benefiting/rewarding those workers because they want to keep 

them in that workplace, there are ways that can be done. The collective bargaining agreement is between the two parties. And we 

should let the two parties figure that out. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Well, certainly, Dr. Bruno, you must know that 

in mostly every union contract the goal is to treat everybody the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

114 

same. I am not saying it is impossible that someday there is going 

to be an enlightened union that treats different employees differently. But, for example, in a school system there are certainly 

jobs that are more demanding than other jobs and in your standard 

contract both employees are treated identically. You certainly must 

know that is the norm. 

And as the result, you are holding back some employees who 

would naturally make more—from making more because of the 

union contract. 

Mr. BRUNO. What the contract is attempting to do is to make 

sure that any employment decisions made are not random or irrelevant so that people are treated fairly. So there is an egalitarianism 

expressed throughout that agreement. I don’t think anybody would 

disagree that is an important—that is an important component. 

But there is nothing, quite frankly, that is demonstrable that 

union contract has somehow withheld earnings from a worker that 

could have earned more. The data is quite clear that when you 

compare apples to apples, workers in a unionized setting are earning more than workers in a nonunion setting. 

Look at the UAW’s contracts now with the big three. They are 

actually—look at Ford. Particularly, a new book has just been released by a colleague. And it is a pretty impressive story of how 

to bring an industry back. It is a really good model. We should look 

at it. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. I mean, I guess I find it hard to believe 

that you don’t realize a goal that—maybe it is a good goal—is that 

whether you are a better or worse employee, you are all treated the 

same. But I am gonna give you one more question. 

In your testimony, you said that corporate decision makers—surveys of corporate decision makers of right-to-work laws are not a 

defining factor in business location. Now, I believe they are. I have 

been told that by some business leaders. Usually, they qualify it by 

saying I am never gonna say that publicly. Because of course the 

unions are very powerful, and no person is publicly going to say I 

am putting my factory in Kentucky rather than Illinois because of 

a union situation. 

Have you ever done studies of large businesses, maybe large foreign-owned businesses as they have a chance to choose whether 

they are gonna with be in one of the 25 right-to-work states or 25 

states that aren’t and seen overall when these companies, including—and I know there are a couple of exceptions—including, for example, foreign auto markers, where they decide to locate and 

whether or not that is an overwhelming factor. Because I— 

Chairman KLINE. I am sorry. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And the state that I was born in, live in is a right-to-work state, 

Arizona. And from what I have heard today of some of the comments, I—you know, I guess right-to-work laws are the panacea for 

citizen democracy, economic growth, individual growth, economic 

growth, as well. 

And the fact remains, though, that ongoing and not only in my 

state but across this country, there is a very fundamental economic 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

115 

problem that families are facing in this country. That is stagnant 

wages and income inequality across the board. 

And let me turn to Dr. Bruno, Dr. Gould. Right-to-work laws as 

being promoted today, putting aside the fact that there is nothing 

in law that prevents a rule that requires employees if you are taking the benefit of a grievance representation, then you should be 

able to kick in a little bit in terms of a fee for that representation. 

There is nothing. 

But having said that, income inequality and the right-to-work 

law as the salve that is going to take care of this issue, which continues to persist. One question. 

Have either of you—has there ever been any study—because 

when we talk about economic growth, I think it is always good to 

put another ledger there in terms of the public subsidies that go 

into bringing a company into a state—tax relief, forgiving taxes for 

10 years, building the infrastructure—as an attraction to bring 

that in and what that public cost is, as well. 

With that, let me—that is the only question— 

Mr. BRUNO. Well, if I could, I—again, knowing Illinois maybe a 

little bit better. At conservative estimate, there are well over 400 

very profitable corporations in Illinois. And actually, many of them 

are international companies that pay zero in taxes or a very, very 

small percentage. It is millions of dollars that are not being paid 

into the public treasury. And this was a decision made by the 

state’s leaders to create an incentive for folks to be there. 

And this is a right-to-work state—I am sorry. Whoa. This is a— 

retract that. This is a collective bargaining state. And these businesses have been attracted there. And that is just one of the tools 

that the state legislature has used. 

So I know, particularly in this case, it is millions of dollars that 

are not paid into the public treasury. And I imagine the bet was 

that having those companies there—and the vast majority of these 

companies are working with unionized employees—that they are 

actually generating work, they are generating dollars that is important to the state’s overall economy. 

Now, I haven’t looked particularly at what the net is there. But 

it is considerable in terms of the tax exemption or the tax expenditure that is happening in Illinois. And I imagine it is true in most 

other states. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Dr. Gould, back to the wage, the income inequality issue that is persistent and hasn’t seemed to move in a positive 

direction for quite a while. 

Ms. GOULD. Yes. Stagnant wages for the vast majority explains 

the entirety of the rise of income inequality. Because the pay productivity gap is clearly incomes going somewhere else. They are 

going to wages at the top. They are going to corporate profits. And 

so all of these things. 

And if you look at states where collective bargaining has eroded 

the most, they had the weakest growth in middle class wages. So 

those two things are intertwined. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. You know, I mentioned—I asked the question 

about the subsidy and the income stagnation that we are seeing in 

reference to Arizona. As we attempt to attract and promote the 

idea that you can come here because we are a right-to-work state, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

116 

also on that same picture, in that same mirror is we are second 

lowest in per-people expenditures for education in the country, lowest for taking care of children in terms of health care, and lowest 

in terms of great actual wage growth. 

So, you know, when you look in the mirror, it is not always the 

picture that has been painted today. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Walberg. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the 

panel for being here. 

I would state, Professor Bruno, your slip on Illinois being a rightto-work state. From your lips to God’s ears, I hope. 

As a proud son, proud son of Illinois and a former United Steelworker working at U.S. Steel South Works. And if you know anything about U.S. Steel South Works, it is no longer there. The 

union could not save South Works. Electric furnace where I worked 

the, the bop shop, the blast furnaces, the rolling mills. Now, there 

are other problems with that, as well. It is not only the United 

Auto Workers fault. I understand that. 

But in our setting, in Michigan where I live now—and I can 

proudly say we are a right-to-work state. And I have colleagues 

often ask me, did I remember accurately that Michigan is a rightto-work—yes, it is. But it is more than that. It is an employee freechoice state. It is also an employer free-choice state. 

Because like my friend and colleague, Mr. Pocan from Wisconsin 

who is a business owner and has union at his business. Has that 

choice, as well. My father helped organize U.S. Steel United Workers there. Proud union member. Until later years when he said 

wait a second, we got the things we needed; working standards, 

safety, benefits and other things that are important. But now, let’s 

make sure we keep the jobs, as well. 

And so let me ask you, Governor Ricketts, and thank you for 

being here. Why do entrepreneurs and start-up companies value 

right-to-work legislation? 

Governor RICKETTS. One of the things that start up companies 

and entrepreneurs are looking for are making sure they have access to the best talent. And people who, you know, they are looking 

to attract are looking to have choice. 

And so I think that, again, when you are talking about undermining the right-to-work laws, such as the NLRB is talking about 

doing right now for Nebraska which, again, in our constitution. You 

are making it harder for us to keep those young people here in Nebraska that would be attracted to these companies and are startup companies to be able to create those jobs. 

So to me it gets back to choice and attracting the best talent 

available. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Mix, you know Michigan well from your efforts on right-to-work legislation for many years there, as well. The 

unions weren’t able to save General Motors or Chrysler and the 

jobs, specifically, of their employees. 

But more importantly, in my district where not only do we have 

auto plants, but we also have the suppliers. Those little businesses, 

some that were unionized, some that weren’t, have had a much 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

117 

more traumatic impact, and they are gone. Some went to the southern states where they had better opportunity, as well. 

It is frequently stated that employees in right-to-work states are 

paid less and receive fewer benefits than similar employees in 

states that are not right-to-work. Is that accurate, Mr. Mix? 

Mr. MIX. Absolutely not. In fact, we have evidence from the 

AFL–CIO that indicates otherwise. They did a study called the 

Interstate Study of Cost of Living Wages. And when they adjusted 

for cost of living, what they found was that workers in right-towork states had about $1,250 more a year in mean disposable income than workers in forced unionism states. 

It is just not. I mean, these studies don’t adjust for cost of living. 

In fact, a new study is out about California having the highest poverty rate of any state in the country when you adjust for cost of 

living. There are meaningful comparisons that need to be made between wages from Utah and New York. If you do that and you adjust for wages, you find that workers in right-to-work states are actually better off, with more disposable income. 

Mr. WALBERG. Is security of jobs also a part of that factor? 

Mr. MIX. Well, absolutely. Absolutely. You know, it is interesting. 

I wish that Congressman Pocan was still here. Because, you know, 

he says Wisconsin has been last in job growth—or tied for last for 

the last couple years. They have only been a right-to-work state for 

two months. I would ask him to be patient. 

On the other front, the idea the metro rider, that guy who jumps 

over the fence does it illegally. The worker that is forced into a cab 

does it by force. But, the idea of having a job is important. I mean, 

78 percent of all automotive manufacturing activity in the United 

States of America now occurs in right-to-work states. I mean, there 

is a reason for that. 

Volvo just announced growth in South Carolina; BMW; Volkswagen in the right-to-work state of Tennessee. Good things are 

happening in those states. And good things are happening in other 

states, too. 

But the idea of allowing individual workers to choose is really 

the fundamental issue here. I mean, let’s get back to the basics. 

Will we as a country force a private organization to force a worker 

to pay dues or fees to work? 

Mr. WALBERG. Can employees pursue their grievances outside of 

the procedures in the CBA? 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time— 

Mr. MIX. They cannot. They cannot. 

Chairman KLINE.—has expired. 

Mr. Jeffries. 

Mr. MIX.—they can’t. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Let me start with Mr. Mix. To the extent that a union in a rightto-work state collectively bargains a higher wage, the nonunion employee benefits from that higher wage; correct? 

Mr. MIX. That is correct. They are forced to accept that union as 

their bargaining agent. That is correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. They are forced to accept a higher wage. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

118 

To the extent that a union in a right-to-work state collectively 

bargains a more robust health care plan, the nonunion employee 

benefits from that more robust health care plan; correct? 

Mr. MIX. In your question, the answer is, yes. They are required 

to accept that, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. So and to the extent that a union in a rightto-work state collectively bargains a strong pension plan, for instance, the nonunion employee gets the benefit of that stronger 

pension plan; correct? 

Mr. MIX. The answer to your question is correct because of the 

union’s monopoly bargaining power that they asked for. They requested to be the exclusive bargaining agent. And, you know, they 

recognize that they can represent only their members. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. So— 

Mr. MIX. In fact, I hold a United Steelworkers brief to the NLRB 

in 2007 where they clearly recognize the ability under federal law 

to represent their members only. And if you were union, Congressman, if you could negotiate these benefits, don’t you think workers 

would want to join you voluntarily? Absolutely yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Mix, I have got limited time. So it just seems 

to me to be fundamentally unfair if you are concerned about unfairness that you have a situation where you have workers make a voluntary decision not to participate in union membership, not to pay 

dues, but nonetheless get the benefit of that union membership. 

And in the grievance context, all that is being asked is that a reasonable fee be paid. But let me move on. 

The productivity of the American worker has increased exponentially over the last 40-plus years; correct? 

Mr. MIX. According to the EPI study, that is what I saw— 

Mr. JEFFRIES. In fact, in studies that I have seen, it has increased since the early 1970s in excess of 275 percent. But at that 

same period of time, the wages of the American worker has largely 

remained stagnant; correct? 

Mr. MIX. I can’t really comment. I think that is the information 

that was— 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Dr. Gould, is that correct? 

Ms. GOULD. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. So Americans are working more productively, but earning less, correct, Mr. Mix? 

Ms. MIX. According to her statistics. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. No one disagrees with those numbers, by 

the way, that I have seen in this institution during the two-plus 

years that I have been here. 

Now, in America, do you think that there is a right-to-work for 

a fair wage and good benefits? 

Mr. MIX. I think in a country that is founded on the basic principle of individual freedom, I think that workers have the right to 

negotiate a fair wage for a day’s work, for sure. It is a fundamental 

piece—it is actually the fertilizer of who we are as a country; that 

somebody controls their ability to work. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And the better-paid workers are actually in fair 

share collective bargaining states; correct? 

Mr. MIX. I would disagree with that vehemently. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Dr. Gould, is that correct? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

119 

Ms. GOULD. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, you made a statement, Mr. Mix, in my 

limited time, that is kind of extraordinary. So I think, let me just 

check that I got this correct; that workers in right-to-work states 

are better off. Is that your view? 

Mr. MIX. That is my statement. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, is Tennessee a right-to-work state? 

Mr. MIX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And Tennessee is one of the poorest states in the 

union, true? 

Mr. MIX. I don’t know that to be fact. I can’t testify to that fact. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Let me introduce into the record a table, 

Table 709, Individuals and Families Below Poverty Level Number 

and Rate by State. This is between 2000 and 2009. According to 

this document, Tennessee is the tenth-poorest state in the union. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

120 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 76 here 94824.076
121 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 77 here 94824.077
122 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 78 here 94824.078
123 

Mr. MIX. It is not the poorest state. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. We are gonna get to that. 

Mr. MIX. Okay. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Louisiana is a right-to-work state; correct? 

Mr. MIX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And is Louisiana one of the poorest states in the 

country? 

Mr. MIX. I do not know that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. It is the eighth poorest state in the country, according to this document. Is Alabama a right-to-work state, Mr. 

Mix? 

Mr. MIX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And is Alabama one of the poorest states in the 

country? 

Mr. MIX. Yes. But it is important to note that Alabama has a 

union density higher than many states that do not have right-towork laws, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And is Arkansas a right-to-work state? 

Mr. MIX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Is Arkansas one of the poorest states in the country? 

Mr. MIX. I do not know that to be true. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. It is actually number two. And let’s get to the penultimate question that you anticipated. Is Mississippi a right-towork state, sir? 

Mr. MIX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And is Mississippi the poorest state in the union? 

Mr. MIX. I believe that your table would indicate that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Thompson? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Hewitt, what were the factors that led you to believe your 

union officers had become unresponsive to your concerns? And 

under what circumstances would you financially support a union? 

Mr. HEWITT. In what circumstances would I financially support? 

Basically, they were unresponsive because they failed to communicate with us during the union negotiating process. They absolutely refused to tell us what was under consideration. They refused to listen to us as we went forward, in spite of repeated attempts to request that they do so. So they were entirely unresponsive and refused to change their ways in any way, shape, or form. 

What was the second part of the question? 

Mr. THOMPSON. My follow-up question was under what circumstances would you financially support a union? 

Mr. HEWITT. I started this by saying that I am not anti-union. 

And just because we have the right to not be members, I am personally going to remain a member and try to work with our union 

and to convince them that they need to listen to us; that if they 

want to ensure their future, the future of unions in general, they 

need to listen to us. 

This is the only thing at my disposal to force our card to force 

them to, in fact, listen to us. It is not that I don’t want to pay my 

dues. That has—that couldn’t be further from the truth. The fact 

is I will happily pay my dues if they, in fact, are willing to listen 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

124 

to me, to do as we ask them to do, to consider our perspective and 

not go off on a tangent and do whatever it is they want to do for 

themselves, individually or for a very small portion of the union 

membership. 

It is not that I would not pay. In fact, the issue at concern isn’t 

really right-to-work. It is this one little clause that says if I have 

a grievance, I want to charge you for representation during that 

grievance. Well, all of my grievances are with the union itself. So 

you mean to tell me that I am going to have the pay the union to 

represent me in my grievance against themselves? That is just incredibly insane. Why would I want to do that? 

You know, I have pledged to remain a union member. I have 

pledged to continue on this fight and to continue to have these 

grievances. But my grievances are not with management. My grievances are with the union itself in their failure to listen to me, the 

member and the rest of our members. Those are my grievances. 

And to assume that their representation is valuable or to assume 

that it is desired, that is just false. I could pay to have them stay 

away. If I had to pay, I would pay someone else to represent me. 

But no way would I ever think that it would be reasonable for you 

to charge me for them to represent me against themselves. That is 

just insane. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Sounds like there may be a little bit of a bias 

there if the representation you had to hire was those you had a 

grievance with. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Mix, in your testimony you described how the NLRB has deviated from its original intent; to protect workers against unfair 

labor practices and determine whether or not they wish to be represented by a union. 

And aside from the fee-for-grievance method that we have just illustrated, can you outline some of the intimidation tactics that are 

being used in the workplace to pressure individuals into joining 

unions? And what can the Federal Government do to address this 

problem? 

Mr. MIX. Yes, there is lots there. You know, I think this debate 

has actually kind of migrated into the debate between unions and 

management. And, you know, when we wrote the Labor Code back 

in 1935, it was designed to be for employees. 

And unfortunately, we are no longer in that mode where the employees are a party. And even, in fact, all of us tend to slip into 

that context of saying this is a battle with union and management. 

It is not. The act was designed to protect individual employees. 

And let me just give you a quick example of the NLRB and a 

case we just got done with and at a company called NTB Bauer in 

Alabama. The workers there decided they wanted to decertify the 

union using the rules under the NLRB procedures to do that. In 

over two years, they had five different votes to do that. Four of 

those votes were won by the employees but challenged by organized 

labor. During that whole process, these workers were still compelled to be represented by that union that they had thrown out 

not once, not twice, not three times, but four times. 

This is an act that is being stacked against individual workers’ 

rights. And that, fundamentally, is where we need to go back to determine whether or not these issues and these policies that they 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

125 

are gonna promulgate are favorable to workers. And I would suggest forcing workers to pay fees to an organization they did not ask 

for, did not vote for, did not want is coercive by nature, and it is 

clearly violative of the 25 state right-to-work laws. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Takano? 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My question, Dr. Bruno or Dr. Gould, are either of you familiar 

with the role of training, the amount of training that unions provide to workers, especially in the building trades? I myself have 

visited the carpenter’s union training facilities, and they are quite 

impressive. 

Is there any other entity that—for workers, especially in the construction trades, that finances that level of training? 

Mr. BRUNO. Absolutely not. 

Mr. TAKANO. I have seen that some nonunion organizations who 

oppose, say, project labor agreements at a local level have said 

that, you know, that they provide that training as well, or that 

these local agreements discriminate against their workers in terms 

of their training. I find that to be kind of a specious claim. 

Mr. BRUNO. Well, I think you are right to conclude that. When 

research has been done that looks at spending that is done in the 

joint apprenticeship training programs—again, keep in mind, these 

are union and employer-negotiated agreements and plans, as opposed to plans that are apprenticeship programs that are set up 

simply by employers unilaterally in the nonunion sector. 

And you do a dollar-for-dollar value, it isn’t even close. The union 

sector spends almost the equivalent, if you were to just measure it, 

as if it were a university. They would have actually I believe the 

sixth largest number of students involved. And the contribution is 

in the billions of dollars. 

And when you look at the number of workers, when you compare 

apprentices in nonunion programs versus union programs, again, it 

is light years. Statistically, I am not even sure what the number 

would be. There are so many more unionized apprentices. So it is 

an embarrassing comparison, actually, for the non-union construction industry. 

Mr. TAKANO. So at least within this industry that I am— 

Mr. BRUNO. Correct. 

Mr. TAKANO.—bringing up, and I could speak about other industries, a tremendous amount of their union resources that—a lot of 

it is coming from the dues—is spent on training the skilled workers 

through levels of apprenticeships and a greater mastery. 

And something that I don’t think people fully fathom or realize— 

and I think the American public would really benefit by actually 

going to a training center, seeing what happens. I have seen an entire ramp of a freeway; I had no idea how much carpentry went 

into that. And that ramp, the apprentices build that ramp, tear it 

down. And I was just amazed at the scale of the training programs 

we have. 

I also want to talk about, you know, it has been suggested here 

that unions were to blame for the demise of the auto industry in 

the Midwest. Can you comment on that? I mean, I recall that period of time of decline, that there were also some strategic blunders 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

126 

made by some of the executives. During the time when oil prices 

were rising, oil shock was happening, the Japanese introduced a lot 

smaller cars that the markets seemed to favor. Mr. Bruno, do you 

want to respond to that question? 

Mr. BRUNO. Yes, thank you. I was hoping for an opportunity. 

And I should say, I grew up in a steelworking family in Youngstown, Ohio. My dad was a steelworker for over three decades, as 

were members of my extended family and my neighbors. And I 

have written a bit about the steel industry, for example. And I, you 

know, am really sensitive to the one Congressman’s experience of 

having worked in the South Works. I worked in a steel mill in the 

summer. It is a much bigger picture. 

Let’s talk about trade policy and how the degree in which policy 

has impacted and protected industries here, as opposed to the way 

European and Asian countries have treated their industries. Let’s 

talk about currency exchange. Let’s talk about decisions that the 

big three made, that they have readily admitted. You don’t have to 

take my word for it. You can look at people—you can read people 

who have written about the auto industry and can talk about how 

tone deaf they were about the products that they were constructing. 

Mr. TAKANO. So my time is—so it is a bit hollow to sort of lay 

the blame at labor, I would say. 

Mr. BRUNO. It is incredibly hollow. 

Mr. TAKANO. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Rokita? 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman. I thank the witnesses for 

their testimony this morning. I am learning a lot. My first question 

is I think is to the governor. Thank you for being here, especially. 

It seemed to me Mr. Bruno’s testimony was mostly commenting 

on the negative economic effects of right-to-work. And I just to 

make sure that if you wanted to respond to any of that with any 

of your personal experience or from your state or anywhere else, I 

would like to hear it. 

Governor RICKETTS. Sure. It is just not my experience in the real 

world, the practical world, that being a right-to-work state is a disadvantage. In fact, just the opposite; that being a right-to-work 

state was certainly one of the things that—particularly when I was 

an executive, as I mentioned before, that was an important factor 

about where we were looking to expand. I think as companies look 

to see what their options are, it is an important tool to make sure 

they have flexibility. And frankly, that the people that work for 

them have flexibility. So I think it is an important thing there. 

And if you look at Nebraska, for instance, we have got the lowest 

unemployment rate in the country, 2.5 percent. As I mentioned, we 

have got a high workforce participation rate. We see a lot of economic things going on in our state that are very, very good. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. Thank you, Governor. 

And switching across the row there to Mr. Mix. Is it safe to say 

you are fairly familiar with the construct of the generic CBA agreement, collective bargaining agreement? 

Mr. MIX. Yes. Yes. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

127 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. There was some testimony in response to 

Congressman Grothman’s questioning that I thought indicated that 

an employer could give a raise to individual employees under a collective bargaining agreement. Is that your understanding, or does 

that go against the whole nature of a collective bargaining agreement? 

Mr. MIX. Generally, under a collective bargaining agreement, a 

monopoly bargaining agreement, an employer would—it could be 

an unfair labor practice if you decided to adjudicate some kind of 

a pay raise or any kind of a bonus to an individual employee. That 

is pretty well known. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. Thank you. And following along with you, Mr. 

Mix, if I understand this right, under the collective bargaining 

agreement, the union likes to have sort of a monopoly over all the 

employees, whether they are unionized or in a right-to-work state, 

for example, nonunionized. And so they offer this grievance procedure. In fact, you have to go through this grievance procedure. 

And now, of course, the NLRB is saying well, there ought to be 

a charge to the nonunion employees for this grievance procedure. 

Isn’t it possible at least from a legal standpoint that a union could 

just decide not to offer the grievance procedure to a nonunionized 

employee in the collective bargaining agreement? 

Mr. MIX. I am sorry. The question again? I didn’t quite hear that 

question. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. 

Mr. MIX. Is it— 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. So the collective bargaining agreement structure as I understand it covers all employees for the— 

Mr. MIX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROKITA.—union or not. 

Mr. MIX. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA.—right? 

And then now the issue, of course, is the NLRB wants to charge 

a fee to the nonunion employees for the grievance procedure that 

the CBA covers— 

Mr. MIX. That is correct. 

Mr. ROKITA.—right? 

Well, isn’t it just as legally possible to have a CBA that excludes 

the union employee from the grievance procedure? Isn’t that a way 

to resolve this? 

Mr. MIX. Yes. Yes. In fact, you know, union officials and actually 

the former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, Bill 

Gould, he indicated and he understood that federal law allows 

union officials to represent members only. And we are beginning to 

have that debate in Chattanooga at the Volkswagen plant down 

there. 

The bottom line is the grievance process is part and parcel, it is 

wholly encapsulated by the bargaining agreement. In fact, it is simply the interpretation of the bargaining agreement that it is. If you 

are a nonmember, you didn’t vote on the agreement, you didn’t get 

a chance to because of your nonmember status— 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. Right. 

Mr. MIX.—in a right-to-work state, but you have to accept it because of the exclusive bargaining monopoly privilege of the union. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

128 

And so if you have a Venn diagram, you know, where the two 

circles intersect, the collective—the grievance process is entirely 

within the bargaining circle. It is not outside. It is not independent. 

It can’t be adjudicated in a way that violates the contract. 

And it is the union that is the final arbitrator of whether or not 

it violates the contract. In fact, a worker can’t go to a second step 

of appeal without the union’s permission. And the union has the 

right to appeal any adjudication of a grievance and actually have 

it voided because it violates the contract. Those are the facts. 

Mr. ROKITA. But that doesn’t have to be. 

Mr. MIX. It doesn’t have to be. They could represent their members only. 

Mr. ROKITA. In the 30 seconds or so I can’t—I don’t have the 

clock right in front of me, but I see the yellow light. 

Tell me more about Chattanooga, what is going on down there. 

Mr. MIX. Yes, in Chattanooga the UAW announced that they had 

a majority of workers there and they wanted the company to accept 

a card check unionization, meaning we hand you these cards, you 

agree that these workers have said they want the union. 

And so they announced publicly that they had a majority. They 

couldn’t prove it. No one saw them. We actually ended up representing several employees down there in Tennessee. They had a 

secret ballet election. The employees won the election voting 

against recognition by the UAW. 

The UAW has come back now with what is a member-only bargaining unit, Local 42. And they want to talk to the company, they 

want to talk to the company on behalf of their members, only their 

members. Now, ultimately, they are gonna ask for exclusive bargaining privileges. That is pretty clear that is where they want to 

end up. But they recognize the fact that they can have memberonly bargaining there and speak for them. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. Clark? 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all the 

witnesses who are here today. 

My oldest son graduated from high school last Friday. And as I 

looked out on that stage with incredible pride as a mom, but also 

wondering about the future for these high school grads and the college graduations that I attended in my district, as well. 

I would describe my home state of Massachusetts as a right-toa-fair-shot state. We are a proud union state. We protect collective 

bargaining. And I looked at these high school seniors graduating, 

going off to make their world in the workplace or at college. And 

I thought about what they are facing; rise of income inequality, a 

rise of child poverty, and also a rise of corporate influence and 

power. Not only in the board rooms, but in the political process, as 

well. And I have to say that I believe this right-to-work is an incredible misnomer. 

But my question is for Dr. Bruno and Dr. Gould, what do you 

see the impact for these young people, for the people that we are 

trying to attract? And, by the way, I have never talked to a business that is thinking of leaving Massachusetts who has ever cited 

unions as a problem. High cost of housing, high cost of electricity, 

those are issues that we need to address. It is not unionization— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

129 

that is making us a better and wealthier communities—that is ever 

cited as an issue. 

But how do you see these issues around health insurance coverage, pensions, and wages affecting our most recent graduates? 

Ms. GOULD. Unfortunately, the class of 2015, the people you are 

talking about, those young high school graduates, those young college graduates, are entering a labor market that has still had many 

problems because of the Great Recession and its aftermath. And so 

that the wages of those workers are gonna be probably no higher 

than the class of 2000. So we have seen stagnant wages over the 

last decade and more. 

And I think that what we have seen overall over the last 30 

years is this decline in unionization, this decline in collective bargaining, has led to this great divergence between pay and productivity where young workers starting out, like workers across the 

economy, are not getting the wage increases that they would get 

if their wages rose with productivity. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentlewoman yields back. 

Mr. Hinojosa? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Scott for holding this important hearing today. And thanks to 

all the panelists for your testimony. 

In these current economic challenges, I believe that it is vitally 

important that our nation protect the rights of American workers; 

to achieve this goal, and to be effective, we must get through the 

demagoguery and allow the National Labor Relations Board to do 

its job. 

In many of the questions that have been asked, I can identify 

with the concerns that have been asked by my colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle. My first question is going to be to Dr. Elise 

Gould. 

What is the relationship between the rising inequality and stagnant wages? And what role does the decline in union density play 

in the wage stagnation and decline of the middle class? 

Ms. GOULD. Right. So as I mentioned, unionization declined precipitously over the last 30 years. We saw the unionization rate 

overall go from about 26 percent down to about 13 percent in the 

economy. And stagnant wages for the vast majority explain the entirety of the rise of income inequality because of that pay productivity gap, that divergence between pay and productivity. 

That means that incomes are going somewhere. They are not 

going into wages for typical workers. They are going into the wages 

of the top 1 percent, into wages, into corporate profits. And a lot 

of this is the result of policy decisions. And for the most part, the 

abandonment of full employment policy, both monetary policy and 

fiscal policy and efforts that make it harder to form unions have 

meant that workers are not getting higher wages, even though we 

have a far more productive economy. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. My next question would be to Professor Robert 

Bruno. Your testimony says that right-to-work can increase the 

poverty rate. What is the evidence for this? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

130 

Mr. BRUNO. A study that we did at the University of Illinois, and 

I think one of the congressmen also put into the record another report that was done. 

We took a good look at poverty rates across the country and correlated those with unionization rates and whether a state was a 

right-to-work state or a collective bargaining state. And what we 

found when we looked at all of those was that on average, poverty 

rates were lower in states that had free collective bargaining. And 

that if, in fact, you were to implement right-to-work in these collective bargaining states, for example, you would see an increase in 

poverty. 

And we projected that if it were to ever happen—and let’s hope 

it doesn’t in Illinois—that poverty rates would go up by at least 1 

percent, which is actually quite sizable. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Next question to Mr. Mark Mix. Mr. Mix, in your 

testimony, you state your views of right-to-work. The question is 

whether you have provided an imprecise characterization of that 

term. Here is what your testimony says. ‘‘Right-to-work is the simple freedom to choose whether or not to financially support the 

labor union that has imposed its monopoly power over you.’’ 

But section 14(b) of NLRA says something very different; and I 

quote, it says, ‘‘Nothing authorizes the execution or application of 

agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as condition of employment in any state or territory where the state or territory prohibits such agreement.’’ 

So your description of right-to-work seems to overlook what we 

think is a key qualifier; mainly, section 14(b) of the NLRA, which 

allows states to pass laws that bar union dues as a condition of employment. 

Mr. Mix, isn’t it the case that the first condition of employment 

is, indeed, a key qualifier? 

Mr. MIX. Congressman, if I understand the question, what I 

would say is that section 14(b) allows states to authorize right-towork laws and control union security agreements. And it has been 

the history for the last 60 years, both at the Supreme Court level, 

the federal court level, and since 1953 at the National Labor Relations Board, to say that the forced payment of a grievance fee in 

a right-to-work state is—you can’t do it under section 14(b) of the 

Taft-Hartley Act. The Supreme Court has said that, the federal 

courts have said that. And that is what the NLRB has said. 

And that is why we are here today, because ultimately, what we 

are gonna find is that when this rule comes out, we fully expect 

that the National Labor Relations Board position will be that they 

will not deem it a violation if a union decides to file—to charge a 

worker fees for a grievance. And I think that is the record in the 

courts going back to the Emporium case where, in the plumbers 

case from the D.C. circuit that said, you know, you can’t do this. 

I think the litigation record and the record of the court is pretty 

clear. And I don’t think that has been really in dispute here today. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. I see that 

we have crossed the magic 12:00 timeframe, so we are drawing to 

a close. I would like to recognize Mr. Scott for any of his closing 

comments. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

131 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the witnesses for their testimony. 

It is clear that everybody benefits when you have strong unions, 

higher wages, less inequality. It is better for the economy. And 

under right-to-work, those who are not members, not contributing 

anything to the dues get the same union representation without 

paying that those who have actually paid for the benefits; that is 

in higher wages, job security, pension, safe workplace. They get all 

the benefits that—paid for by members. They get to be freeloaders. 

This extends to the individual representation at a grievance. And 

the question before the NLRB is whether it should be illegal to require any payment from a nonmember for the individual representation they get at a grievance. Not the total cost of the grievance. 

Just any payment at all, whether or not that ought to be legal. 

That case is pending before the NLRB. They have asked for briefs, 

and whatever the decision—whatever decision is made is subject to 

appeal. So we don’t know what the decision will be or what the 

final outcome will be. 

But it is clear that some payment ought to be available to help 

offset the individualized costs to the union. But we will have to see. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. I want to thank the 

witnesses. Really good testimony. Thank you for traveling. Particularly you, Governor. Governor of a state, you are a very, very busy 

man. We appreciate you taking the time. 

And once again, we had the battle of statistics going on here. It 

tells me we have got to look at a lot more—listen to the testimony 

of Dr. Bruno and Dr. Gould about the cost to the state. And then 

I look at these statistics from the Bureau of the Census. Again, it 

says that the rate of welfare recipients in forced union states is 

over three times that what it is in right-to-work states. So it is a 

study that we are gonna look at, and it is incumbent upon us to 

take a look at these things. 

It seems clear to me, as I said in my opening remarks, that the 

National Labor Relations Board has got a clear agenda of growing 

private sector union membership at sort of any cost. And I disagree 

with my colleague who said that was kind of their job, because that 

is the way this sets up under the partisan nature of the NLRB, depending upon who is in the White House. And I dispute that. That 

is not what the NLRB is for, that is not what the National Labor 

Relations Act is for. It was to make sure that people have a fair 

say in whether or not they want to be in a union, whether those 

elections are conducted fairly. 

That is what the National Labor Relations Board is for. It is not 

to push an agenda. It is not to push regulations to bypass the actions of Congress. So we have some work to do here. 

Again, I want to thank you very, very much for joining us today. 

We are very, very grateful. There being no further business, we are 

adjourned. 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Bruno follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

132 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 79 here 94824.079
133 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 80 here 94824.080
134 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 81 here 94824.081
135 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 82 here 94824.082
136 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 83 here 94824.083
137 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 84 here 94824.084
138 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 85 here 94824.085
139 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 86 here 94824.086
140 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 87 here 94824.087
141 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 88 here 94824.088
142 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 89 here 94824.089
143 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 90 here 94824.090
144 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 91 here 94824.091
145 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 92 here 94824.092
146 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 93 here 94824.093
147 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 94 here 94824.094
148 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 95 here 94824.095
149 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 96 here 94824.096
150 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 97 here 94824.097
151 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 98 here 94824.098
152 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 99 here 94824.099
153 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 100 here 94824.100
154 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 101 here 94824.101
155 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 102 here 94824.102
156 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 103 here 94824.103
157 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 104 here 94824.104
158 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 105 here 94824.105
159 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 106 here 94824.106
160 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 107 here 94824.107
161 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 108 here 94824.108
162 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 109 here 94824.109
163 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Hewitt follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

164 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 110 here 94824.110
165 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 111 here 94824.111
166 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 112 here 94824.112
167 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 113 here 94824.113
168 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER