Donald Trump’s nomination of Lori Chavez-DeRemer for Secretary of Labor has shocked many conservatives. While union bosses celebrate her selection, free market advocates and business leaders are deeply concerned. Chavez-DeRemer was one of only three Republicans to vote for the radical PRO Act—a bill that would gut Right to Work laws in 37 states, force millions of independent contractors into traditional employment, and give union bosses unprecedented power.
Market Institute Senior Fellow Norm Singleton asks some important questions in a new article at Real Clear Markets: Will she champion workers’ freedom or empower union leadership at their expense?
He writes:
“Donald Trump’s nomination of former Oregon Representative Lori Chavez-DeRemer for Secretary of Labor has the support of many union leaders. Teamsters Union President Sean O’Brien recommended Chavez-DeRemer to President-elect Trump. But some business groups and free market advocates oppose her nomination.
The reason for this “role reversal” is that Representative Chavez-DeRemer is one of the most pro-union Republicans in America. She was one of three House Republicans to vote for the PRO Act. The latter is a union boss wishlist that would give union officials unprecedented power over workers and businesses. The Act repeals Section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which authorized state right to work laws.
This would nullify 37 states’ Right to Work laws—stripping workers in those states of their right to choose whether or not to join a union and pay union dues. Workers in right to work states enjoy higher real wages, lower unemployment, and lower taxes than workers in states without right to work protection. Yet Chavez-DeRemer thinks workers would be better off without right to work. The bill also allows the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to certify a union as the exclusive bargaining representative of a workplace without winning a secret ballot election. Instead, all a union has to do is show that a majority of the workers have signed cards supporting the union. This “card check” system allows cards to be counted even though they were signed in front of union organizers and pro-union employees.
Chavez-DeRemer does not seem to be bothered that card checks will lead to situations in which workers feel pressured or intimidated to vote for union representation. The PRO Act also prohibits businesses from replacing striking workers regardless of the length of the strike or the economic costs to the company. This gives union officials an incentive to prolong a strike until the employer has no choice but to submit to all but the most unreasonable of the union boss’s demands. Those who say allowing employers to hire replacement workers gives the business an unfair advantage should consider the costs incurred in replacing even a small part of a workforce with new employees who may lack the background, knowledge, and understanding of internal company culture.
Federal law already narrowly limits the use of replacement workers during strikes over “economic issues”, so employers cannot fire workers to prevent them from unionizing. The PRO Act would also put millions of Americans under the thumb of big labor by reclassifying independent contractors as employees. It does this by replacing the current test of whether someone should be treated as an employee or an independent contractor with a more “flexible” ABC test.
California’s ABC test has been opposed not just by businesses that rely on independent contractors— including “gig” economy businesses like Uber and Lyft—but by those working as independent contractors. Patrice Onwuka, policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum, sums up the effects of the California bill: “Californians across hundreds of occupations and professions lost their incomes, businesses, and a livelihood.”
Taking the ABC test nationwide would cost as many as 64 million Americans their jobs. Many of these workers are single mothers and young people who enjoy the flexibility to set their own schedules and working conditions provided by freelance work—flexibility they would lose if they were treated as employees under federal law. Potential Labor Secretary Chavez-DeRemer sees no problem with imposing a 20th century model of workplace regulation on the 21st century gig economy.”
0 Comments