Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR) faces an uphill battle — and deservedly so.
As President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for labor secretary, Chavez-DeRemer has both sides of the aisle scratching heads. To call her reviews mixed would be an understatement: Her fellow Republicans aren’t keen on her pro-union voting record, and progressives don’t think she is pro-union enough.
To clarify this ambiguity, U.S. Senators must ask the first-term lawmaker, who just lost reelection to her Oregon seat, some direct questions. Most importantly, senators should force Chavez-DeRemer to address her voting record–specifically, her support of the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act of 2024 (PSFNA) and the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 (PRO Act).
Critics have said the PSFNA bill, which you cosponsored, would “nationalize all public-sector bargaining rules.” Do you agree with this criticism? If not, why?
PSFNA sets “minimum standards” for state policies dealing with public sector unions. Such standards include unionization rights for nearly every government employee, a right to strike, and mandatory use of outside arbitrators or other decisionmakers with power to bind the government during bargaining disputes.
Together, these standards represent extreme policies that no state–not even California, New York, or Illinois–has adopted. For states on the opposite end of the spectrum, such as those that have rejected collective bargaining in some government workplaces, compliance with the act would require a seismic resource shift, even creating a new state agency.
Such a law is an affront to federalism. Forcing its measures on state governments would not only burden state budgets but also violate constitutional principles about the federal government “commandeering” state policy. At the same time, the federal government would have to grow dramatically to administer the PSFNA, which leads to this follow-up question.
What would be the fiscal impact if the PSFNA was law? How many federal taxpayer dollars would it cost to enforce the law?
The PSFNA tasks the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), an agency with 116 full-time employees, to evaluate each state’s labor policies during a 180-day period. If the FLRA determines that a state’s laws do not meet these “minimum standards,” the FLRA assumes regulatory and enforcement control over that state and local governments, from state agencies to school districts.
Among its other duties, the FLRA would supervise every union election, hear and resolve every alleged violation, and resolve all challenges to arbitration awards.
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, called PSFNA opponents “extremists” who “envisage a future where public services are eviscerated and who provide them are kicked to the curb.” Do you agree with Weingarten’s characterization?
This question would put Chavez-DeRemer in an awkward position: She must either mischaracterize her fellow lawmakers (i.e., Republican “extremists” who prefer states to decide on labor law) or repudiate her union backers. Strategically, Chavez-DeRemer would be wise to distance herself from teacher union executives who shut down schools during the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the PRO Act would “effectively annul every state right-to-work law in the country” in one fell swoop. Why take away employees’ choice to support a union at their workplace?
Right-to-work laws prevent unions from forcing workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. The number of right-to-work states is growing, and these states have higher employment figures and fewer residents on welfare. Moreover, employees in right-to-work states report greater life satisfaction and economic sentiment, even if there is some dip in wages. And some evidence suggests that right-to-work laws increase per-hour wages, especially for low-income employees.
How important are secret ballot elections when unions organize a new workplace? What risks come with allowing unions to represent workers without securing majority support in an election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)?
The PRO Act allows unions to organize by “card check” when a secret ballot election overseen by the NLRB fails to result in a clear majority. Card check empowers union organizers to become the exclusive representative for workers by collecting signature cards from workers–all without protections for workers’ informed, voluntary choice. Senators should insist on secret-ballot union elections as the only method to ensure union executives have workers’ majority support.
Though Trump won the 2024 election with broad support from working-class voters, Chavez-DeRemer’s support for union-backed legislation suggests she is out of step with the president-elect’s broader agenda for the economy and the federal government’s role. Bills like the PSFNA and PRO Act would impose a radical anti-worker agenda in every state, hurting taxpayers and employees alike.
Such legislation should be red lines senators, especially Republicans, should not cross. While considering Chavez-DeRemer as labor secretary, federal lawmakers must ensure these policies never become law under her leadership.
David R. Osborne is the senior fellow for labor policy with the Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania’s free-market think tank.
This post was originally published on here
