House Administration Committee Hearing Told Hill Staff Union is ‘Unworkable, Impractical’

Wednesday’s House Committee on Administration hearing on a proposal to allow staffers working for individual Members of Congress and congressional committees to form unions provided abundant evidence that there are big problems with the idea.

Only two witnesses appeared before the committee that is chaired by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who reminded observers that on her first day as a freshman in the House of Representatives in 1995, she voted for the Congressional Accountability Act that initially authorized unions on Capitol Hill.

Unions representing the U.S. Capitol Police and some other legislative branch employees were formed in subsequent years, but neither the Senate nor the House approved formation of the unions now being considered.

Despite the paucity of witnesses, the hearing quickly showed there are numerous major problems involved if a workable collective bargaining process for individual staffers is ever to be worked out.

“The essential problem with unionization is that union will share control over terms and conditions of employment with the elected representative that intersect at vital points with the ability of a Member to represent his constituents,” the committee was told by Congressional Institute President Mark Strand.

“The classic example is the right to discharge an employee. A lawmaker hires a legislative aide to assist with that Members’ primary committee assignment. The aide performs adequately on most issues but develops a contentious relationship with committee staff, which, in turns, threatens the Member’s ability to participate in the committee process,” Strand continued.

“Is there just cause to discharge the employee and hire someone who can get along with committee staff and thereby ensure the Member’s legislative agenda is achieved? How do you prove that in some kind of grievance procedure,” Strand asked.

“Do you get affidavits from committee staff? What if, while that process is going on, the committee is passing a comprehensive reauthorization that won’t occur again for another ten years? How will the Member explain to voters that internal staff disputes led to legislative failures but that Member still deserves to be re-elected,” he said.

But the difficulty in a unionized environment of preserving a Member’s ability to hire and fire his or her personal or committee staff was only the beginning of problems Strand noted.

“Another mark against unionization is that Members would need to have uniform jobs from one office to another. Work conditions vary from week to week and even day to day, depending on the congressional and committee schedule,” Strand said.

“Sometimes the Washington staff puts in long hours, but when Congress is in recess, the Washington hours are more normal while district staff could be working six or seven days from early morning to late in the evening. These are the normal ‘feast or famine’ hours of congressional staff.

“A feature of unionization is to create standard schedules, but how would that work for committee markups that can run many hours longer than expected and into the early morning hours? Would committee staff be able to walk off the job if a mark-up runs too long? Consider the impact that would have on the legislative process.”

John Uelmen, General Counsel of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) was the second witness and he was faced with the challenge of walking a fine line between his role as legal adviser and his apparent support of the unionization proposal.

In his testimony, Uelmen made it clear that a huge challenge is in defining bargaining units because each Member of Congress is an employer. Staffers work for their senator representative or committee, not for Congress as a whole. The result is there are at least 500 or more distinct bargaining units on Capitol Hill.

“What this means, of course, is that because union organizing must take place at the employing office, it must be done separately within each member’s office or committee staff. Can there be one bargaining unit to represent all House staffers? No, it is not possible to create one bargaining unit representing all or most House employees,” Uelmen said.

Asked by Ranking Minority Member Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) about whether OCWR has produced written guidance on how congressional staff unions would function, Uelmen said “that will be a challenge,” indicating such guidance has not yet been prepared. He also said “it’s very hard to predict how many petitions [to form bargaining units] we’re going to get.”

In his opening remarks, Davis said the formation of congressional staff unions would “lead to even more dysfunction in Washington,” adding that “this is a concept that could create numerous conflicts of interest and impact members’ constitutional responsibilities to the American people without the guarantee that any improvements in staff well-being would actually materialize.”

---