Beltway Buzz, July 19, 2024

Trump Takes a Chance; Seeks Bromance With Vance. This week, former President Trump selected Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) as his running mate. A former Marine, attorney, author, and venture capitalist, Vance has only been in the U.S. Senate since January 2023—his first time serving in public office. As such, Vance’s track record on the issues is relatively short. Regarding workplace policy issues, this is what we know about Senator Vance.

• Traditional Labor Issues.
  • Picket Line Presence. In 2023, Vance walked the picket line with striking autoworkers in Toledo, Ohio.
  • Sectoral Bargaining. According to this article, the reason that Vance has not supported the Protecting the Right to Organize Act is because it “would effectively codify the U.S.’ current system of collective bargaining—in which contracts are negotiated between workers and their individual employers—whereas he’d like to see the U.S. move toward the sectoral model used in Europe, where contracts are negotiated to cover entire industries.” This type of one-size-fits-all collective bargaining would be a dramatic departure from current labor law, which has been in place for nearly ninety years.
  • TEAM Act. Vance, along with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), is cosponsor of the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 2024 (S. 3600). The bill allows for the formation of “employee involvement organizations” to discuss with employers “issues of quality of work, productivity, efficiency, compensation, benefits (including related to education and training), recruitment and retention, grievances, child care, safety and health, and accommodation of the religious beliefs and practices of employees” without violating the “company union” prohibition in Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act. The bill has been introduced in various forms over the years and is strongly opposed by labor unions.
  • Voting Record. Vance voted in favor of the Congressional Review Act resolution to rescind the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) joint employer regulation, and he voted against the confirmation of Gwynne A. Wilcox to the NLRB.

• Antitrust/Noncompetes. Vance and some other Republicans have been dubbed “Khanservatives” due to their support for the work of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan. Vance was quoted as saying that Khan is “doing a pretty good job.” While Vance’s praise of Khan and the FTC is likely a response to the Commission’s current antitrust policies, other “Khanservatives” have supported the FTC’s ban on noncompete agreements.

• Workplace Safety. Vance is an original cosponsor of the Railway Safety Act of 2023 (S. 576), which would institute new railroad safety protocols (such as notice requirements and two-person crew requirements) following the 2023 freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.

• Immigration. Vance’s views on immigration are similar to former President Trump’s, particularly with regard to the southern border. Vance has cosponsored legislation and voted on amendments that would make E-Verify mandatory. Vance also introduced the Timely Departure Act (S 2656), which would require nonimmigrant visa holders to deposit between $5,000 and $15,000 into a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) holding account that would be returned upon their departure according to the terms of their visas.

• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI). Vance is not a fan of DEI initiatives, both in the private and public sectors. He is the original cosponsor of the Dismantle DEI Act of 2024, which the Buzz recently discussed. Among other provisions, the bill would prohibit federal agencies from contracting with companies that operate DEI programs.

NLRB GC Reiterates Position on Injunctions Following SCOTUS Ruling. NLRB General Counsel (GC) Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memorandum this week addressing the Supreme Court of the United States’ recent decision holding that courts must apply the traditional four-factor test when evaluating the Board’s 10(j) injunction requests. Abruzzo doesn’t mince words in the memo, noting that the Board will remain aggressive in pursuing injunctive relief: “[T]he Supreme Court’s decision does not change my approach to seeking Section 10(j) injunctive relief in appropriate cases.” Abruzzo concludes by noting that while the Supreme Court’s decision “provides a uniform standard to be applied in all Section 10(j) injunctions nationwide, adoption of this standard will not have a significant impact on the Agency’s Section 10(j) program as the Agency has ample experience litigating Section 10(j) injunctions under that standard.”

Senator Seeks Answers From NLRB Chair on Board’s Election Deficiencies. Over recent weeks, the Buzz has discussed the significance of the potential confirmation of NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran to another term on the Board (i.e., her confirmation would give Democrats a Board majority through August of 2026, regardless of who wins the White House). With a potential confirmation vote on McFerran looming, this week Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee sent McFerran a letter seeking answers relating to two NLRB Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports “detailing deficiencies in the NLRB’s mail ballot election system.” Cassidy writes:

The NLRB is statutorily charged with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act without favor to unions, employers, or workers. This Board, however, is uninterested in neutrality; instead, it has spent three years issuing decisions and conducting elections in a way that ensure big labor unions get a leg up in the process. This trend of politicized mismanagement and lopsided enforcement is unacceptable, and requires your prompt and thoughtful attention to ensure that all parties before the Board—workers, unions, and employers alike—receive the benefit of unbiased and fair enforcement.

The letter concludes by soliciting responses from McFerran to various questions relating to steps the NLRB has taken “to ensure all of the NLRB’s election processes, including the mail ballot election process, are administered so that all voters receive and are able to timely return their ballot.”

Hold the Line. This week in 1947, President Harry S. Truman signed into law the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. Having passed succession acts in 1792 and 1886, the 1947 Act is Congress’s third—and so far, final—attempt to delineate the line of succession in the event of simultaneous vacancies of the presidency and vice presidency. The 1947 Act restored the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate to the line of succession after the positions had been removed by the 1886 Act. Following the Speaker and president pro tempore, the line of succession begins with Cabinet members in order of the founding of their department. So, the secretary of state would be the first Cabinet position to ascend to the presidency, while the secretary of homeland security, whose department was created in 2002, would be last. Of course, officials in these positions must meet all the constitutional requirements to become president. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, born in Vancouver, Canada, and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, born in Havana, Cuba, would not be able to assume the office of the presidency. Further, there is some debate as to whether Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su could assume the office because she has not been confirmed by the Senate to the position of secretary (though she was confirmed as deputy secretary). None of the succession acts have ever been invoked.