Highlights:
- JD Vance opposed efforts to strengthen unions and workers’ power.
- Vance opposed the Protecting The Right To Organize (PRO) Act.
- Vance lamented that the PRO Act would effectively codify collective bargaining into law.
- Vance said he opposed the PRO Act because, “it’s dumb to hand over a lot of power to a union leadership that is aggressively anti-Republican.”
- The PRO Act would have enhanced workers’ rights.
- Vance voted to overturn the NLRB’s joint employer rule, which allowed workers and unions to hold companies accountable.
- The NLRB’s joint labor rule held companies accountable for labor law violations by franchisees and contractors.
- Vance opposed the Protecting The Right To Organize (PRO) Act.
- JD Vance was critical of unions.
- Vance said there were “good unions” and “bad unions.”
- Vance named Starbucks baristas as an example of a “bad union.”
- Vance denigrated teachers’ unions.
- Vance said there were “good unions” and “bad unions.”
- JD Vance defended firing striking workers.
- JD Vance supported legislation that would hurt workers and unions.
- Echoing Project 2025, Vance said he would support legislation to make it easier to fire civil servants.
- Vance co-sponsored the Teamwork For Employees And Managers (TEAM) Act, which would have undermined labor unions.
- JD Vance opposed policies that provided more opportunities to workers.
- Vance opposed the bipartisan infrastructure law.
- The law guaranteed that new jobs it created would pay decent wages and have benefits.
- The law expanded access to apprenticeships.
- Vance opposed the Inflation Reduction Act.
- The Inflation Reduction Act incentivized prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.
- Vance effectively voted against reauthorizing the FAA, which would have established an apprenticeship program.
- Vance opposed the bipartisan infrastructure law.
- JD Vance opposed raising the minimum wage.
- In the Senate, JD Vance rejected pro-labor nominees to key positions.
- JD Vance’s record was criticized by unions.
¶ Vance Opposed Efforts To Strengthen Unions And Workers’ Power
¶ Vance Opposed The Protecting The Right To Organize (PRO) Act
Vance Opposed The Protecting The Right To Organize (PRO) Act. According to Politico, “Who is JD Vance really? […] He opposes the PRO Act, the ‘holy grail of pro-union labor reform.’” [Politico, 7/15/24]
Vance Called The PRO Act The “Holy Grail Of Pro-Union Labor Reform.” According to Politico, “Who is JD Vance really? […] He opposes the PRO Act, the ‘holy grail of pro-union labor reform.’” [Politico, 7/15/24]
¶ Vance Lamented That The PRO Act Would Effectively Codify Collective Bargaining Into Law
Vance Complained That The PRO Act Would Effectively Codify Collective Bargaining Into Law. According to Politico, “In Washington, though, Vance has consistently opposed the PRO Act, the ‘holy grail of pro-union labor reform’ that organized labor and its allies on the Hill have been fighting for over two years to get passed. When I asked Vance why he opposes the bill, he pointed to two considerations, one practical and one political. The practical consideration, he told me, is that the PRO Act 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. (Pro-labor advocates on the left have argued that the PRO Act could serve as a bridge to more sweeping reforms to America’s collective bargaining system.)” [Politico, 3/15/24]
¶ Vance: Said He Opposed The PRO Act Because, “It’s Dumb To Hand Over A Lot Of Power To A Union Leadership That Is Aggressively Anti-Republican”
Vance On The PRO Act: “I Think It’s Dumb To Hand Over A Lot Of Power To A Union Leadership That Is Aggressively Anti-Republican.” According to Politico, “But the political case against the PRO Act is just as critical, said Vance. ‘We can’t just be good, we have to be smart,’ he told me, ‘and I think it’s dumb to hand over a lot of power to a union leadership that is aggressively anti-Republican.’” [Politico, 3/15/24]
¶ The PRO Act Would Have Enhanced Workers’ Rights
The PRO Act Would End Union-Busting “Right To Work Laws.” According to the Economic Policy Institute, “States may have ‘right-to-work’ laws that undermine unions’ ability to collect ‘fair share fees’ from workers whose interests they represent. Fair share fees cover the costs of bargaining, contract administration, and grievance processes that unions are required by law to undertake on behalf of all (union and nonunion) members of a collective bargaining unit. Without fair share fees, union power degrades quickly—which is exactly what anti-union employers want. […] PRO Act solution - States must allow private employers and unions to enter into ‘fair share’ agreements.” [Economic Policy Institute, 2/4/21]
The PRO Act Would Make It Easier For Workers To Form Unions. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “The PRO Act requires employers to follow a process for reaching a first agreement when workers organize, a process that uses mediation and then, if necessary, binding arbitration, to enable the parties to reach a first agreement in a timely manner.” [Economic Policy Institute, 2/4/21]
¶ Vance Voted To Overturn The NLRB’s Joint Employer Rule, Which Allowed Workers And Unions To Hold Companies Accountable
2024: Vance Voted To Overturn And NLRB Expanding The Definition Of A Joint Employer For Union Bargaining Purposes. In April 2024, Vance voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, a “joint resolution that would provide for congressional disapproval of the October 2023 National Labor Relations Board rule that defines a joint employer to include any entity that possesses the authority to determine the essential employment terms and conditions of another employer’s employees, regardless of whether it actually exercises such authority. The rule requires a joint employer to bargain with its employees’ union representative with respect to any employment term or condition it possesses the authority to control. Under the provisions of the joint resolution, the October 2023 NLRB rule would have no force or effect.” The vote was on passage. The Senate passed the joint resolution by a vote of 50 to 48., thus, the resolution was sent to President Biden who vetoed it. [Senate Vote 122, 4/10/24; Congressional Quarterly, 4/10/24; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 98]
¶ The NLRB’s Joint Employer Rule Held Companies Accountable For Labor Law Violations By Franchisees And Contractors
October 2023: The NLRB Issued The Joint Employer Rule, Which Allowed Employees And Unions To Hold Companies Accountable For Labor Law Violations By Franchisees And Contractors. According to Reuters, “A U.S. labor board on Thursday issued a final rule making it easier for workers and unions to hold companies liable for labor law violations by their franchisees and contractors, reviving an Obama-era standard heavily criticized by trade groups. The rule from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will treat companies as so-called ‘joint employers’ when they have control, even if it is indirect or not exercised, over essential terms and conditions of employment such as pay, scheduling, hiring and firing, and supervision.” [Reuters, 10/26/23]
¶ Vance Was Critical Of Unions
¶ Vance Said There Were “Good Unions” And “Bad Unions”
Vance Said There Were “Good Unions” And “Bad Unions.” According to Politico, “Vance’s skepticism of the PRO Act is part of a more fundamental skepticism that he harbors toward organized labor. In a speech at a Claremont Institute event in December, Vance said that conservatives ‘need to be honest about the fact’ that there are ‘good unions’ that Republicans should support and ‘bad unions’ that they should oppose. As an example of the former, he cited the Fraternal Order of Police; as an example of the latter, he cited the Starbucks baristas union.” [Politico, 3/15/24]
¶ Vance Cited The Starbucks Baristas Union As A “Bad Union”
Vance Cited The Starbucks Baristas Union As A “Bad Union.” According to Politico, “Vance’s skepticism of the PRO Act is part of a more fundamental skepticism that he harbors toward organized labor. In a speech at a Claremont Institute event in December, Vance said that conservatives ‘need to be honest about the fact’ that there are ‘good unions’ that Republicans should support and ‘bad unions’ that they should oppose. As an example of the former, he cited the Fraternal Order of Police; as an example of the latter, he cited the Starbucks baristas union.” [Politico, 3/15/24]
¶ Vance Denigrated Teachers’ Unions
AUDIO: Vance Argued That “Teachers’ Unions Have Way Too Much Power.” According to a Dover Meet and Greet via SoundCloud, “VANCE: You create an entire generation of kids who are dependent on these government schools that we've learned in the past 18 months that the teachers’ unions have way too much power. And I think it's really bad for the children to go to these schools.” [Dover Meet and Greet via SoundCloud, 10/11/21]
¶ Vance Defended Firing Striking Workers
¶ Vance Defended Trump’s Comments About Firing Striking Workers
Vance Defended Trump’s Comments About Firing Striking Workers. According to Politico, “Vice presidential candidate JD Vance defended Donald Trump’s comments about firing striking workers during a rally in Michigan, saying Wednesday that Trump wasn’t talking about terminating autoworkers in the state but instead ‘firing the employees of Twitter.’ […] Vance’s explanation of Trump’s comments comes after the former president told Musk in an X interview Monday that he ‘won’t mention the name of the company, but they go on strike and you say, “That’s OK, you’re all gone.”’ ‘You walk in, you say, “You want to quit?” They go on strike,’ Trump said of Musk. […] Trump’s comments came as the former president is trying to make inroads with rank-and-file union members after most unions endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race. The comments also drew ire from Sean O’Brien, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, who told POLITICO that ‘Firing workers for organizing, striking, and exercising their rights as Americans is economic terrorism.’” [Politico, 8/14/24]
¶ Vance Supported Legislation That Would Hurt Unions And Workers
¶ Echoing Project 2025, Vance Said He Would Support LEgislation To Make It Easier To Fire Civil Servants
Vance Said He Wanted To Write Legislation To Make It Easier To Fire Civil Servants. According to the Mansfield News Journal, “He wants to set term limits for congress, and he wants to write legislation that will make it easier to fire civil servants who are not doing their jobs. One of his targets would be the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. He said 90% of VA employees are great people, but 10% are ‘scumbags.’ ‘They don't answer the phone,’ Vance said. ‘They leave you on hold for hours.’” [Mansfield News Journal, 3/11/22]
Project 2025 Outlined A Plan To Remove Thousands Of Civil Servants. According to BBC, “Project 2025 was created by the Heritage Foundation and runs for nearly 900 pages. […] The document calls for the sacking of thousands of civil servants, expanding the power of the president, dismantling the Department of Education, sweeping tax cuts, a ban on pornography, halting sales of the abortion pill, and more.” [BBC, 7/12/24]
¶ Vance Co-Sponsored The Teamwork For Employees And Managers Act, Which Would Have Undermined Labor Unions
Vance Co-Sponsored The Teamwork For Employees And Managers Act. According to Fast Company, “In the meantime, however, Vance has cosponsored the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act, reintroducing the legislation earlier this year alongside Senator Marco Rubio.” [Fast Company, 7/16/24]
¶ The Teamwork For Employees And Managers Act Would Effectively Undermine Labor Unions
The Teamwork For Employees And Managers Act Would Effectively Undermine Labor Unions. According to Fast Company, “In the meantime, however, Vance has cosponsored the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act, reintroducing the legislation earlier this year alongside Senator Marco Rubio. The bill would effectively undermine labor unions by allowing voluntary ‘employee involvement organizations,’ which would not be covered by collective-bargaining agreements and could be dissolved by an employer.” [Fast Company, 7/16/24]
The Teamwork For Employees And Managers Act Would Allow “Employee Involvement Organizations” To Be Dissolved By An Employer. According to Fast Company, “In the meantime, however, Vance has cosponsored the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act, reintroducing the legislation earlier this year alongside Senator Marco Rubio. The bill would effectively undermine labor unions by allowing voluntary ‘employee involvement organizations,’ which would not be covered by collective-bargaining agreements and could be dissolved by an employer.” [Fast Company, 7/16/24]
Under The Teamwork For Employees And Managers Act, “Employee Involvement Organizations” Would Not Be Covered By Collective Bargaining. According to Fast Company, “In the meantime, however, Vance has cosponsored the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act, reintroducing the legislation earlier this year alongside Senator Marco Rubio. The bill would effectively undermine labor unions by allowing voluntary ‘employee involvement organizations,’ which would not be covered by collective-bargaining agreements and could be dissolved by an employer.” [Fast Company, 7/16/24]
¶ Vance Opposed Policies Providing More Opportunities To Workers
¶ Vance Opposed The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Which Provided Opportunities For Workers
Vance On The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill: “It Will Result In Spending A Bunch Of Money In China, In A Way That’s Not Going To Make Our Economy Any More Environmentally Efficient And Just Going To Empower The Chinese.” According to the Cincinnati Republic, “Vance said, ‘The infrastructure bill and its focus on green energy spending means more money for battery manufacturing. It turns out all the battery manufacturing is in China, which is the dirtiest economy in the entire world. It will result in spending a bunch of money in China, in a way that’s not going to make our economy any more environmentally efficient and just going to empower the Chinese.’” [Cincinnati Republic, 8/3/21]
Vance Did Not Support The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, Calling It “A Partisan Hatchet Job.” According to CNN, “Sen. Rob Portman, the longtime Washington veteran and savvy deal-cutter, is on the cusp of achieving a major bipartisan achievement that would amount to a capstone of his three decades of public service: The Senate's passage of a roughly $1 trillion package to rebuild the nation's infrastructure. […] Vance said on the Bill Cunningham radio show in July that while ‘Republicans are bending over backwards to get this deal ... really, it's just a partisan hatchet job. The Democrats are going to clean up later.’” [CNN, 8/6/21]
Vance On The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill: “This Is A Total Disaster For Our Country And Republicans Have Been Totally Had.” According to Cleveland.com, “The leading candidates in Ohio’s Republican U.S. Senate primary on Tuesday all issued statements trashing the bipartisan $1 trillion infrastructure bill that Portman spent months negotiating and which passed the Senate earlier in the day in a 69-30 vote, including support from 19 Republicans. They instead sided with Trump, who had been openly urging Republicans to vote against the bill, warning that Democrats would use it to their advantage at election time. […] ‘This is a total disaster for our country and Republicans have been totally had,’ Vance said.” [Cleveland.com, 8/10/21]
¶ The Infrastructure Law Guaranteed That New Jobs It Created Would Pay Decent Wages And Have Benefits
The Infrastructure Law Ensured That The New Jobs It Created Would Pay Decent Wages And Have Benefits. According to the Center for American Progress, “The federal government has long held that jobs created through government spending must pay decent wages and benefits. Ninety years ago, Congress enacted the Davis-Bacon Act to set wage and benefit rates for construction workers supported through federal contracts at existing market levels and ensure that low-road contractors could not undercut the market by paying poverty wages. These prevailing wage standards apply to many existing spending programs. Unfortunately, they do not automatically apply to new spending programs; Congress must take additional actions, as it has done several times in recent years. The ‘overwhelming majority’ of IIJA funds will be covered by the worker protections of the Davis-Bacon Act. This includes billions of dollars to support investments in advanced energy technologies that will help raise standards for workers in these fast-growing industries while also taking steps to combat climate change through programs to build new charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, support clean water infrastructure, and reduce truck emissions at port facilities.” [Center for American Progress, 11/29/21]
¶ The Infrastructure Law Expanded Access To Apprenticeships
The Infrastructure Law Expanded Access To Apprenticeships. According to the Center for American Progress, “A registered apprenticeship combines classroom instruction with paid on-the-job training. Employers in the construction industry frequently partner with unions to adopt apprenticeship programs that provide a steady pipeline of highly qualified workers. For workers, earning a nationally recognized credential through apprenticeship leads not only to high-paying jobs but also to opportunities for career advancement. Yet for too long, women, people of color, and workers with disabilities have been excluded from these jobs. The infrastructure package has the potential to significantly expand pathways into good jobs for all working people through training programs that recruit and policies that can increase demand for underrepresented workers. For example, the IIJA will support the creation of training centers for the installation and maintenance of energy efficient building technologies run in partnership with employers and labor unions; allow the use of surface transportation funds for the establishment of registered apprenticeship or preapprenticeship programs; and permit cities and states receiving federal funds to establish local hiring programs with economic or geographic preferences. These reforms build on the innovations adopted by cities and states in partnership with labor and community organizations that have established targeted hire, apprenticeship, and preapprenticeship programs that provide well-qualified workers for publicly supported projects and ensure that historically disadvantaged residents—such as women, people of color, low-income residents, LGBTQI+ individuals, disabled workers, and residents with past involvement with the criminal justice system—have access to these jobs.” [Center for American Progress, 11/29/21]
¶ Vance Opposed The Inflation Reduction Act, Which Included Wins For Workers
Vance Opposed The Inflation Reduction Act. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Vance has attacked the Inflation Reduction Act, a 2022 law that Democrats passed without Republican votes and that has become the centerpiece of President Biden’s climate agenda. The law injects at least $370 billion over a decade in incentives for wind, solar and other clean energy. ‘It’s dumb, does nothing for the environment and will make us all poorer,’ he wrote on social media during his 2022 campaign for the Senate.” [New York Times, 7/15/24]
¶ The Inflation Reduction Act Incentivized Prevailing Wage And Apprenticeship Requirements
The Inflation Reduction Act Only Provided Full Tax Credits To Facilities That Had Fully Satisfied Prevailing Wage And Apprenticeship Requirements. According to the Center for American Progress, “The Inflation Reduction Act contains important prevailing wage, workforce development, and apprenticeship provisions to ensure that a larger, more diverse pool of skilled labor has access to good jobs and that employees have the skills necessary to meet clean energy goals. It incentivizes these outcomes in the construction of clean energy projects and certain manufacturing facilities through significant production and investment tax credits. Facilities are only eligible for the full tax credit amount if they satisfy newly enacted prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements. Specifically, the base credit increases from 6 percent to 30 percent for all projects greater than or equal to 1 megawatt if prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements are met.” [Center for American Progress, 9/14/22]
¶ Vance Effectively Voted Against Reauthorizing The FAA, Which Would Have Established An Apprenticeship Program
2023: Vance Effectively Voted Against The FAA Reauthorization. In September 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Vance voted against the “motion to proceed to the bill that would reauthorize federal aviation programs through fiscal 2028. The measure would authorize $12.7 billion in fiscal 2024, and gradually increase that amount to $14 billion in fiscal 2028, for Federal Aviation Administration operations; $4 billion annually for airport planning and development; $3.4 billion in fiscal 2024, and gradually increase that amount to $3.5 billion in fiscal 2028, for facilities and equipment; and $255 million in fiscal 2024, and gradually increase that amount to $279 million in fiscal 2028, for research and development. It also would expand workforce development programs and increase, from 65 to 67, the mandatory retirement age for commercial pilots. It would transfer oversight authority over unmanned aircraft systems from the Transportation Department to the FAA and direct the agency to determine how to integrate UAS operations into the national airspace system. It also would require air carriers to establish food and lodging reimbursement policies for travelers whose flights are canceled, require children to be seated next to their parents at no additional cost, and establish training standards for personnel who assist wheelchair users in boarding a plane or who stow wheelchairs and scooters. As amended, the bill would establish an apprenticeship program to bolster the qualified pilot pipeline, require the Transportation Department to provide more detailed information about the cause of a commercial passenger flight cancellation or delay, and allow an airport or retail fuel seller to sell approved unleaded aviation gasoline, if there is industry consensus for its use.” The vote was on the motion to proceed. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 76 to 22. [Senate Vote 241, 9/28/23; Congressional Quarterly, 9/28/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3935]
¶ The FAA Reauthorization Would Have Established An Apprenticeship Program
The FAA Reauthorization Would Have Established An Apprenticeship Program. According to Congressional Quarterly, “As amended, the bill would establish an apprenticeship program to bolster the qualified pilot pipeline, require the Transportation Department to provide more detailed information about the cause of a commercial passenger flight cancellation or delay, and allow an airport or retail fuel seller to sell approved unleaded aviation gasoline, if there is industry consensus for its use.” [Senate Vote 241, 9/28/23; Congressional Quarterly, 9/28/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3935]
¶ Vance Opposed Raising The Minimum Wage
¶ Vance Spoke Out Against Raising The Minimum Wage
AUDIO: 2022: Vance Spoke Out Against A Minimum Wage And The Need To Raise It. According to an Ottawa Meet and Greet via SoundCloud, “VANCE: The problem with the minimum wage is one, it penalizes small businesses that are local and it rewards the big national businesses. […] So what it basically does is it penalizes the businesses that are investing in our communities at the expense of some of the businesses that are working with already, because that to me is the big problem.” [Ottawa Meet and Greet via SoundCloud, 1/13/22]
2016: Vance Opposed Raising The Minimum Wage To $15 Dollars An Hour. According to an op-ed by JD Vance in USA Today, “If the Republicans offered solutions from the 1980s, Democrats appear focused on solutions from the 1960s. Their response to stagnant wages, for instance, is a $15 minimum wage. The problem, as former Obama administration chief economist Alan Krueger noted, is that such a large minimum-wage increase might force a lot of employers to lay people off.” [Op-Ed by JD Vance – USA Today, 7/28/16]
¶ In The Senate, Vance Rejected Pro-Labor Nominees To Key Positions
¶ Vance Rejected Nominees To The National Labor Relations Board And Equal Opportunity Commission Who Were Seen As Pro-Worker And Supported By Labor Unions
Vance Rejected Nominees To The National Labor Relations Board And Equal Opportunity Commission Who Were Seen As Pro-Worker And Supported By Labor Unions. According to Fast Company, “During his time in the Senate, Vance has also rejected nominees to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) who are seen as pro-worker and supported by labor unions.” [Fast Company, 7/16/24]
¶ Vance Voted Against Confirming A U.S. Circuit Court Judge Who Had Been Counsel For The SEIU
Vance Voted Against Confirming Nicole Berner To The 4th Circuit Court. In March 2024, Vance voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “confirmation of President Joe Biden's nomination of Nicole G. Berner to be a U.S. circuit judge for the 4th Circuit.” The vote was on confirmation. The Senate confirmed Berner by a vote of 50 to 47. [Senate Vote 94, 3/19/24; Congressional Quarterly, 3/19/24; Congressional Actions, PN 1241]
2024: Vance Effectively Voted Against Confirming Nicole Berner To The 4th Circuit Court. In March 2024, Vance voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the nomination of Nicole G. Berner to be a U.S. circuit judge for the 4th Circuit.” The vote was on cloture. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 48 to 40. [Senate Vote 93, 3/14/24; Congressional Quarterly, 3/14/24; Congressional Actions, PN 1241]
¶ Berner Was Previously Counsel For The SEIU
Berner Previously Worked As Counsel For The SEIU And Planned Parenthood. According to the Washington Post, “Berner, who previously worked as general counsel for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and a lawyer for Planned Parenthood, was confirmed in a 50-47 vote.” [Washington Post, 3/19/24]
¶ Vance Voted Against Confirming A U.S. District Judge Who Represented Labor Unions And Workers
Vance Voted Against Confirming Casey Pitts As A U.S. District Judge For The Northern District Of California. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Vance voted against the “confirmation of President Joe Biden's nomination of Casey Pitts to be a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of California.” The vote was on confirmation. The Senate confirmed Pitts by a vote of 53 to 46. [Senate Vote 161, 6/14/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23; Congressional Actions, PN177]
¶ Pitts Had A History Of Representing Labor Unions And Workers
Pitts Was A Partner At A San Francisco Law Firm That Was Dedicated To Provide Representation In Economic Justice And Public Interest By Representing Labor Unions, Workers, And Other Public Interests. According to the Los Angeles Blade, “Pitts, a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP in San Francisco, California, where he has worked since 2009, was recommended to Biden by U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Dianne Feinstein (both D-Calif.), members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Pitts has worked at the at Altshuler Berzon firm since 2009, and was an associate at the firm from 2009 to 2017. He previously had served as a law clerk for Judge Stephen Reinhardt on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 2008 to 2009. Pitts received his J.D. from Yale Law School in 2008 and his B.A. from Yale University in 2003. Pitts’ firm, is San Francisco-based dedicated to providing representation ‘in the service of economic justice and the public interest,’ according to the law firm’s website. Its attorneys represent clients including labor unions, workers, consumers, environmental groups, other public interest organizations, and public entities.” [Los Angeles Blade, 9/2/22]
¶ Pitts Served As Counsel Representing SEIU Local 8,7 Which Challenged The Firing Of Striking Employees.
SEIU Local 87 Janitors Were Fired After Allegedly Unlawfully Picketing. According to Justia, “Service Employees International Union Local 87 v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 19-70334 (9th Cir. 2021) The Ninth Circuit granted the union's petition for review, challenging the Board's decision holding that janitorial employees had lost the protection of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) due to unlawful picketing. In this case, with the help of a union, janitorial employees picketed outside the commercial office building where they worked to protest their low wages and poor working conditions. The employees were consequently terminated from their jobs. The panel concluded that the Board erred in determining that the employees' picketing violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the NLRA, a provision that prohibits various unfair labor practices, including what is known as ‘secondary picketing.’ The panel explained that, while the union may have engaged in coercive activity (picketing and patrolling), the Board's finding that it constituted secondary, as opposed to primary, activity is not supported by substantial evidence. The panel further explained that the union never made any statements or took any actions indicating that an objective of its picketing was to coerce Harvest into pressuring Preferred to meet the employees' demands. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings.” [Justia, accessed 7/24/24]
Pitts Served As Counsel for SEIU Local 87. According to the Opening Brief of Petitioner Service Employees International Union Local 87, Stacey M. Leyton and P Casey Pitts served as counsel for Service Employees International Union Local 87. [Opening Brief of Petitioner Service Employees International Union Local 87, accessed 7/24/24]
¶ Vance Voted Against Confirming A U.S. District Judge Whose Work Focused On Employment Discrimination And Labor
Vance Voted Against Confirming Jeffrey Irvine Cummings As A U.S. District Judge. In September 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Vance voted against the “confirmation of President Joe Biden's nomination of Jeffrey Irvine Cummings to be a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Illinois.” The vote was on confirmation. The Senate confirmed Jeffrey Irvine Cummings by a vote of 50 to 45. [Senate Vote 226, 9/12/23; Congressional Quarterly, 9/12/23; Congressional Actions, PN287]
Vance Effectively Voted Against Confirming Jeffrey Irvine Cummings As A U.S. District Judge. In September 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Vance voted against the “motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the nomination of Jeffrey Irvine Cummings to be a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Illinois.” The vote was on cloture. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 51 to 44. [Senate Vote 225, 9/12/23; Congressional Quarterly, 9/12/23; Congressional Actions, PN287]
¶ Cummings Spent Nearly Three Decades Fighting Employment Discrimination And For Labor
Cummings Worked At Miner, Barnhill And Garland For 29 Years Focusing On Employment Discrimination, Civil Rights, And Labor. According to the Alliance For Justice, “Judge Cummings spent 29 years practicing law at Miner, Barnhill & Garland (‘MBG’), eventually serving as co-managing partner. While at MBG, his practice focused on civil litigation in employment discrimination and civil rights, healthcare law, and labor related work, representing plaintiffs, governments, unions, whistleblowers, non-profit and for-profit corporations. At MBG, Judge Cummings secured $630,000 settlement for a class of Black workers who sued Area Erectors Inc. over allegations of firing employees based on race. Judge Cummings also represented plaintiffs in civil rights violations outside the employment context. For example, in Political Action Conference v. Daley, he represented plaintiffs in a suit alleging that Chicago’s aldermanic districts discriminated against the voting rights of Hispanic residents.” [Alliance For Justice, 2/13/23]
¶ Vance Voted Against Confirming A U.S. District Judge Who Fought For Workers’ Rights
Vance Voted Against Confirming Jamal N. Whitehead As A U.S. District Judge For The Western District Of Washington. In February 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Vance voted against the “confirmation of President Joe Biden's nomination of Jamal N. Whitehead to be a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Washington.” The vote was on confirmation. The Senate confirmed Whitehead by a vote of 51 to 43. [Senate Vote 28, 2/28/23; Congressional Quarterly, 2/28/23; Congressional Actions, PN75]
¶ Whitehead Successfully Won A Case For A Worker Who Was Fired After They Began Using A Prosthetic Voice Box Due To Cancer Treatment
Disability Groups Praised Whitehead For Winning A $5 Million Jury Verdict For A Worker Who Was Fired After They Began Using A Prosthetic Voice Box Due To Cancer Treatment. According to Bloomberg Law, “Disability groups those who have worked with Whitehead praised his litigation experience, which includes multimillion-dollar class action settlements. In one such case, Whitehead won a $5 million jury verdict for an employee who was fired after they started using a prosthetic voice box as a result of vocal cord cancer treatment, disability groups said in a letter to the Judiciary Committee. That result was later affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.” [Bloomberg Law, 2/28/23]
¶ Vance Voted Against Confirming An Assistant Secretary Of Labor Who Had Been A Workers’ Rights Lawyer
Vance Voted Against Confirming Jose Javier Rodriguez As An Assistant Secretary Of Labor. In March 2024, Vance voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “confirmation of President Joe Biden's nomination of Jose Javier Rodriguez to be an assistant secretary of Labor.” The vote was on confirmation. The Senate confirmed Rodriguez by a vote of 50 to 48. [Senate Vote 100, 3/21/24; Congressional Quarterly, 3/21/24; Congressional Actions, PN 157]
Vance Effectively Voted Against Confirming Jose Javier Rodriguez As An Assistant Secretary Of Labor. In March 2024, Vance voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the nomination of Jose Javier Rodriguez to be an assistant secretary of Labor.” The vote was on cloture. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 50 to 49. [Senate Vote 99, 3/21/24; Congressional Quarterly, 3/21/24; Congressional Actions, PN 157]
Vance Effectively Voted Against Confirming Jose Javier Rodriguez As An Assistant Secretary Of Labor. In November 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Vance voted against the “motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the nomination of Jose Javier Rodriguez to be an assistant secretary of Labor.” The vote was on cloture. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 44 to 51. [Senate Vote 318, 11/28/23; Congressional Quarterly, 11/28/23; Congressional Actions, PN157]
¶ Rodriguez Represented The International Longshoremen’s Association Local 1416 As A Lawyer
Rodriguez Represented The International Longshoremen’s Association Local 1416. According to Justia, in the case of Davis v. I.L.A. Local No. 1416 Retiree Club INC., I.L.A. Local No. 1416 Retiree Club and the International Longshoremen’s Association ILA Local 1416 were represented by Jose Javier Rodriguez. [Justia, accessed 7/24/24]
¶ Vance Effectively Voted Against Confirming A Member Of The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Who Had Specialized In Employment Law And Civil Rights
Vance Effectively Voted Against Confirming Kalpana Kotagal To The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In July 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Vance voted against a “motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the nomination of Kalpana Kotagal to be a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 50 to 50 with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote. [Senate Vote 183, 7/12/23; Congressional Quarterly, 7/12/23; Congressional Actions, PN64]
¶ Kotagal Specialized In Employment Law And Civil Rights
Kotagal Previously Specialized In Employment Law And Civil Rights. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Immediately prior to joining the Commission, Kotagal was a partner at Cohen Milstein, where she specialized in civil rights and employment law and chaired the firm’s Hiring & Diversity Committee. As a member of the firm’s Civil Rights & Employment practice group, she represented women and other marginalized people in employment and civil rights class actions, often involving cutting-edge issues related to Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, as well as wage and hour issues and the non-discrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act.” [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Accessed on 11/9/23]
¶ Kotagal Represented Female And Transgender Employees Who Were Denied Their Rights
Kotagal Represented Female Sales Employees In A Title VII And Equal Pay Act Case. According to the University of Pennsylvania, “Ms. Kotagal represents employees and other victims of discrimination. Currently, Ms. Kotagal represents female sales employees in a Title VII and Equal Pay Act case against one of the nation’s largest jewelry chains in Jock, et al. v Sterling Jewelers Inc. Her clients have alleged a pattern of sex discrimination in compensation and promotions.” [University of Pennsylvania, accessed 7/24/24]
Kotagal Represented Female Sales Employees In A Putative Class Action Case Alleging Pregnancy Discrimination. According to the University of Pennsylvania, “Ms. Kotagal also represents female sales employees in a putative class action against AT&T Mobility in a case alleging pregnancy discrimination, in violation of Title VII, as well as violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act in Allen, et al. v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC.” [University of Pennsylvania, accessed 7/24/24]
Kotagal Represented Transgender Individuals Who Challenged The Denial Of Transition-Related Healthcare. According to the University of Pennsylvania, “Ms. Kotagal also represents transgender individuals who are challenging the denial of transition-related healthcare.” [University of Pennsylvania, accessed 7/24/24]
¶ Vance’s Record Was Criticized By Unions
¶ The AFL-CIO Gave Vance A 0% On Their Legislative Scorecard
The AFL-CIO Gave Vance A 0% On His Record For Union-Related Issues.
[AFL-CIO, accessed 7/24/24]
¶ The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Gave Vance A 0% On Their Legislative Scorecard
Vance Scored 0% On AFSCME’s Legislative Scorecard.
[AFSCME Scorecard, accessed 7/23/24]
¶ The Communications Workers Of America Union (CWA) Gave Vance A 0% On Their Legislative Scorecard
The Communications Workers Of America Union (CWA) Gave Vance A 0% On Their Legislative Scorecard.
[CWA Congressional Scorecard, accessed 7/24/24]
¶ Vance’s Vice-Presidential Nomination Was Opposed By Unions and Their Leaders
¶ The President Of AFL-CIO Wrote That Vance Was Anti-Worker And Anti-Union
AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler Wrote That JD Vance Would “Be Nothing More Than A Rubber Stamp” For Trump’s Anti-Worker Vision. According to a press release by AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler, “Donald Trump has a miserable record of breaking every promise he’s made to working people—from failing to pay his workers and crossing a picket line to his disastrous four years in the White House. That betrayal would continue if he is re-elected—so it’s no surprise Trump chose a vice president who will be nothing more than a rubber stamp for that anti-worker vision.” [AFL-CIO, 7/15/24]
Shuler Wrote That Vance’s Record Regarding Unions Proved He Was “A Sham.” According to a press release by AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler, “Sen. JD Vance likes to play union supporter on the picket line, but his record proves that to be a sham. He has introduced legislation to allow bosses to bypass their workers’ unions with phony corporate-run unions, disparaged striking UAW members while collecting hefty donations from one of the major auto companies, and opposed the landmark Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which would end union-busting ‘right to work’ laws and make it easier for workers to form unions and win strong contracts.” [AFL-CIO, 7/15/24]
Shuler: “A Trump-Vance White House Is A Corporate CEO’s Dream And A Worker’s Nightmare.”
[Twitter, @LizShuler, 7/17/24]
¶ AFL-CIO: “Vance Doesn’t Care About Workers - He Just Wants To Put More Money Into The Pockets Of Greedy CEOs”
AFL-CIO: “Vance Doesn’t Care About Workers - He Just Wants To Put More Money Into The Pockets Of Greedy CEOs.”
[Twitter, AFL-CIO, 7/17/24]
¶ The International Union Of Painters And Allied Trades (IUPAT) Retweeted AFL-CIO Tweet Which Claimed Vance Did Not Care About Workers
The International Union Of Painters And Allied Trades (IUPAT) Retweeted AFL-CIO Tweet Which Claimed Vance Did Not Care About Workers.
[Twitter, AFL-CIO, 7/17/24]
¶ Ohio AFL-CIO: “Once America’s Working People Learn About Vance And His Grift, They Will Reject Him As Well”
Ohio AFL-CIO: “Once America’s Working People Learn About Vance And His Grift, They Will Reject Him As Well.”
[Twitter, @ohioaflcio, 7/23/24]
¶ April Verrett, President Of The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Wrote That Vance Sought To Divide Workers
Verrett: “Senator Vance’s Loyalties Lie With The Wall Street Bankers And Silicon Valley Billionaires Who Have Bankrolled His Political Career.” According to a press release by SEIU President April Verrett, “J.D. Vance may portray himself as a working class hero, but his record tells another story. The truth is that Senator Vance’s loyalties lie with the Wall Street bankers and Silicon Valley billionaires who have bankrolled his political career. Together, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance will seek to protect the wealthy and corporations while enacting their insidious Project 2025 agenda. There’s a stark contrast between Biden-Harris, who have backed workers and taken action to lower prices and raise wages, and Trump-Vance who side with price-gouging, union-busting corporations.” [SEIU, 7/15/24]
Verrett Wrote That Vance Had “Disdain For Working People Just Trying To Get By.” According to a press release by SEIU President April Verrett, “As a former venture capitalist, J.D. Vance has made clear his disdain for working people just trying to get by. He has called universal childcare ‘a massive subsidy’ and said that universal day care constitutes ‘class war against normal people.’” [SEIU, 7/15/24]
Verrett: “While J.D. Vance Claims To Support Workers, He Seeks To Divide Us.” According to a press release by SEIU President April Verrett, “While J.D. Vance claims to support workers, he seeks to divide us, and is a proud supporter of Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda.” [SEIU, 7/15/24]
¶ SEIU Local 73 Reposted A Tweet Which Called Vance Anti-Worker
SEIU Local 73 Reposted A Tweet Which Called Vance Anti-Worker.
[Twitter, @MorePerfectUS, 7/16/24]
¶ the International President Of The Association Of Flight Attendants Tweeted That The Trump-Vance Ticket Was Not “Pro-Worker Or Pro-Union”
Sara Nelson, International President Of The Association Of Flight Attendants Tweeted That The Trump-Vance Ticket Was Not “Pro-Worker Or Pro-Union.”
[Twitter, @FlyingWithSara, 7/15/24]