The Omissions
U.S. Labor Secretary nominee Lori Chavez-DeRemer, at her confirmation hearing, left a void where clear policy language about independent contractors should be.
Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a confirmation hearing for U.S. Labor Secretary nominee Lori Chavez-DeRemer. It was the first real chance we’ve all had to see somebody associated with the second Trump administration answer direct questions about plans for independent-contractor policymaking.
The idea of “questions,” though, turned out to be overly optimistic. Just one senator focused on this policy area that has caused so much stress and harmed so many Americans’ incomes and careers in recent years.
That senator was committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana who has long been a champion when it comes to protecting everyone’s freedom to choose self-employment.
Right out of the gate, Cassidy asked Chavez-DeRemer this:
“If confirmed as secretary, will you commit to refrain from implementing any rules stripping independent contractors of flexibility they need to provide for their families and to simultaneously contribute to the American economy?”
It was a softball question, one the nominee should have easily anticipated and been prepared to answer. Consider all the things that Chavez-DeRemer could have replied:
The attacks we’ve all seen on the freedom to be self-employed in recent years have been unhelpful, un-American and, quite frankly, unbelievable. I have spoken about this important issue with the president, and of course, the Trump administration intends to protect everyone’s freedom to hang out a shingle and go into business for themselves. Being your own boss, even if it starts out as a side hustle, has always been a path to achieving the American Dream, and it will continue to be an open path during this administration.
As you know, during President Trump’s first term, he put a rule in place to try and protect America’s tens of millions of independent contractors and their ability to earn a living. That rule will be the Labor Department’s guiding principle going forward on independent-contractor policymaking, so self-employed Americans can finally feel safe from having their livelihoods threatened and attacked any further.
I know there are concerns about my support for independent contractors because when I was a member of Congress, I co-sponsored the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which threatens the livelihoods of self-employed Americans nationwide. But I never actually voted for that bill, I did not agree with that part of the bill, and President Trump indicated that he would veto that bill the way it was written. As Labor Secretary, I would serve at the pleasure of President Trump, who continues to believe that every self-employed American should be protected when it comes to earning a living.
President Trump was pleased to see that Republican Congressman Kevin Kiley just introduced a bill to address this policy problem for independent contractors that, we all know, has come primarily from Democrats at the state and federal levels. The president wholeheartedly supports Representative Kiley’s bill. If Congress takes action and that bill becomes law, and if I am confirmed as Labor Secretary, I of course will follow that law—with pleasure, because it’s the right thing to do.
But alas, instead of Chavez-DeRemer saying anything even remotely close to those things in response to Senator Cassidy’s question, she said this:
“Thank you, senator. [I] certainly will commit to understanding this. I know the president, in the first administration, set out that rule, and the parameters is [sic] very important to him on the flexibility of who is an independent contractor and who is an employee, and that they’re properly classified. But I commit to working with you on supporting independent contractors through this process because that flexibility is what [sic] needed. I understand, as you mentioned, in the PRO Act, but again, as I mentioned, that bill wasn’t perfect, and these are those conversations that needed to be had, and supporting that independent contractor is key to growing this economy.”
Certainly will commit to understanding this?
She didn’t understand the policy issue when she co-sponsored legislation that was specifically about it?
And what process was she talking about supporting independent contractors through? Legislative? Regulatory rule-making? Executive orders?
I was watching the hearing yesterday live on C-SPAN, and I shouted at my television: “Ask a follow-up question! What is the actual policy plan?”
But no meaningful follow-up question ever came. That’s all we got—a vague commitment to support independent contractors through some kind of undefined process, whatever that may or may not mean, leading to who knows what.
Overall, while Chavez-DeRemer got compliments from some key people (including Senator Cassidy) for her performance at yesterday’s hearing, the reality is that it included far more omissions than insights when it comes to lawmakers’ plans for independent-contractor policymaking going forward.
What Else Went Unsaid
On the Republican side of the aisle, it would have been nice to hear questions asked about quite a few other things, including:
Whether the current Trump administration plans to revert Labor Department policy to the previous Trump administration’s independent contractor rule.
Whether Chavez-DeRemer and the administration agree with Representative Kiley’s bill to protect independent contractors through an act of Congress.
How, exactly, Chavez-DeRemer plans to support independent contractors—especially since, to the best of my knowledge, not a single one has been appointed as a labor policy adviser at the policymaking table, which currently appears to be led by the freelance-busting head of the Teamsters union.
There was also the strange phenomenon of watching Chavez-DeRemer state more than once that she thought the PRO Act was problematic or imperfect, and then backtracking on her support for many of the bill’s key provisions.
Apparently, nobody thought to ask her, “If you didn’t support any of the main parts of the bill, then why did you co-sponsor it? Which parts of the PRO Act did you think were good?”
Democrats, in my opinion, asked much more detailed questions of Chavez-DeRemer at yesterday’s hearing, but their specificity also made me realize there was a big omission on their side of the aisle too.
None of them were focused on the idea of misclassification.
That’s the term that has underpinned all the freelance busting nationwide, as the party claims it wants to stop unionizable employees from being misclassified as non-unionizable independent contractors—a problem that, when Democrats actually had the federal power to address it, appeared to be far less common than they have long claimed. We’ve heard this word, misclassification, coming from Democrats at the state and federal levels alike for years now, all the while attached to legislation and regulations that threaten or hurt legitimate independent contractors.
But at the Chavez-DeRemer hearing yesterday, no Democrats mentioned misclassification or “gig workers” or Uber or any of the other code words that signal freelance busting will soon follow. It was as if this all-important cornerstone policy position that the Democratic Party rebranded as the “freedom to join a union” for the Harris-Walz campaign suddenly just … disappeared.
Which is, at a minimum, confusing, given that also this week, the new head of the Democratic National Committee used the word misclassify in his framework for the party’s upcoming plans. He clearly indicated that the freelance-busting insanity will not be stopping anytime soon on the left.
The big question we’re all stuck with now is whether the freelance-busting insanity might also begin to infiltrate the right, or if the Republicans will use their trifecta power in Washington to help us get the legislation we need across the finish line, to protect our nonemployer small businesses that contribute $1.3 trillion to the economy.
It’s evident, given what Senator Cassidy said yesterday, along with the bill that Representative Kiley introduced in the House, that Republicans on Capitol Hill who have long had independent contractors’ backs are still standing strong for us.
Going forward, all expectations are that Senator Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina who previously was an independent contractor himself, will be introducing a Senate companion bill to Kiley’s House bill, which is called the Modern Worker Empowerment Act. That’s the bill that would go a long way toward fixing this classification mess, to help protect everyone’s freedom to choose self-employment.
Given Senator Cassidy’s yet-again clearly stated position on this issue, as well as previous comments by Republican Congressman Tim Walberg of Michigan, who leads the House Committee on Education & the Workforce, I am optimistic that the Modern Worker Empowerment Act will get its fair due in both chambers on Capitol Hill during this session of Congress.
The question I still have is whether, if Congress passes the bill, President Trump will be inclined to sign it into law.
He should be, given that it largely mirrors what he did on independent-contractor policy through the Labor Department during his first term. But we did not hear anything of that sort clearly from his top Labor nominee at yesterday’s hearing.
My big takeaway is that the hearing is all the more reason for everyone to contact our lawmakers and urge them to support the Modern Worker Empowerment Act as well as anything else that can be done to stop the current wave of freelance busting. Make sure our lawmakers know that this issue matters to us, and needs to be addressed.
After all, Chavez-DeRemer did say “supporting that independent contractor is key to growing this economy.” Let’s make sure our lawmakers know exactly what kind of support we want, need and expect them to deliver.