Confronting Union Antisemitism — 9 July 2024

Question

What did the 9 July 2024 House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions hearing "Confronting Union Antisemitism: Protecting Workers from Big Labor Abuses" establish about union conduct toward Jewish workers following October 7, 2023, and what institutional questions remained contested?

Context

This hearing preceded the Subcommittee's 9 September 2025 hearing Unmasking Union Antisemitism by 14 months. Chairman Bob Good (R-VA) convened the hearing to examine "the ways in which unions put politics over people through the lens of rampant union antisemitism."

The hearing focused on three specific union contexts: the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (ALAA), a chapter of UAW Local 2325 representing public defenders in the New York metro area; the MIT Graduate Student Union (GSU), affiliated with United Electrical Workers (UE); and the relationship between Federal labor law and worker protections for religious objectors.

Witnesses

Ilana Kopmar, Staff Attorney, Nassau County Legal Aid Society
William Sussman, Graduate Student, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Anne Marie Lofaso, Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law
Glenn Taubman, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Established — ALAA cease-fire resolution and internal process

Ilana Kopmar testified that on November 14, 2023—37 days after the October 7 Hamas attack—ALAA gave three days' notice of a membership vote on a resolution titled "Resolution Calling for the Ceasefire in Gaza, an End to the Israeli Occupation of Palestine."

Kopmar testified the resolution "does not mention Hamas even once. It dehumanizes the victims of October 7th by not mentioning that Hamas massacred, raped, and mutilated Jews, Israelis and Americans, and violently abducted men, women and children." She characterized it as "a one-sided vitriolic attack against the Jewish State using antisemitic tropes, and language widely understood to be a call for the destruction of Israel."

Kopmar and three colleagues sought and obtained a temporary restraining order in state court halting the vote. She testified: "After the case was removed to Federal Court, the TRO was dissolved, the resolution passed with just over half of members voting at all, and one-third of those voted no."

Chairman Good said in his opening statement that the resolution's rhetoric "caused nearly 35 percent of the membership to vote against it." Kopmar's figure (one-third of those voting) and Good's figure (nearly 35 percent) are each attributed to the speaker; neither was contradicted in the record.

Established — union expulsion charges against objectors

Kopmar testified that immediately after filing the TRO, ALAA filed internal charges to expel the four plaintiffs. She stated: "They accused us of conduct unbecoming to a union member, even though we have a legal right to oppose the union's antisemitism."

The four appealed to the UAW International Executive Board, arguing the expulsion proceeding violated the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.

Kopmar testified: "After waiting months for a decision without hearing anything, we filed charges against the ALAA with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Within days of the ALAA being notified of the EEOC charges, we received a decision from the UAW International Executive Board denying our appeal without even considering our arguments."

She further testified: "Shortly thereafter, we received notice that the Union intended to commence the expulsion trial on July 9, 2024"—the date of this hearing. The plaintiffs immediately appealed to the UAW Public Review Board, staying the expulsion proceedings.

That union expulsion charges were filed against members who sought judicial review of a union resolution is established. Whether those charges constitute unlawful retaliation requires legal adjudication.

Established — workplace harassment allegations

Kopmar testified about specific conduct following the expulsion charges. She stated that in Gaggle, an email listserv for members, and in member-wide Zoom meetings, they were called "fascist," "genocider," "fascist colonizers," and "Zionist ghouls." Her written statement says Jewish Zionist members and their allies "were demonized as 'scabs, snitches and genocide-deniers.'"

She testified about a particularly hostile meeting where three Israel-related resolutions were proposed. When two Jewish members offered a resolution condemning Hamas for abducting hostages and calling for their release, Kopmar testified the immediate Gaggle response was "lmao." Another member wrote the resolution confirms that "in act and thought, y'all not like us. Y'all aren't comrades, but fascist colonizers—mere prosecutors in defender's clothes."

During the meeting presentation supporting the hostage resolution, Kopmar testified members called for an end to the presenter's "rant," commented their presentation was "disgusting" and "fucked up," and flooded the chat with "Free Palestine" and "all eyes on Rafah" statements.

She testified: "These attacks were done in the presence of ALAA President Lisa Ohta and the ALAA Sergeant at Arms. Not once did they or anyone else from Union leadership tell the membership to stop their antisemitic vitriol, to act with decency and respect, and to stop their attacks."

The resolution condemning Hamas for taking hostages was rejected by union delegates, 18 in favor and 124 against. This vote outcome is established fact from Kopmar's testimony.

Established — MIT GSU and BDS affiliation

William Sussman testified that the MIT Graduate Student Union chose to affiliate with United Electrical Workers "which endorses the BDS movement, and urges the union at all levels to become engaged in BDS."

He testified that in 2022, "a plurality of MIT graduate students voted to install this union as our exclusive bargaining agent, and in September 2023, MIT capitulated to its demand for a contract with mandatory dues."

Sussman provided specific timeline: "Then came October 7th. According to the American Jewish Committee, Hamas terrorists waged the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust, slaughtering babies, raping women, burning whole families alive, and taking hundreds of innocents, hostage."

He testified: "The blood had not yet dried when my colleagues at MIT declared, 'Victory is Ours.' The full-time GSU staff organizer told NBC 10 Boston, 'Those who rebel against oppression cannot be blamed for rebelling against that repression.'"

The GSU's immediate post-October 7 statement and the staff organizer's quoted statement to NBC 10 Boston are established from witness testimony. Whether these statements constitute celebration of terrorism or political commentary on resistance movements is contested.

Established — MIT religious accommodation denial and reversal

Sussman testified he requested a religious accommodation to divert mandatory union dues from UE to a charity. He stated the union denied his request, telling him in a letter that "no principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in, or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union, that one of UE's founders was Jewish, and that opposition to BDS is not a position I hold for religious reasons."

Sussman characterized this response: "In other words, UE thinks it understands my faith better than I do."

He testified: "With the help of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, I joined four other Jewish graduate students in filing discrimination charges against the union, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission."

Following potential EEOC charges, MIT began approving religious accommodations and the union followed suit. Sussman testified: "Facing potential charges of its own, MIT began approving religious accommodations, and the union followed suit."

That the union initially denied the religious accommodation, then reversed after discrimination charges were filed, is established from Sussman's testimony.

Established — NLRB Beck rights finding

Sussman testified the GSU "illegally threatened to terminate anyone who refused to pay for their so-called activism. I filed a charge against the union with the National Labor Relations Board, which agreed that the GSU had violated our Beck rights."

This NLRB determination is established fact. Sussman added: "However, the NLRB refused to require training of union agents, who continue to break the law."

Whether the NLRB's remedy was adequate is contested. That the NLRB agreed the GSU violated Beck rights is not.

Contested — Taubman's account of Federal labor law

Glenn Taubman argued that Federal labor law itself leaves Jewish employees exposed. In his spoken statement he said: "Federal labor law has long allowed employees to be trapped by exclusive bargaining agents they never voted for, and do not want." He added: "In half the states without right to work protections, they must pay union dues, or be fired."

His prepared statement, printed in the hearing record, traced graduate-student unions to the NLRB: "The current travesty of herding graduate students into anti-semitic unions finds its source with the Obama-Biden National Labor Relations Boards, which have by fiat turned graduate students into graduate employees."

He concluded: "Despite our best efforts, Title 7 and Beck are not nearly strong enough protections."

These are Taubman's positions as an advocate, not settled descriptions of the law. Lofaso disputed the premise, testifying that religious objectors already have "at least six avenues" of recourse (below), and in response to Representative Scott she said that in right-to-work states workers "do not have to pay any dues." Whether current law is structurally deficient or under-enforced is contested.

Established — existing worker rights under Federal law

Dr. Anne Marie Lofaso testified about six avenues of recourse for religious objectors if their union acts contrary to their religious beliefs:

First, "the religious objector, like any employee, can refuse to join a union, and can resign from a union at any time."

Second, "Section 19, that expressly allows religious objectors to refuse to pay any dues but may be required to donate to a non-religious, non-labor charity in the same amount they would have paid in dues."

Third, "the union's refusal to accommodate a religious objector's request to substitute charitable payments for union dues, makes a prima facia discrimination case under Title 7, and the law requires employers to post these rights."

Fourth, "the objector could file unfair labor practice charges, or a lawsuit against the union, alleging a violation of the union's duty of fair representation."

Fifth, "if the union or the employer tries to inflame employees' passions by dividing them, using religiously inflammatory words during an organizing campaign, any party can file objections to the union, which may result in a re-run election."

Sixth, "in the public sector, a religious objector may also have Constitutional claims against the union."

This is Lofaso's account of existing protections; Taubman disputed that they are adequate. Whether these protections function adequately in practice is contested.

Contested — whether materials and conduct constitute antisemitism

The core interpretive question: whether the documented workplace conduct and union political positions constitute antisemitism creating hostile work environments, or constitute protected political speech and democratic union activity.

Kopmar testified she is Jewish and "Zionism, the belief in the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in our ancestral homeland is as integral to my religious practice as is keeping kosher and observing the sabbath."

She characterized the ALAA resolution and related workplace conduct as antisemitic. Chairman Good stated in his opening that "unions choose to spend time and money advancing their divisive and anti-American political agenda" rather than focusing on workplace conditions.

Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier framed the issue differently. He stated: "Based on the title of today's hearing, I fear we will do it again"—meaning broad-brush attacks on workers' ability to organize. He testified: "Unions are inherently 'small d' democratic institutions. For example, workers need at least majority support in the workplace to form and join a union."

DeSaulnier emphasized that union political positions result from democratic votes: "Union workers need majority support to authorize a strike. They need majority support to ratify a contract. Workers are their unions, and unions are accountable to their members, by a vote."

The ALAA resolution passed with majority support, though significant opposition. Whether majority-approved union political activity on Israel-Palestine constitutes antisemitism or democratic political expression was not resolved.

Contested — duty of fair representation and retaliation

Kopmar testified: "Union leadership has a duty to protect all members from bias and discriminatory attacks. Instead, they are allowing and fostering attacks against its Jewish and non-Jewish Zionist members who fight against antisemitism and discrimination."

Whether ALAA violated its duty of fair representation requires legal adjudication. Kopmar filed EEOC charges alleging discrimination and retaliation. Those proceedings had not concluded at the time of this hearing.

Representative Kathy Manning (D-NC) asked Lofaso whether the expulsion charges against Kopmar constitute retaliation. Lofaso responded: "Under those facts as you gave them, that sounds like retaliation to me."

This is Lofaso's legal opinion, not a judicial determination. The legal question remained pending before the EEOC and federal court at the time of the hearing.

Contested — adequacy of Beck rights and Title VII protections

Taubman testified: "Finally, although we have heard that unions have an obligation to tell people about their rights, in fact, few unions do." He pointed to an MIT union pamphlet in his exhibits and said: "The whole point of Beck is that the cost of reduced dues is different."

Lofaso testified that unions are legally required to inform members of Beck rights and that multiple legal avenues exist for enforcement. She stated: "Congress should fully fund the Board and EEOC, to ensure enforcement of all workers' rights, including their Beck rights, and their religious accommodation rights."

The disagreement: whether existing legal protections are adequate but under-enforced (Lofaso's view, with the solution being increased agency funding), or whether the legal framework itself is structurally deficient (Taubman's view, with the solution being the National Right to Work Act).

Contested — graduate students as employees

Sussman testified: "As a lifelong democrat, I would like to conclude with a warning for my fellow party members." He referenced Ronald Reagan's statement about leaving the Democratic Party, stating: "If the democratic party leaves the Jews, we will have no choice but to leave the party."

His testimony argued that Ph.D. students are primarily students, not workers, and should not be subject to mandatory union dues. This echoed the September 2025 hearing testimony from David Rubinstein regarding Cornell.

The NLRB's current interpretation treats graduate students performing teaching or research as employees under the National Labor Relations Act. Whether this classification is correct or whether Congress should legislatively reverse it is contested.

Lofaso did not directly address graduate student classification in her oral testimony. The hearing did not resolve this institutional question.

Contested — National Right to Work Act as solution

Taubman advocated for the National Right to Work Act: "Now is the time for this Congress to pass the National Right to Work Act in the private sector, to end the problem of coercive forced unionism." Sussman made the same call in his own statement: "This Congress should pass the National Right to Work Act, so that unions have to earn their dues, and think twice before discriminating against minorities."

Manning asked Kopmar directly about Right to Work legislation. The exchange is not fully reproduced in the transcript excerpt, but Manning asked: "In your experience, would giving more funding to the EEOC help them provide the action that they need to help resolve claims like yours?"

Kopmar responded: "I believe so because I think I know that we have been waiting for a while to receive a response from the EEOC, so more funding would then lead to a quicker response."

Manning followed up: "Do you believe that legislation that increases education about workplace antisemitism in combating anti-Jewish hatred for union members would help address this problem?"

Kopmar responded: "I think so."

Kopmar's testimony suggested she viewed increased EEOC funding and antisemitism education as helpful responses. Whether she also supported Right to Work legislation is not established from the record.

Lofaso opposed using this hearing to advance Right to Work legislation. She testified: "This Subcommittee should put its energy in solving the real problem facing workers. Employer interference with their right to free association, and workers' lack of awareness of the broad spectrum of rights they enjoy under labor laws."

She advocated for the PRO Act instead: "The PRO Act would strengthen the Act's remedies and require the agency to seek injunctive relief to reinstate employees whenever it has reasonable cause to believe that the employee's job termination was unlawful."

The hearing presented two incompatible legislative agendas: Republicans advocating National Right to Work Act, Democrats advocating PRO Act and increased agency funding. Neither side's evidence definitively refutes the other's institutional diagnosis.

Contested — unions' historical relationship to antisemitism

Chairman Good stated in his opening: "the response by union leaders to the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel have exposed yet another way that unions are beholden to the radical left, instead of to the workers they claim to represent."

Ranking Member DeSaulnier provided historical context: "Immigrants, including Jewish immigrants, left their home countries often under duress, and sought to build a better life and future for themselves and their families in the United States. Many immigrants opted to organize and join the labor movement."

Representative Rick Allen (R-GA) invoked religious support for Israel, stating: "We have the full face of Moses looking down on that body, who gave us the law, which is the basis of our values that we enjoy. Most of our leaders ask for God to bless America. Well, that is covered very well in Genesis 12:3. God says, 'If you bless Israel, I will bless you.'"

The hearing did not examine labor movement's historical record on antisemitism with the depth provided by Dr. Joseph McCartin in the September 2025 hearing. Whether today's union conduct represents a departure from historical labor movement values or continuity with diverse political traditions within labor history remained unresolved.

The institutional diagnosis disagreement

The hearing featured fundamentally incompatible institutional diagnoses:

The worker protection frame (Good, Allen, Taubman, Kopmar, Sussman): Federal labor law grants unions unique power to compel association and financial support. Post-October 7, unions weaponized this power to harass Jewish workers through antisemitic resolutions, hostile workplace conduct, denial of religious accommodations, and retaliation against objectors. Solution: strengthen individual worker protections, potentially through National Right to Work Act, or targeted reforms to Beck rights and Title VII enforcement.

The labor rights frame (DeSaulnier, Manning, Lofaso): Unions are democratic institutions taking political positions through majority vote processes. The current controversy reflects anti-union actors weaponizing legitimate cultural concerns to restrict worker organizing. Existing Federal law provides multiple avenues for workers to object to union political activity. Solution: increase EEOC and NLRB funding to enforce existing protections, pass the PRO Act to strengthen worker organizing rights, require workplace antisemitism education.

Representative Manning was explicit about the dual frame: "I want to be very clear that antisemitism has no place in any workplace, in any school, in any union, or any other facet of American life. It is simply unacceptable." She then advocated for "President Biden's national strategy to counter antisemitism" which "requires the Department of Labor to disseminate resources to unions on recognizing antisemitism."

Both frames have evidentiary support in the hearing record. The disagreement operates at the level of political philosophy regarding individual liberty versus collective bargaining power, not solely at the level of factual dispute about what occurred at ALAA or MIT.

What the hearing established

The hearing documented:

• ALAA passed a Gaza cease-fire resolution 37 days after October 7, with approximately one-third of voting members opposing
• ALAA filed internal union charges to expel four members who sought judicial review of that resolution
• Specific hostile statements were made in union communications toward members opposing the resolution
• A union resolution calling for release of Hamas hostages was rejected 124-18 by ALAA delegates
• MIT GSU initially denied William Sussman's religious accommodation request, then reversed after EEOC charges were filed
• The NLRB found MIT GSU violated Beck rights
• Multiple Jewish workers filed EEOC charges against their unions for religious discrimination
• Lofaso testified that in fair-share states objectors may limit dues to representational costs, and that in right-to-work states workers "do not have to pay any dues"

What the hearing did not establish

The hearing did not provide:

• Independent verification of workplace materials and conduct beyond witness testimony
• Legal determination of whether specific union conduct violates duty of fair representation under current standards
• Resolution of pending EEOC charges and federal litigation
• Analysis of whether union political positions on Israel-Palestine constitute antisemitism or protected political speech
• Comparison of union religious accommodation processes across different unions and industries
• Data on Beck rights awareness among union-represented workers
• Evidence on whether National Right to Work legislation would reduce workplace antisemitism or primarily serve broader anti-union policy goals

Kopmar and Sussman testified about their personal experiences. Their testimony is credible witness evidence but not independently corroborated documentation. Taubman testified as an advocate for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which Sussman said helped file his EEOC charges; he was not an independent fact-finder.

Lofaso provided legal analysis of existing worker protections but did not examine the specific ALAA and MIT allegations in detail. Her testimony that existing law provides adequate protections if properly funded and enforced does not resolve whether the specific unions violated those protections.

Both frames have evidence

The worker protection frame has:

• Sworn testimony from Jewish workers describing hostile workplace conduct and union retaliation
• Documentation that unions filed expulsion charges against members seeking judicial review
• Evidence that religious accommodation requests were initially denied, then granted after discrimination charges
• NLRB determination that MIT GSU violated Beck rights

The labor rights frame has:

• Evidence that contested union positions resulted from democratic voting processes
• Testimony that existing Federal law provides multiple avenues for worker objections
• The observation that Kopmar and Sussman ultimately obtained relief through existing legal processes (EEOC charges, Beck objections, religious accommodations), suggesting the system functions even if imperfect
• Historical context of Jewish participation in American labor movement

The hearing did not resolve which institutional diagnosis better characterizes the primary problem. Republicans framed the hearing as exposing union weaponization of Federal labor law to harass Jewish workers. Democrats framed the hearing as attempting to use legitimate antisemitism concerns to advance pre-existing Right to Work legislative agenda.

The definition question the hearing avoided

The hearing never directly addressed: what constitutes antisemitism versus protected political criticism of Israeli government policy?

Chairman Good called the union conduct "rampant union antisemitism" and stated unions are "beholden to the radical left." Kopmar interpreted the ALAA resolution and related conduct as antisemitic attacks on her religious identity as a Zionist Jew.

Ranking Member DeSaulnier emphasized union democracy and cautioned against "broad-brush stereotypical attacks on workers' ability to organize and collectively bargain."

The hearing did not examine whether specific language in contested resolutions (cease-fire calls, criticism of Israeli policy, characterization of Israel as "apartheid state") constitutes antisemitism under any established definition, such as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition.

This definitional question underlies the entire disagreement but was not explicitly addressed. Whether criticism of Israeli government actions or support for Palestinian statehood necessarily constitutes antisemitism, or whether only certain specific formulations constitute antisemitism, remained unexamined.

Voice

This analysis presents the 9 July 2024 House hearing's established record versus its contested institutional questions. The hearing documented specific workplace conduct at two union contexts: ALAA and MIT GSU. Jewish workers testified they experienced hostile work environments following union political activity on Israel-Palestine. Unions filed internal charges against workers who challenged that political activity. Religious accommodation requests were initially denied, then granted after discrimination charges.

Whether this conduct constitutes antisemitism requiring legislative intervention or represents political activity protected by labor law and the First Amendment was not resolved. Both interpretations have support in the hearing record.

The hearing occurred 14 months before the September 2025 follow-up hearing that would feature similar testimony from different workplaces (NYLAG and Cornell). Together, these hearings established a pattern: Jewish workers at multiple unionized workplaces experienced conflict with their unions over Israel-Palestine political activity post-October 7, sought religious accommodations or Beck objections, encountered burdensome processes, and ultimately obtained some relief through existing legal mechanisms after filing formal charges.

Whether that pattern demonstrates Federal labor law empowers unions to harass religious minorities, or demonstrates that existing civil rights enforcement processes function adequately when workers invoke them, reflects the fundamental institutional disagreement the hearing could not resolve.

Readers seeking evidence that unions failed Jewish workers will find sworn testimony supporting that conclusion. Readers seeking evidence that antisemitism allegations are being weaponized to advance Right to Work legislation will also find support. The hearing record accommodates both readings.

What Chairman Good called "rampant union antisemitism," and the hearing title called "Big Labor Abuses," Ranking Member DeSaulnier characterized as misusing antisemitism concerns to attack "workers' ability to organize and collectively bargain." Both characterizations cite evidence from the same hearing. The evidence itself—specific workplace conduct, specific legal claims, specific testimony—is largely not in dispute. The institutional meaning of that evidence is.

Sources

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions. "Confronting Union Antisemitism: Protecting Workers from Big Labor Abuses." Hearing held 9 July 2024. Serial No. 118-58. Official transcript (GPO): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-118hhrg57223/pdf/CHRG-118hhrg57223.pdf

Congress.gov event LC73372: https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/house-event/LC73372/text

Committee repository (witness statements): https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=117507

Corrected 14 October 2026: six quotations previously attributed to Glenn Taubman could not be found in the official transcript or his written statement and were removed or replaced with his recorded words; a combined list of epithets was split into the two lists Kopmar actually gave; a National Right to Work Act quotation was re-attributed to Sussman; Taubman's account of labor law is now marked contested.