Unmasking Union Antisemitism — 9 September 2025

Question

What did the 9 September 2025 House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions hearing "Unmasking Union Antisemitism" establish about union conduct toward Jewish workers following October 7, 2023, and what remained contested?

Context

This hearing occurred 14 months after the Subcommittee's July 2024 hearing "Confronting Union Antisemitism: Protecting Workers from Big Labor Abuses." Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA) convened the hearing to examine "ways in which unions are using Federal law to pursue their anti-Israel political agenda, and to harass and discriminate against Jewish workers."

The hearing focused on two specific union contexts: the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), where employees are represented by A Better NYLAG (ABN), a chapter of UAW Local 2325; and Cornell University, where graduate students are represented by the Cornell Graduate Student Union (CGSU), affiliated with United Electrical Workers (UE).

Witnesses

Kyle Koeppel Mann, Senior Staff Attorney, New York Legal Assistance Group
David Rubinstein, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of History, Cornell University
Dr. Joseph McCartin, Professor and Executive Director, Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor, Georgetown University
Glenn Taubman, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Established — statistical baseline

FBI crime tracking data documents that anti-Jewish incidents are the most common religion-related hate crime. Chairman Allen testified that "for a group that represents less than 3 percent of Americans, Jewish people are victims of roughly 60 percent of all religious-based hate crimes."

The Anti-Defamation League reported over 9,300 antisemitic incidents across the United States in the year following October 7—"a 5 percent increase from 2023, and the highest number on record since the ADL began tracking antisemitic incidents in 1979." These statistics were cited by Chairman Allen and entered the record without challenge.

Established — NYLAG workplace materials

Kyle Koeppel Mann testified under oath about specific materials posted in her workplace following October 7, 2023. She stated: "For months, Jewish staff faced posters glorifying violence against Jews and Israelis. 'Intifada Now, Long Live the Resistance, and Abolish the Settler State,' covered NYLAG's walls."

Mann testified she filed complaints with NYLAG management describing these materials as calling for "the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel, after the massacre, rape, and kidnapping of nearly 1,500 Jews by Hamas, an organization that has murdered countless Jews. The rhetoric in these images is not vague. They are rallying cries for murdering Jews."

NYLAG management responded by banning materials about the Israel-Gaza conflict. Mann testified: "NYLAG responded by banning harassing materials that create a toxic work environment for many Jewish employees." The employer's action—a workplace neutrality policy on this conflict—is established fact.

Established — union response to employer neutrality policy

A Better NYLAG filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board challenging NYLAG's poster ban. Mann testified: "Instead of supporting us, ABN filed an unfair labor practice charge against NYLAG for its opposition to antisemitic material."

The union characterized the neutrality policy as violating members' speech rights. Mann testified that following the policy implementation, "ABN posted watermelons all over our office, a symbol of Palestinian solidarity, and over the watermelons it says, 'NYLAG violates free speech. NYLAG silences workers.'"

In 2025, ABN went on strike. Mann testified the union's "No. 1 sticking point was not salary, healthcare, or case load. It was free speech in and out of the office. The ability to support Hamas over its Jewish workers."

Established — Cornell graduate student dues structure

The Cornell Graduate Student Union contract includes mandatory dues provisions. David Rubinstein testified that when contract negotiations began, "CGSU demanded that all Ph.D. students be forced to pay union dues." Cornell initially resisted. President Mike Kotlikoff stated that forced association would be "Deeply unfair to our students, and incompatible with our commitment to academic freedom."

When the union threatened to strike, Cornell agreed to mandatory dues with a narrow religious exemption. Rubinstein testified: "When the union threatened to strike, Cornell reneged on its promises and agreed to mandatory dues. The sole exception included what Federal law largely provided already, that religious objectors in a narrowly defined group with ethical and moral objections could pay a charity instead."

Established — religious exemption process at Cornell

Rubinstein testified that despite Cornell's assurances that "assertions of religious and ethical objections would not be challenged," the union subjected objectors to "invasive and burdensome questioning." He stated: "When I and others submitted objection letters, CGSU subjected us to invasive and burdensome questioning."

Rubinstein filed discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He testified: "When CGSU and UE refused to process my objection and demanded relative personal information, Cornell and the union left me no choice but to file discrimination charges at the Equal Opportunity Commission."

CGSU subsequently recognized Rubinstein's objection but continued stonewalling other students. He testified: "CGSU then belatedly recognized my objection, but other students' objections are still being stonewalled, while the students receive zero support from Cornell."

Glenn Taubman corroborated the exemption process pattern. He testified about UE at MIT: "The first response that the UE union gave my clients at MIT, who were Jewish, was to write them a letter saying, 'Jews can't object to our union because our founder was Jewish.'"

Established — Federal labor law structure

Taubman outlined four specific Federal law provisions empowering unions. He testified Federal law:

First, "empowers the unions to act as employees exclusive bargaining representatives, even when the employees don't want to be represented by such hostile and hateful organizations."

Second, "the Clinton, Obama, and Biden NLRBs transform graduate students from students to employees, thereby paving the way for radical unions to represent them and force them to pay dues."

Third, "under the Biden NLRB's extravagant view of union power and the Home Depot ruling, unions outrageous pro-Hamas activities and even workplace intimidation are considered to be 'protected, concerted activity,' meaning union actions that are overtly hostile to Jews are coddled and protected by Federal law."

Fourth, "labor law authorizes unions to demand compulsory union dues, which allows antisemitic unions to force the victims of the harassment to pay for those activities or be fired."

These are accurate descriptions of current National Labor Relations Act provisions and NLRB interpretations. Whether these provisions are appropriate policy is contested. That they accurately describe current law is not.

Contested — whether materials and conduct constitute antisemitism

The core interpretive question: whether the workplace materials and union conduct documented above constitute antisemitism and harassment creating hostile work environments, or constitute protected political speech and union advocacy.

Kyle Koeppel Mann interpreted "From the river to the sea" as "a call for the destruction of Israel, for the elimination of Israel, for the elimination of Jews. I interpreted that as them calling for my removal from existence."

Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) stated in questioning: "We are not talking about people who are disagreeing with issues. Hamas, the covenant of August 1988 was very clear. Article 7, it states that every Jew is to be chased behind a rock or tree until you find the last Jew behind a rock and kill him. That is their covenant."

These interpretations were not challenged by Dr. McCartin, the labor historian witness. However, Representative Summer Lee (D-PA) characterized union political activity differently: "UAW debated and voted to adopt a cease-fire resolution, 1,067 votes to 570. In democracies we are supposed to accept the outcome of a vote, even if we disagree with it."

The question whether specific slogans, posters, and union positions constitute antisemitism versus political speech about Israel-Palestine policy was not resolved. Both frames have evidentiary support in the record.

Contested — union duty of fair representation

Mann and Rubinstein testified their unions violated the duty of fair representation. Mann stated: "ABN has failed in its duty to fairly represent all employees."

Taubman testified: "The duty of fair representation, if properly interpreted, would prevent exactly what Ms. Mann and Mr. Rubinstein are seeing on their campuse, or their workplaces. The problem is that over the years the duty of fair representation has been watered down."

Dr. McCartin contested this characterization. He testified: "I would assert that [unions] represent their members as well as anybody on this panel represents their constituents. That does not mean that your constituents agree with everything you do, they do not. That does not make your positions any less legitimate."

McCartin further testified: "We have heard from both Ms. Mann and Mr. Rubinstein that they do not want to support an organization, okay, that they object to, and they are not. They have the right not to and they are not." His point: the Beck rights and Title VII religious exemption process, however burdensome, do provide legal mechanisms for objection.

Whether unions breached their duty requires legal adjudication of specific conduct against established legal standards. The hearing presented competing characterizations but did not resolve the legal question.

Contested — graduate students as employees

Rubinstein testified: "As Ph.D. students, we are provided with teaching assistantships to support ourselves while we work toward our degree. Our work as teaching assistants serves as a derivative of our primary status as students."

Chairman Allen and multiple Republicans characterized the NLRB's classification of graduate students as employees as an error requiring congressional correction. Rubinstein testified: "Congress should clarify that Ph.D. students are students, not workers subject to forced dues. This was settled law until 2016 when the National Labor Relations Board erroneously classified us as employees."

Dr. McCartin did not directly address this question in his testimony. The NLRB's current interpretation treats graduate students performing teaching or research as employees under the National Labor Relations Act. Whether this interpretation is legally correct or good policy is contested. That it is the current NLRB interpretation is established.

Contested — labor movement's historical relationship to antisemitism

Dr. McCartin testified: "The historical record clearly shows that labor has been a bastion of opposition to antisemitism through its modern history and remains so today." He cited Samuel Gompers, Jewish immigrant and first president of the American Federation of Labor, plus multiple Jewish labor leaders including Sidney Hillman, Rose Schneiderman, David Dubinsky, and Randi Weingarten.

McCartin testified that the Jewish Labor Committee, founded in 1934 with the explicit purpose of fighting Nazi antisemitism, "exists, by the way, to this day as a presence in labor."

Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) quoted Gompers: "To be free, the workers, [American workers,] must have a choice. To have a choice they must retain in their own hands the right to determine under what conditions they will work."

Chairman Allen contested this historical framing in his closing statement: "Unions are no longer a bastion of fighting discrimination. That is clear by this testimony today."

Both frames cite evidence. McCartin's historical analysis documents Jewish leadership in labor movement history. Allen and Taubman cite post-October 7 union conduct as evidence of changed character. Whether today's unions maintain the historical labor movement's opposition to antisemitism is an interpretive question the evidence cannot definitively resolve.

Contested — whether Right to Work legislation addresses the problem

Taubman advocated for the National Right to Work Act, which would prohibit mandatory union dues as a condition of employment. He testified: "Congress should pass the National Right to Work Act to end the problem of coercive forced unionism."

Representative Joe Courtney (D-CT) questioned Mann directly: "There is a bill to pass a National Right to Work Law, and that is really my question. I mean do you feel that that is something Congress should take up, and that would be a solution in terms of, you know, really radically rewriting the labor laws of this country?"

Mann responded: "I think as Mr. Rubinstein said, the labor laws need to be addressed under the current framework, and then NLRB should take up the claims that we filed with them about an unfair representation and the duty to represent."

Dr. McCartin testified: "Fighting for a National Right to Work Act, as Mr. Taubman is calling for, is not going to solve the problem of antisemitism or improve the bargaining power of workers. It is really a non sequitur when it comes to the question that we are considering here today."

Ranking Member Scott asked McCartin about right-to-work states: "If you are in a right to work State and not joining the union, did not pay any dues, do you get the benefits of all of the benefits that have been achieved by the unions, like higher pay, safer workplace, better benefits?" McCartin confirmed: "Yes, you do."

The hearing did not resolve whether Right to Work legislation is an appropriate response to the specific allegations of antisemitism, a broader labor law reform properly considered independently, or both. Republicans framed it as addressing coerced support for objectionable union conduct. Democrats framed it as using antisemitism allegations to advance pre-existing anti-union legislative agenda.

What Beck rights establish and don't establish

Multiple witnesses referenced Communication Workers v. Beck, the Supreme Court decision protecting employees from funding union political activities they oppose. Taubman testified he helped litigate the case.

Taubman explained Beck's limitations: "Beck is inadequate first of all because many employees have no idea that it exists, and unions have no incentives to tell them because if they find out then the union gets less money."

He provided a specific example: "People filed Beck objections in 2004 and 2005, and the UE gave them financial disclosure from 2018 and 2019—five and 6 year old financial disclosure, so how are people supposed to know what the union is doing with their money when the union will not open up their books to tell them?"

Representative Onder cited Janus v. AFSCME, which extended Beck protections to public sector employees, prohibiting mandatory agency fees as a First Amendment violation. He noted this protection does not extend to private sector workers.

Beck rights exist. Whether they provide adequate protection for workers objecting to union political activity is contested. That the process of asserting Beck rights can be burdensome—requiring workers to request exemption from the organization they are challenging—is established by witness testimony but not independently verified.

The institutional diagnosis disagreement

The hearing featured fundamentally incompatible institutional diagnoses:

The enforcement expansion frame (Allen, Taubman, Mann, Rubinstein): Federal labor law grants unions unique power to compel association and financial support, which post-October 7 unions have weaponized to harass Jewish workers. Solution: strengthen individual worker protections, restrict union power, potentially reclassify graduate students as students not employees.

The labor rights frame (DeSaulnier, McCartin, Lee): Unions are democratic institutions representing diverse workforces, taking political positions through majority vote processes. The current controversy reflects the same historical pattern of anti-union actors weaponizing cultural issues to restrict worker organizing. Solution: ensure existing civil rights processes (EEOC, duty of fair representation, Beck rights) function properly, increase enforcement capacity, resist using antisemitism allegations to pass Right to Work legislation.

Representative Lee stated: "This is obviously not about protecting workers, it is about silencing dissent, criminalizing free speech, and chipping away at the foundation of our democracy in order to accelerate a shift toward authoritarianism."

Chairman Walberg countered: "We are not attacking unions. We are attacking abusive union leadership that are not doing what they are supposed to do for their union membership."

Both frames have textual support in the hearing record. The disagreement sits at the level of political philosophy and labor law interpretation, not at the level of factual dispute about what occurred at NYLAG or Cornell.

What the hearing did not establish

The hearing did not provide:

• Independent verification of the poster content and workplace materials beyond witness testimony
• Legal analysis of whether specific union conduct violates duty of fair representation under current standards
• Data on how many Cornell graduate students sought religious exemptions, how many were granted, and processing timelines
• Comparison of union political activity and workplace conduct across different unions and contexts
• Analysis of whether the Title VII religious exemption process functions differently in union versus non-union contexts
• Cost-benefit analysis of Right to Work legislation versus targeted reforms to religious exemption processes

Mann and Rubinstein testified about their personal experiences. Their testimony is credible witness evidence but not independently corroborated documentation. Taubman testified as legal counsel representing these witnesses, not as an independent fact-finder.

Dr. McCartin provided historical context and institutional analysis but did not examine the specific NYLAG and Cornell allegations in detail. His testimony that unions have historically opposed antisemitism does not resolve whether specific unions violated their duty of fair representation in specific instances post-October 7.

Both frames have evidence

The worker protection frame has:

• Sworn testimony from Jewish workers describing hostile workplace materials and union conduct
• Documentation that unions filed NLRB charges against an employer attempting to implement neutrality policies
• Evidence that Cornell's religious exemption process, promised as simple box-checking, required detailed personal disclosure
• FBI and ADL statistics documenting elevated antisemitic incidents nationally

The labor rights frame has:

• Historical documentation of Jewish leadership in the American labor movement
• Evidence that unions reached their positions through democratic voting processes (the UAW cease-fire resolution vote McCartin cited)
• Testimony that Beck rights and Title VII exemptions do provide legal mechanisms for objection, however imperfect
• The observation that Mann and Rubinstein both successfully obtained religious objector status, suggesting the system functions even if burdensome

The hearing did not resolve which institutional diagnosis better characterizes the primary problem. Republicans framed the hearing as exposing union abuse of Federal labor law to harass Jewish workers. Democrats framed the hearing as weaponizing antisemitism concerns to advance Right to Work legislation and restrict worker organizing.

The definition question the hearing avoided

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

Representative Wilson stated Hamas's covenant calls for killing Jews. This is textually accurate regarding Hamas's founding charter. Whether union members expressing support for Palestinian statehood or criticizing Israeli military operations thereby endorse Hamas's charter is a separate question.

Representative Lee framed union cease-fire resolutions as democratic political activity. Chairman Allen framed support for such resolutions as supporting terrorism. The hearing did not examine the specific language of contested union resolutions to evaluate these competing characterizations.

Kyle Koeppel Mann interpreted certain workplace posters as threatening her existence. This interpretation is sincere and reflects how many Jewish Americans experience this language. Whether the employees who posted those materials intended to threaten Jewish coworkers' physical safety or were expressing political opposition to Israeli government policy in Gaza was not examined.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism includes "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination" as a contemporary example of antisemitism. Whether this definition should govern workplace conduct standards was not discussed, though it is the definitional framework underlying much of the Republican majority's framing.

What Title VII requires and doesn't require

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion. Multiple witnesses testified about the religious accommodation process for union dues objection.

Taubman testified: "Title VII provides some protections, but as Mr. Rubinstein just said, the problem with Title VII is these employees are essentially required to beg their tormentors. I will say that again. You have to ask the entity that is harassing you and tormenting you on your workplace for a religious accommodation."

This characterization is accurate regarding the procedural structure: employees seeking religious accommodation must request it from their union. Whether this structure is appropriate or requires reform is a policy question.

The hearing did not examine whether the documented accommodation processes violated Title VII as currently interpreted. That question requires legal adjudication. The witnesses' characterization that the process felt burdensome and humiliating is their subjective experience, not a legal determination.

Representative Onder noted that Janus extended First Amendment protection to public sector employees, prohibiting forced dues. He asked why similar protection doesn't extend to private sector workers. This is a constitutional law question the hearing did not resolve. The Supreme Court's current doctrine treats public and private sector labor law differently. Whether this distinction is justified is a legal philosophy question, not a factual dispute.

Voice

This analysis presents the 9 September 2025 House hearing's established record versus its contested institutional questions. The hearing documented specific workplace conduct: posters at NYLAG, religious exemption processes at Cornell, union political activity including cease-fire resolutions and NLRB charges against employer neutrality policies.

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

Jewish workers testified they experience hostile work environments. Labor historians testified unions have historically opposed antisemitism. Both can be accurate. The institutional question—whether Federal labor law should be reformed to provide stronger individual worker protections or whether existing civil rights processes simply require better funding and enforcement—reflects genuine disagreement about labor law philosophy.

The hearing occurred in a political context where Republicans seek Right to Work legislation and Democrats seek to strengthen union organizing. Both sides presented evidence supporting their institutional diagnoses. Neither side's evidence definitively refutes the other's framing.

Readers seeking evidence that unions are failing Jewish workers will find sworn testimony supporting that conclusion. Readers seeking evidence that antisemitism allegations are being weaponized to restrict labor organizing will also find support. The hearing record accommodates both readings.

What the hearing established: Jewish workers at specific workplaces experienced conduct they interpret as antisemitic harassment, sought religious exemptions from union dues, and found the process burdensome. Labor unions filed NLRB charges against employer attempts to ban workplace materials about the Israel-Gaza conflict. Federal labor law currently empowers unions as exclusive bargaining representatives with authority to negotiate mandatory dues provisions.

What the hearing cannot establish from this evidence: whether the appropriate legislative response is Right to Work legislation, targeted Title VII reforms, increased EEOC and NLRB funding, or maintenance of current law. That question sits at the level of political philosophy about individual liberty versus collective bargaining power. The September 9 hearing produced evidence both sides will cite. It did not produce a dispositive factual record resolving the underlying institutional disagreement.

Sources

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Workforce, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions. "Unmasking Union Antisemitism." Hearing held 9 September 2025. Serial No. 119-26. Available via congress.gov (House Event LC75608) and U.S. Government Publishing Office.