‘Acting’ Labor Secretary Julie Su Behind Closed Doors

Julie Su’s quest to edit the word “acting” from her title as Secretary of Labor will continue Tuesday, with the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee holding a meeting on her recent re-nomination to the position.

Unlike the first time Su met with the committee, it will be behind closed doors because committee chairman Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wants it that way.

And, unlike the first time, Su doesn’t even have to be there.

But like the first time, a strict party-line vote to recommend her nomination to the full Senate is expected.

Ranking Committee member, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), took to the Senate floor today to lambast Sanders’ decision.

 “The Chair’s decision to not hold a public hearing on Ms. Su is unacceptable and shows a lack of transparency from the Majority. It undermines the Committee’s constitutional duty to advise and consent on presidential nominees,” said Cassidy. “No one is above accountability, especially an unconfirmed yet acting cabinet-level nominee with massive influence over our nation’s economy.”

Su, the former California labor secretary, was first nominated for the job last year after her-then boss (she was deputy secretary) Marty Walsh quit for a better job: running the NHL players union.

But Senate Democrats did not have a vote on Su last year because she would have lost, with at least two Democrats saying publicly they would vote for her (privately others seemed to be leaning that way as well,) in part due to her California record and very pro big Labor stance. With a 51-49 party split in the Senate and the Republicans actually unified on their opposition, Su’s nomination would have officially failed.

That’s important because Su has held on to the job since as “acting” secretary, something she would not have been able to do if she lost a Senate vote; she has remained in her job for so long due to a friendly interpretation of conflicting federal vacancy regulations and to President Biden’s re-nomination of her last month.

But even as an “acting” secretary, Su has instituted a number of new rules and regulations that have raised the ire of both business and worker groups.

“During Ms. Su’s first nomination hearing for Secretary of Labor last April, the Committee addressed a variety of concerns with her past record in California and her tenure at the Department of Labor,” Cassidy said. “Since then, concerns over Ms. Su’s leadership of DOL have grown. They warrant further public review from this Committee.”

And those concerns are numerous.  Su has moved to gut the gig economy, instituting byzantine rules destined to throttle freelance work , and is pushing a new rule that would allow government workers to invite a union official along on its inspections of non-union workplaces.

Cassidy also questioned – and said Su should be questioned about – a number of managerial failings that have occurred under Su’s watch:

There are also serious concerns about Ms. Su’s mismanagement of DOL. Specifically, Cassidy cites DOL’s failure to prevent the dramatic increase in illegal child labor, which has risen by 50 percent since 2022. This is amid alarming reports that the senior DOL officials repeatedly ignored warnings and downplayed the exploitation of migrant children for cheap labor, to which Ms. Su has failed to adequately respond.

Su being a bad manager does not come as a surprise – she oversaw the state unemployment agency during the pandemic, managing to lose somewhere between $32 and $40 billion dollars to fraud.  Su claims that she “shut the door” once she found out about the fraud problem but that claim is not true – Su was warned very early into the pandemic that the agency was getting looted, was offered solutions, and it still took her months to take any action to stem the tide.

Su’s inaction is largely responsible for the state owing  the federal government – ironically, Julie Su’s own Department of Labor – about $20.5 billion dollars, a debt that the Newsom administration and the state legislature decided should be repaid by massively increasing unemployment insurance taxes on businesses throughout the state.

Exactly what will happen at the hearing tomorrow is unclear.  Presumably a discussion will take place and a vote taken; whether or not further information will be forthcoming is unknown.