Meet the Anti-Union Crusader in Charge of Rolling Back Regulations at Trump’s Labor Department

The department is delaying and blocking the Obama administration’s most important efforts to protect workers.

President Donald Trump shakes hands with a coal miner in February. Trump's Labor Department has delayed several regulations that protect workers.REX/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

President Donald Trump likes to tout his affinity for the American worker. He’s climbed into an American-made big rig in the White House driveway. He’s donned a hard hat while addressing West Virginia coal miners. And he’s boasted about hiring “thousands and thousands and thousands” of union workers.

But on Trump’s first Labor Day as president, it’s clear that his Labor Department is mostly focused on rolling back regulations that protect the blue-collar workers Trump celebrates. The department has delayed several rules that would limit workers’ exposure to carcinogens and has begun to undo the Obama administration’s signature labor achievements. And its policy and regulation team is now led by a man who has made a career out of fighting unions.

Nathan Mehrens became the department’s head of policy in June, leading an office that Sharon Block, who headed it under President Barack Obama, says served as the Labor Department’s think tank. Bloomberg reported last month that Mehrens is also running the department’s regulatory reform office. In that role, he will work with a still-unformed task force to identify regulations that should be eliminated. (The Labor Department did not respond to requests to confirm Mehrens’ role.)

Since getting his law degree from a conservative Christian correspondence school that emphasizes “the centrality of Scripture,” Mehrens has spent his professional life rooting out union corruption. That work appears to have begun with a stint at Stop Union Political Abuse (SUPA), a now-defunct group started  by Linda Chavez after unions helped sink her nomination to be President George W. Bush’s secretary of labor. Chavez would go on to write that donating to SUPA would “cripple liberal politics” by helping pass a right-to-work law that makes it harder to form a union. “If we stop now,” she added in the fundraising appeal, “the terrorists win.”

After leaving SUPA, Mehrens joined the Bush Labor Department, where he worked to increase disclosure requirements for unions. Before joining the Trump administration, Mehrens was the president of Americans for Limited Government, an advocacy group that focuses much of its attention on unions. One of its main projects, SEIU Monitor, catalogues fraud within the Service Employees International Union “empire.” The alleged abuses include a strike by school bus drivers and payments for “medically unnecessary gender reassignment surgery. Another of the group’s projects, NetRightDaily, frequently attacks “big labor” corruption.

Mehrens’ record aligns with what Block sees as the Labor Department’s current effort to “put first and foremost what corporations believe is in their best interest.” In June, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta moved to rescind a rule, targeted by Mehrens, that would have required employers to report the hiring of consultants who campaign against unionization.

Some of Mehrens’ targets are more forward-looking. As union membership has declined, labor advocates have turned to nonprofit worker centers that seek to help non-union workers by campaigning for things like a $15 minimum wage. In a 2015 article headlined “Big Labor’s tax-deductible organizing scam,” Mehrens called for reclassifying worker centers as labor organizations, which would block them from receiving donations from foundations and allow the Labor Department to audit their finances.

Mehrens has also criticized Davis-Bacon, a 1931 law that guarantees federal construction contractors the prevailing wage. That opposition could become relevant if the Labor Department follows the precedent set by the Bush administration after Hurricane Katrina by suspending Davis-Bacon for recovery work in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey.

Mehrens and Acosta’s views reflect decades of Republican thinking about the role of organized labor. What’s notable is that they’ve found a home in an administration that some unions hoped might be a populist champion for workers. In January, after criticizing Trump during the campaign, Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, which represents 12.5 million workers, said he had a “very productive” conversation with the president-elect at Trump Tower. At a White House meeting with union leaders in January, Trump received a round of applause after announcing that he had terminated the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Douglas McCarron, the head of the carpenters’ union, told Trump that his inaugural address was a “great moment for working men and women of the United States.”

From the start, the Acosta Labor Department has rolled back worker protections. In April, it delayed a rule that would limit construction workers’ exposure to crystalline silica, a workplace carcinogen that causes a potentially fatal lung condition. The next month, it delayed a rule to increase mine safety by requiring inspections before workers start their shifts. In June, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which oversees workplace safety, announced that it plans to weaken a rule that would save an estimated 90 lives per year by decreasing workers’ exposure to beryllium, an industrial mineral. Last month, Politico reported that OSHA had scrubbed workplace deaths from its home page.

The two biggest achievements of the Labor Department under Obama have not been spared either. In July, the Labor Department said it will rewrite, and likely roll back, a rule that would make 4.2 million additional workers eligible for overtime. On Thursday, the Labor Department announced an 18-month delay for a rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interest of clients who are saving for retirement. It also said that it will allow retirement advisers to block their clients from filing class-action lawsuits.

Trump’s budget proposed cutting the Labor Department’s funding by about 20 percent while boosting funding for the department’s union watchdog by 22 percent, despite the fact that union membership is at a record low. Most of the proposed cuts targeted workforce training programs that enjoy bipartisan support.

Outside of targeting unions, Trump’s Labor Department is mostly focused on getting out of the way of employers. “Overwhelmingly, I would define their mission as a negative one,” says Block, who is now director of Harvard’s Labor and Worklife program. “It’s to roll back protections for workers. It’s to slash support for worker training.”

On Wednesday, Trumka made clear that he no longer thinks there is much chance of a productive relationship with the Trump administration. “You had two factions in the White House,” he said at a roundtable discussion. “You had one faction that actually had some of the policies that we would have supported on trade and infrastructure, but they turned out to be racist. And on the other hand, you had people who weren’t racist, but they were Wall Streeters.” The Wall Street faction, he said, had won.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate