Safety Wars 3-4-2025 Testimony of Keith Sonderling, Nominee for Deputy Labor Secretary

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Hi, this is Jim from Safety Wars.

(00:07):
Before we start the program, I want to make sure everyone understands that we often didn't
talk about OSHA and EPA citations, along with some other regulatory actions from other agencies,
legal cases, and criminal activity.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Proposed fines are exactly that, and they are often litigated, reduced, or vacated.
We use available public records, news accounts, and press releases.

(00:29):
We cannot warranty or guarantee the details of any of the stories we share, since we are
not directly involved with these stories, at least not most of the time.
Enjoy the show.
And from the border of liberty and prosperity in the highway to Nourrit, this is Safety

(00:52):
Wars.
Tuesday, March 4th, 2025, we are headed right into season 5, second episode of season 5.
We had some stuff come up, so I am doing a pre-recorded program here.

(01:13):
However, what is it going to be?
We are going to broadcast the entire hearing for Keith Sonderling from last week from the
congressional hearing, so I am just going to send it here.
So pardon me, pardon me, pardon me.

(01:36):
Keith Sonderling was, who repeatedly questioned about the Department of Diminished Efficiency
during his February 27 confirmation hearing before the Senate Health Education Impensions.
He is up for the Department of Deputy Secretary of Labor.
He is a nominee.

(01:56):
And we are just going to include his entire testimony here on the podcast, the first
hour of it on the Safety FM Network.
And why am I doing this?
I'll have updated clips on my rumble and YouTube and everything else.

(02:18):
I'll have clips of this.
Why are we doing this?
Basic information.
You want to have basic information, one of all of our listeners and viewers and everyone
to have a good handle of what's going on with the federal government and with all this stuff.
This is the first time that we've been through this complete.

(02:40):
We went on the year of March 2001.
This is like the first time we've gone through the complete thing here for everyone.
So we're without, right?
And I'm going to do a little, I won't even bother with the commercials.
This is all brought to you by Safety Wars.
And I will look forward to doing a program with you tomorrow.

(03:04):
And like I said, we'll be uploading a lot of this stuff here.
So.
Okay.
And he will bring this sense of duty and commitment to the rule of law if confirmed as deputy secretary.
Well, at the wage and hour division, Mr. Sommeling was instrumental in developing President Trump's
independent contractor policy, empowering millions of workers to earn a living in the

(03:26):
manner in which they choose.
He also clarified the joint employer standard, protecting the American franchise model, employing
over 9 million Americans.
The Biden administration overturned these common sense policies, enacting a labor agenda hurting
workers and the nation's economy.
But President Trump back in office and new DOL leadership, I look forward to the return

(03:46):
of pro worker regulations at the department.
Thank you for appearing before the committee.
I look forward to hearing more about how you will implement President Trump's pro American
agenda to empower all workers and to create economic growth nationwide.
I understand that obviously Senator Sanders is not here.
So before we turn to the nominee for his opening statement, Mr. Sommeling will be introduced

(04:09):
by Senator Rick Scott and former U.S. Senator George Lemieux.
Of course, Senator, we would pronounce that differently in Louisiana, but I'll give you
the Englishization.
So Senator Scott, you are recognized for introductory remarks.
Thank you, Chairman Cass, members of committee.
It's an honor to sit before you today to introduce a fellow fuller, Floridie, good friend, Keith

(04:32):
Stongley to this committee.
Also like to recognize the many other Floridians here today, including Keith's parents, Barbara
and Howard from Bocotin, his wife, Farrah from Avidurra, also my good friend, George
Lemieux.
In nominating yet another Floridian to his administration, President Trump made an excellent
choice in Keith to serve as Deputy Secretary of Labor.

(04:53):
Throughout his career, Keith has proven time and again his deep respect for the rule of
law and his abiding interest in the well-being of American workers and business owners.
I know firsthand that Keith will succeed as a Deputy Secretary of Labor.
While I was Governor of Florida, I had the pleasure of appointing him to serve on the
Florida Judicial Nominee Commission for Appellate Courts in South Florida when he was just 29

(05:13):
years old.
At the time, he was one of the youngest in the state's history to serve.
He was tasked with recommending to me who should receive the appellate court judgeship.
He started serving on this commission reserve for the most senior attorneys in the state,
but we saw this as an opportunity to give young leaders with great potential a chance
to gain experience and prove themselves without waiting decades to serve.

(05:34):
Keith has done just that, and I have been incredibly proud to see his success.
His effectiveness and good judgment was shown throughout his term.
He was quickly selected as Chair and served with distinction, playing a significant role
in reforming the nominating selection process.
At the same time, Keith excelled in the private sector by Quiklin becoming one of the youngest
partners and one of Florida's oldest and most prestigious law firms.

(05:56):
His had a considerable impact throughout the state, serving in leadership positions in
numerous nonprofit organizations.
After serving the people Florida, Keith left us to serve all Americans and the federal
government.
During President Trump's first term, Keith served at the U.S. Department of Labor overseeing
a record number of enforcement recoveries and writing regulations that helped workers
and assisted businesses in complying with the law.

(06:19):
Just as I did, President Trump quickly realized Keith's potential and then nominated him as
Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Like many committee members here today, I proudly voted for his confirmation in 2020.
Throughout his career, he has gone above and beyond to reach out to American workers and
businesses to provide guidance and resources to help them comply with and navigate our
country's labor laws.

(06:40):
I can say with full confidence that Keith has served the people of Florida and the United
States with distinction, and he has supremely qualified to serve as Deputy Secretary of
Labor.
On behalf of the 23 million residents of Florida, thanks for making us proud and best of luck
today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Scott.
Senator LeMune.

(07:05):
You've already heard a lot about Mr. Sondland's impressive public service.
Let me tell you a little bit about Mr. Sondland from a perspective of fellow Floridian and
someone who worked shoulder to shoulder with him at the Gunster Law Firm.
I've known Mr. Sondland since he started his career in law.
He is an expert in labor and employment issues.
He not only counseled clients on those issues but litigated them.

(07:27):
He is hardworking.
He is fair.
He is honest.
He is practical and says to his integrity and his ability to do a good job of public
service and I think that he will be unqualifiedly a great Deputy Secretary of Labor.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Sondland, do you have an opening statement?
Please use your family.

(07:49):
Thank you.
First, Senator Scott and Senator LeMune, thank you so much for that kind introduction.
I'm so grateful for both of your mentorships.
Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders and other members of the committee, first of all,
it's really an honor to appear before all of you again, this time as President Trump's
nominee to be the Deputy Secretary of Labor.

(08:09):
I'm beyond grateful to the President for the opportunity to continue to serve our nation.
In 2020, I had the honor of being unanimously approved by this committee as President Trump's
nominee to be a Commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
I was subsequently confirmed by a bipartisan vote of the Senate.
For the last eight years, I have worked directly with members of this committee on both sides

(08:31):
of the aisle on issues that impact hundreds of millions of American workers and employers.
Over the past few weeks, it has been a pleasure to meet with many of you and learn more about
our state's workforce challenges and opportunities.
During our meetings, I promised that if confirmed, I will continue my longstanding commitment
to work together to shape the future of the American workforce through President Trump's

(08:54):
America First agenda.
I want to take a brief moment to honor the people who have supported me throughout my
life.
My parents, who are here today, provided a firm foundation on which I am able to build
a life of public service.
My wife, Farrah, my number one supporter, recognizes my deep commitment to serving our
country and, of course, our two little boys, a three-year-old and a two-month-old, who

(09:16):
are definitely not watching C-SPAN like everyone else right now.
I also want to thank my colleagues at the Department of Labor and the EEOC for the
chance to work with such dedicated professionals and for everyone's encouragement for my next
opportunity to serve.
On a personal note, I think it is important to share what I consider to be a fundamental

(09:38):
characteristic of who I am.
I am the grandchild of Holocaust survivors.
My interest in protecting all Americans' rights in the workplace is undoubtedly shaped
by my grandparents, who despite suffering unspeakable tragedies were able to achieve
the American dream.
My grandmother as a young girl survived a concentration camp only by flinging to the

(10:00):
woods during a death march.
My grandfather escaped the horrors of the Warsaw ghetto and then joined the Allied forces.
My grandparents lost generations of family members during the war.
Fortunately, they were able to immigrate to the United States.
However, once settled, they encountered more subtle forms of religious discrimination than
those that they faced at the hands of the Nazis.

(10:23):
Although more than willing to work, my grandparents lost employment opportunities based solely
on their religious beliefs and life circumstances.
It was only through their relentless hard work that they overcame the barriers put before
them, ultimately paving the path for me to appear here before you today.
Yet generations later, we were once again seeing a rising religious discrimination.

(10:47):
I am proud that President Trump issued executive orders tackling the generational resurgence
of anti-Semitism and other forms of religious discrimination, including anti-Christian bias.
My grandparents' bravery and dedication to hard work serves as my family's legacy.
With this background throughout my career in public service, my philosophy on the government's

(11:07):
role in assisting workers and employers has been steadfast.
Education and outreach to workers and employers go hand in hand with strong law enforcement.
When I served at the Wage and Hour Division during President Trump's first term, we achieved
back-to-back record-breaking enforcement recoveries for workers and more outreach than ever before.

(11:27):
All with fewer resources.
My record of balancing law enforcement, providing compliance assistance, modernizing outdated
regulations, and proactively addressing workplace issues demonstrates my shared belief that
under President Trump's leadership, we will be prepared for the opportunities and challenges
facing the workforce over the next four years.

(11:49):
As President Trump set throughout his campaign, when he nominated Secretary Chavez-Dreamer
and myself to lead the Department of Labor, we must put American workers first and give
everyone a fair shot at the American dream.
The President's vision embodies my grandparents' and countless other Americans' legacy.
If I have the privilege of being confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Labor, I look forward

(12:10):
to continuing to make this a reality for all Americans.
Thank you for having me, and I look forward to our discussion.
Thank you.
I'll begin the question.
Mr. Sunderling, during the first Trump administration, DOL understood that more than 27 million
gig workers rely on the flexibility of independent work to make a living while balancing personal

(12:33):
responsibilities.
The Biden administration sought to strip these workers of this flexibility by implementing
what has failed in California, but a California-style legal framework.
As Deputy Secretary, do you commit to re-implementing the independent contractor standard using the
first Trump administration so workers are free to earn a living in a way that works

(12:56):
best for them?
Well, first of all, thank you, Chairman Cassidy, for not only having me today at this hearing,
but the time we were able to spend together, not just for this nomination, but all of our
working together in the last four or five years.
As far as referencing the independent contractor rule at the Department of Labor, that rule
is currently under litigation, so if confirmed, I will certainly work with the solicitors

(13:20):
and the Department to ensure the best path forward with the current rule we have to deal
with from the Biden administration that is in litigation.
However, I do have a very strong record on this, and what we did in the first Trump administration,
I of course stand by because it's based on long-standing legal principles.
We did not make up a new standard.
We used standards that the Supreme Court has blessed before and made it easier for workers

(13:46):
to understand what the rules of the road were, determining for them if they are going to
be an employer and independent contractor for the organization they work for, as well as
employers.
Everyone just wanted clarity, and you have my absolute commitment, not just with this
rule, but every rule we do at the Department of Labor will be clear and understandable,
and all comments from all sides will be reviewed.

(14:09):
The Biden-Harris administration made a number of attempts to benefit union constituencies,
including by implementing rules that increase corporate control over small businesses.
You signed the proposed joint employer rule during your time of wage and hour in the Trump
administration refocusing on who actually directs an employee's work day to day.

(14:30):
It confirmed, do you intend to reimplement a joint employer rule focusing on direct control
instead of the Biden administration's broad and workable standard?
Well, again, if I'm lucky enough to be confirmed, I'm committed to looking at all the rules
and regulations.
The one we reference now is not under litigation, but obviously that is something we are going

(14:52):
to take a look at very closely, and it's the same analysis that I just discussed with the
independent contractor rule, is how do we actually have factors that are easy to understand
for both workers and employers?
It's all about clarity, and it's also about not legislating from the executive branch,
and looking at standards that courts have approved that align with Congress's intent

(15:12):
regarding the employment relationship.
You have my full commitment that is exactly what I'll do as deputy secretary working on
any rules and regulations, including the joint employer rule.
But to the joint employer rule specifically, and I know that was withdrawn by the Biden
administration, it was based on existing case law.
It was based on four factors that had been established and that were easy to understand

(15:35):
to benefit both workers and employers.
Put a little flesh on that.
I'm just going to ask you, I think you answered this.
Am I correct in assuming that you believe that a broad joint employer or standard-heard
small businesses and employees, as opposed to a more narrowly focused one?

(15:56):
That's correct, and that's what we documented during the first and drop of administration.
It wasn't ever about taking any rights away from workers.
It was about what's the case law say.
And how do these businesses operate in the model that they intend as business owners
and how their employees also want to be dealt with and treated?
And that's always what we looked at, and that's what we'll continue to do again.

(16:16):
Sounds great.
Next, the Biden-Harris administration routinely implemented a kind of one-size-fits-all policy
from its efforts to implement a California-style ABC test for independent contractors to a
nationwide heat standard rule to efforts to punish rural communities by shutting down
volunteer fire departments with top-down emergency response regulations.

(16:42):
Just as a philosophical thing, how valuable do you think it is for DOL to consider the
effects on different communities before implementing a one-size-fits-all new policy for the entire
country?
It's not only what we should be doing.
It's what the law requires us to do under the administration.
Any rulemaking we do, we need to hear from all constituents and review them to make the

(17:05):
best possible determination.
But for your specific question, it's very important, of course, that we balance health
and safety measures for workers ultimately, but also that, you know, in the case you're
referencing, that fire departments are able to comply with these rules and not have to
shut down and then not provide emergency services for predominantly in rural areas.

(17:25):
Senator Murray.
Good to see you again.
Thank you for meeting me.
In 2024, following an OFCCP evaluation, one of the largest global financial service companies
agreed to allocate $4.2 million in payments to resolve alleged sex discrimination and

(17:47):
undergo an outside-pay equity analysis.
In his first week in office, President Trump rescinded the executive order from 1965 that
authorized OFCCP to conduct that investigation.
Commissioner Sondling, do you believe that taxpayer dollars should go to companies that
discriminate?
Senator, first of all, thank you for the question and for meeting with me.

(18:12):
You have been throughout my time in government, I've enjoyed working with you both in my
prior nomination and this nomination.
Regarding the Office of Federal Contract Procedure, compliance procedures at the Department of
Labor, President Trump did rescind executive order 11246, which was the jurisdictional
basis for that.
However, not a single U.S. worker has lost any civil protection rights because of that

(18:37):
rescission.
My question was that I wanted to ask you, do you think that taxpayer dollars should go
to companies that discriminate?
Senator, that is not a determination that the Deputy Secretary of Labor or the Department
of Labor deals with.
There's a jurisdictional issue at the now the Department of Labor where that executive

(19:02):
order is no longer there.
But as I committed to you before, the Department of Labor will still completely and fully enforce
the laws.
I will say, I don't think the taxpayer dollars should go to companies that discriminate.
I can easily say that.
Let me go on.
In our meeting, you suggested that the Department of Labor is looking at eliminating OFCCP

(19:22):
entirely, even though it is recovered now more than $260 million for more than 250,000
employees and job applicants who were discriminated against by federal contractors over the last
decade.
And OFCCP just today announced plans to cut 90% of its staff and dozens of local offices.

(19:44):
So let me ask you this.
Do you think DOL has any role to play in addressing illegal discrimination?
First of all, Senator, I'm not aware of that report.
And we did discuss about how we can move forward with the rescission of the executive order
and still enforce the Veterans Vietnam Era Readjustment Assistance Act and also 503

(20:10):
of the Rehabilitation Act, which are still laws that the Department of Labor, Civil Rights
and Labor and Labor has to enforce.
I'm just asking you from your own philosophical personal position, do you think that DOL,
which you are going to want to go to work for, has any role in playing in addressing
discrimination in this country?
Well, do you think DOL should report?

(20:31):
Of course, DOL is the most important agency in my humble opinion related to all workplace
rights.
However, the specific question is related to discrimination, which now is the full jurisdiction
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Title VII.
Well, it's interesting that you say that because Trump fired two of the EAELC commissioners

(20:55):
in an unprecedented move, I would add.
So it really has undermined our government's ability to go after anti-discrimination.
So I am and everyone should be deeply concerned about that.
Let me go on because I just have a minute left and this is important.
You're hearing a lot about DEI's thrown out there everywhere.
So I'm going to ask about some bipartisan laws passed by Congress that were passed to

(21:19):
make sure that underserved Americans can receive workforce training and find good employment
opportunities.
And I want to know if the policies in these laws that I'm going to present to you amount
to DEI.
The Office of Disability Employment Policy has been statutorily authorized with, I'm
going to quote, eliminating barriers to the training and employment of people with disabilities.

(21:41):
Is that DEI?
Yes or no?
It is important to protect all rights of disabled workers and under my leadership the
Office of Disability Employment will continue to do that.
So that is not DEI?
That is a civil rights statute that the department enforces to make sure disabled people can
prosper in the workplace.
I know you know it is, but I'm asking if it's DEI because, you know, it's very confusing.

(22:01):
How about the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
We owe it.
And specifically, quote, says, individuals with a barrier to employment and requires
grantees to expand training to those individuals.
Is that DEI?
We owe it very important laws.
Everyone in this room.
Well, do you consider that to be DEI?
I consider that to be a very important part of the department's mission to make sure that

(22:25):
American workers can get the training they need.
Is the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 requires federal contractors to
take affirmative action to hire, retain and promote veterans?
Is that DEI?
It is important to protect all of our veterans.
It's important to protect everybody in the workplace.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I know you're pounding your gavel, but I just think it's pretty clear

(22:47):
that there is no standard definition of DEI across our federal government.
We should be very careful what we are saying and putting out there in the public.
Thank you, Senator Marshall.
Mr. Sondling, welcome.
It's good to see you again.
We've had some great discussions about workforce development.
We want everyone to have the job.

(23:08):
In Kansas, the biggest challenge we have is water.
We're not going to fix that today.
And a lack of people for the jobs that we have.
But there are lots of jobs that are going unfulfilled.
Jobs that would pay a great salary.
It's starting salary $80,000 a year, but they're not inside of an office.
It's using your hands and it's working outside in the Kansas weather as well.

(23:31):
But what can you do?
What could you do at the Department later to help empower the workforce to have the
skill set for the jobs that we have available in the state of Kansas?
Well, I really enjoyed our meeting very much, Senator, and to talk about the issues within
Kansas, not just on the workforce development side, but the various issues related to your
workforce.

(23:52):
And I really look forward to continuing moving on that.
As far as our discussion about workforce, I really enjoyed how we talked about, you
know, there's always going to be those vocational traits, whether to apprentices or otherwise.
And we need to keep encouraging individuals to go who may not want that traditional four-year
degree.
And that is exciting for those programs to be expanded and continue.

(24:14):
But as we talked about, how do we now make other types of apprenticeships?
Cool.
You know, and there's a lot of people who now who don't want to go to traditional four-year
degrees.
You think about everything related to technology.
You have 12, 13, 14-year-olds who can code and do AI better than some of the top scientists
at Google.
And they may not want to go to a four-year program because they are able to enter into

(24:38):
the tech workforce right now.
So how do we expand apprenticeships or other opportunities?
How do we do that?
How do we do it?
Through the Department of Labor.
Tell me how.
We're going to promote that and try to, in addition to the traditional vocational side,
we're going to try to get other companies to get involved, more tech-type companies to
get involved in this equation.

(24:59):
So often in DC, we work in the silos.
And I think there's this opportunity that we need to work with the Department of Education.
Right now, our Pell grants are really geared up for the four-year university, graduate
with a high volume of debt load, and a job that's a fraction of what you could if you're
willing to go work with your hands as well.

(25:20):
So what would you be advising or how could you work with the Department of Education?
We will work closely with our colleagues at the Department of Education to ensure that
all this, the federal money, whether it's on the Pell grants on the WIO, are actually
going to those students who want to engage and learn different traits, learn different
areas.
Come on, Max, what are the funniest interviews I've ever been involved with, funds, or that

(25:44):
type of workforce training?
And I think that's a messaging, and I think that's something we can all work on together
on how we do that.
I think it's prioritizing the dollars.
We have a finite amount of dollars.
We have to prioritize those as well.
The unions are doing just a great job with their apprenticeships, with their shorter
eight, 12-week courses as well.

(26:06):
Is there, what can we do to amplify those?
I understand that there's an education part of it, but how do we, what can we do in the
federal government level to make sure that any money we are given out are being able
to be used for those?
Well, this is an important part of the Department of Labor's employee training administration
to make sure all those federal dollars are actually going into workforce training developments

(26:27):
that's going to achieve results.
And I think, you know, you've confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Labor, I will work with
that division and work with all the senators in this room to make sure that those dollars
going to your states are actually producing those results, both in what you think traditionally
of the apprenticeship programs and also reimagining different paths.

(26:47):
Yeah, to me, again, I'm going back to this prioritized.
We're spending plenty of money.
I just didn't know if it's going in the right places as well.
What my last question looks like, how can you at the Department of Labor use resources
more efficiently, ensure that these funds will be properly spent and accounted for?

(27:07):
You have my commitment.
Our team will look at all federal dollars being spent in the workforce and make sure
that they're getting results.
These are still taxpayer funds, and we need to not only make sure that they're being
used properly, but the education that these students were receiving these federal funds
are actually leading to very good jobs.
And I think that's going to be the first indication of that, and that's what President

(27:29):
Trump's agenda is.
My last piece of advice is that we need to measure that success.
And I hope when we get to visit here in three months, I hope you're confirmed, is how do
we measure success?
And to me, it's some type of a very simple formula.
We spent this much money on these different programs, and then did this person get a job
when they finished?
What was their debt when they started the job?

(27:50):
What was their starting salary?
And maybe a point towards the future, what's a 10-year salary?
But we have to start measuring success, and then we see how we're spending dollars on
a certain program, and there's no return on that investment, then we need to eliminate
those.
I look forward to working with your office on that if confirmed.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Senator Murphy.

(28:14):
Senator Cain.
Mr. Sondland, congratulations on your nomination, and welcome to your family.
You are a senior advisor to the acting secretary.
How many Department of Labor employees have lost their jobs since the beginning of the
Trump administration?
I am a senior advisor right now at the U.S. Department of Labor.
I don't have the authority over firing decisions.

(28:38):
Do you not know the answer?
I do not know the answer.
Who would know the answer?
The acting secretary works with the career staff both in the solicitor's office and the
assistant secretary of management, the professionals in the HR team at the U.S. Department of Labor.
Is the answer to my question one that you're interested in or disinterested in?
If confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Labor, Senator, that is going to be...

(28:59):
Oh, you work there now.
You're there right now.
I am a senior advisor, I don't have the authority over HR, but I will.
In your testimony, you say my interest in protecting all Americans' rights in the workplace,
you're including federal employees, including the employees of your own agency, is that
correct?
I'm including every worker in the United States.
I guess I know the answer to this next question, which is, do you know how many veterans have

(29:23):
been fired at the Department of Labor since you began working there on inauguration day?
I do not.
Are you interested in that question or disinterested in that question?
Of course I'm interested in all the employees in the United States.
And you're aware because you've worked with the federal government before that pretty
high percentage of federal workforce is veterans, about 30% of those are federal workforce
is veterans.
And this is a tremendous honor for the federal government.

(29:47):
Yep.
Highly disproportionate number of disabled veterans.
Probationary employees have been laid off in the Department of Labor as well as other
agencies, correct?
And we pursue into OPM guidance and executive orders.
Just correct or incorrect.
That's why I read that as well.
Yep.
Probationary employees, just so folks know, they're not on probation because they did

(30:09):
something on what that means is they're new employees.
And they tend to either be young employees or career switchers, like veterans.
Veterans serve in the military.
I have a veteran who served for 25 years in Marine Corps, lives in Dumfries, Virginia.
Mr. Mujal is his name, service disabled, five years deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan

(30:31):
multiple times.
He left the military as a colonel in 2019 and got a job with the federal agency for
four years.
And then he got recruited to join another federal agency in March of last year.
And he served and now he's 30 years of service to the country, but he's a probationary employee
and he just got fired.

(30:52):
The numbers are coming in, people like you generally can't answer questions like this
in hearings, but the numbers are coming in, suggesting Donald Trump has fired more veterans
than any president in the history of the United States.
In six weeks!
Is that a good thing or a bad thing or are you indifferent to it?
If confirmed, I can promise you that I will follow all applicable law, make sure the age

(31:16):
of that is not, follow all applicable laws.
The if confirmed line works for somebody who isn't in the building.
People have been using that line.
If they're not in the building, I can't expect them to have answers to questions.
You are a special advisor to the acting secretary of labor and I've asked you a question.
Is mass firing of veterans who are federal employees a good thing, a bad thing, or are

(31:38):
you indifferent to it?
First of all, you know, I truly respect all veterans in the service of their country.
I've hired veterans, veterans that work for me.
I understand the sacrifice they've made personally.
Do you dispute what I am saying that veterans are disproportionately suffering by the Trump
layout policies?
Senator, I haven't done the workforce analysis.

(31:59):
So you can't dispute it, but you recognize what I've said that 30% of the workforce is
veterans and veterans are disproportionately in probationary status because they come from
one federal agency to become a civilian with the federal government.
I can assure you that the professional career staff at HR, the Department of Labor, and

(32:20):
the solicitor's office who are complying with all executive orders and OPM directives are
absolute professionals and will follow up and have a duty to make sure that nobody is
discriminating against them for technical characteristics.
When you are aware that the workplace is disproportionately veteran and you engage in

(32:40):
mass layoffs, you're disproportionately affecting veterans.
The civilian workforce is less than 5% veteran.
The federal workforce is 30% veteran.
You have said that you have an interest in protecting all Americans' rights in the workplace,
but you can't even answer a question that I'm asking you about your own workforce.

(33:01):
Now, I know you've only been there for six weeks, but you are in a highly elevated position.
You can't tell me how many folks have been fired.
I can't tell me how many are veterans.
You're not exactly sure who could give you the answer.
You haven't apparently been interested enough to get the information to be able to answer
my questions.

(33:21):
I just want to hold you to your standard.
If you want to protect all Americans' rights in the workplace, that better include veterans.
I yield back.
Senator Hustad.
Thank you, Chairman Cassidy.
Mr. Sonnerling.
Welcome.
And congratulations on your nomination.

(33:42):
On the first Friday of each month at 8.30 in the morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
announces a jobs report.
In my previous work as Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, I was in charge of economic development
and workforce development.
We used to watch that report very closely in instructing our work.

(34:06):
And we would certainly, though, not watch as closely as the Federal Reserve, who makes
interest rate decisions based on that, and certainly not as closely as the stock market
and the people who invest in this nation, because those statistics are really important
for a lot of people in making decisions about where the direction of the economy is going.

(34:31):
And so on that basis of how important it is, I was shocked in August of 2024 to find out
that the BLS overreported the number of jobs between March of 2023 and March of 2024 during
the Biden administration.

(34:52):
By 818,000 jobs, 30% overestimated about the number of jobs that were created during that
time period.
That's stunning to think that that could have happened by that large of a margin.

(35:13):
And so I'm interested in knowing, because this is a time when we have access to all kinds
of data, we have more data and more ways to collect information than ever.
I'm interested in, clearly this is a flawed system, is it subjected to manipulation,

(35:34):
is it incompetence, or is it just an outdated way of trying to make these measurements?
And so my question is, what can we do to improve that?
You have thoughts.
Thank you, Senator, for raising that issue.
You and I have discussed this at length, and I think the first and foremost related to

(35:55):
public trust and transparency in any of these positions is paramount to anything.
And if the public cannot trust the federal agencies to be doing the jobs they're supposed
to be doing, it's going to be very difficult for these agencies to continue their mission.
So that's what I'm very excited about President Trump's leadership and this administration.
That's why he was voted into office to be able to bring back that public trust and transparency

(36:18):
in these organizations.
To your specific question, the Bureau of Labor Statistics that does the jobs reports that
were your reference on the job correction, which obviously made national news, is an
agency that's independent of the Department of Labor.
So what I can promise you is that, if confirmed, we will work with our partners at the Bureau

(36:41):
of Labor Statistics to ensure that they have all the resources they need to be able to
accurately and timely put out job numbers without questions.
That's great because I think this is an incredibly important issue in terms of how decisions

(37:01):
get made in this country.
It is a matter of public trust and I would ask you to report back to us on what you learn
as you take a look at this and how we can get better.
Senator Marshall talked to you a little bit about apprentices and how we can get better.

(37:26):
Are there, have you given any thought to the idea that a lot of jobs today we are saying
you need a college degree for, but really you could just apprentice that job and credential
that job and it might not need a college degree to be able to say go to teach in high school

(37:48):
for auto body repair or some of these many career tech kind of jobs that the workplace
experience you had out in the marketplace may be a better way for you to do this.
Is there any way we could improve upon that?
Do you believe?
Absolutely and this was part of President Trump's campaign to improve the life of American

(38:09):
worker for them to have choices and it shouldn't be workers, students should have options.
If they want to go to a four year college and pursue that they should be able to.
If they want to go into trades or vocational or any of these different apprenticeship programs
we should encourage them to do both.
I think the Department of Labor plays the strongest role in ensuring for those who do

(38:31):
not want to go to the traditional four year colleges to get into the many options we have
on various workforce development training programs whether it's apprenticeships or other
kinds of participating bodies we have at the department in ETA related to ways to develop
the workforce.
Great, thank you Mr. Chairman.
Well thank you very much Mr. Chair and good morning Mr. Senator.

(38:57):
Congratulations to you and your family on your nomination.
Just a couple of things.
First of all, as I understand it last week at your staff interview you were asked some
of the very questions about numbers of layoffs at the Department of Labor that Senator King
just asked you.
And so if you were in fact interested given that you are in fact a senior advisor at the

(39:20):
department we would have expected you to have gone back and been prepared for those questions
and had answers.
So it is concerning and it raises a little bit of skepticism on my mind about how interested
you are really about who's being laid off at the Department of Labor and what kind of
process a term I'm using loosely because it doesn't seem there is any process with this

(39:42):
administration about how they're going about these layoffs was used.
But let me start with a question I've been asking all nominees and it's a really simple
question and it is related to recent events.
If directed by the President of the United States to take an action that would break
the law would you follow the law or follow the President's directive?

(40:03):
President Trump would never ask me to do that.
President Trump, let's just be really clear.
Is a convicted fellow?
He has violated the Empowerment Control Act that has been ruled constitutional by the
United States Supreme Court.
He has pardoned violent offenders some of whom have now been re-arrested for new acts

(40:24):
of violence including rape.
And he has just aligned the United States and America and voted the United Nations with
two of the most brutal dictators in modern history, Russia and North Korea.
So the notion that he wouldn't direct you to do something that breaks the law stretches
credulity.
Now, second question.

(40:47):
I am really concerned about attempts by members of Elon Musk's DOJ effort to access sensitive
data in DOL systems without proper oversight.
And I have a series of questions to ask you on this topic.
First, the Department of Labor Systems include the medical information of people who file
workers' compensation claims as well as the identities and personal information of people

(41:11):
who file other employment and whistleblower complaints against corporations.
If confirmed, how will you protect sensitive personal information at DOL?
First of all, Senator, the U.S. Department of Labor is subject to a lawsuit by multiple
unions regarding DOJ's access to the department.
And how are you going to go ahead, independent of that, what steps will you take to protect

(41:34):
sensitive personal information at DOL?
I just have to let you know that the Department of Justice is representing DOJ in all DOJ
matters and all questions related to DOJ are being dealt with in the court.
It is really disappointing to me how eager you are to evade giving direct answers here.
I'm also concerned that Elon Musk and any other member of DOJ could advance their own

(41:58):
private business interest by exploiting sensitive information or undermining investigations
at DOL.
These conflicts of interest are real.
So if confirmed, how would you address these significant conflicts of interest, conflicts
that exist because DOJ has members who have had unfettered access to data that they can

(42:18):
use for their personal and financial benefit?
Broadly in this administration, the President is committed that there are no conflicts of
interest in relating to the Department of Labor.
I'm very confident in the career solicitors and the career ethics officers who will ensure
that there are no conflicts within the Department.
Mr. Musk has extraordinary conflicts of interest.

(42:40):
This is a guy who's gotten $38 billion in subsidies from the federal government.
This is a guy who has ongoing investigations by the Department of Labor because of complaints
from his employees.
This is a guy who, we don't know how he plans to use the data and whether he's planning
to export it off his own platforms to build his financial business.

(43:02):
So you know, you are a skilled lawyer.
You know the answers to these questions.
And your unwillingness to either stand up to the President, acknowledge that this is
a President who isn't interested in following the law, and refusal to tell me that you will
stand up for people who work for the Department of Labor, whose data is kept by the Department

(43:25):
of Labor for the workers who are supposed to count on the Department of Labor to have
their back is really, really disappointing.
My last question for you is about child labor violations and what we will do to protect
child labor.
But seeing that I am out of time, I'm going to yield back and we'll submit that question
for the record.
Thank you, Senator.

(43:45):
Mr. Sondra Link, I want to ask you the same question I asked Ms. Chavez-Garima.
What does it mean to put American workers first in the 21st century economy?
Well, thank you, Senator Banks.
I really enjoyed our conversation and working with your team.
And this is what President Trump was elected for.

(44:05):
And this is why I'm excited to join this administration.
It's about putting the American worker first, period.
And the duty of all, his entire administration, and also the Department of Labor is to make
sure that the American worker is protected in all the various areas.
Now, why I'm personally biased and excited about the Department of Labor is because it

(44:28):
needs all the different areas that President Trump campaigned on for the workforce, whether
it's protecting worker salaries, whether it's protecting retirees, benefits, and pension
plans, whether it's helping America be healthy again through ensuring transparency in health
care plans.
It's just the entire scope of the Department of Labor from A to Z will really help move

(44:51):
forward the President's agenda with what he wants with the workforce, which I know I'm
sounding repetitive because that's about putting the American worker first and nobody else.
Very good.
Artificial intelligence holds a lot of promise.
Increased productivity, innovation in the economy, but it also threatens to wipe out
a lot of jobs.
How do we balance those two concerns that we have?

(45:13):
One with growing our economy and the other with the jobs that could be lost through AI
and other innovation?
And we have to look at this in various ways.
The first and foremost position is that any use of artificial intelligence in the workforce,
something I'm obviously very passionate about, complies with longstanding laws, whether it's

(45:33):
civil rights laws, whether it's health and safety laws, to ensure that it's being used
properly on the American workforce to actually help make them more productive, help make
their jobs better, safer, more secure.
And there's a lot of promise with AI on that.
But on the flip side, if we don't have those American values built into it, if we don't
have those civil rights protections built into artificial intelligence, not only are

(45:57):
people potentially going to be discriminated, but the products are not going to be able
to do what they are intended to do.
So that's always been a passion of mine.
But now in this role of the Department of Labor, it's much broader than that.
Now how do we make sure, number one, that the American workforce, that the American
worker are actually the ones being able to be trained on this, to be able to be able
to use it?

(46:18):
How do we develop those programs in place, the Department of Labor, to train the next
generation of workers to be confident about using AI?
To not feel like it's going to make them lose their jobs, but it's going to make their jobs
better.
And I think that's a very important part of this administration.
And then of course, you know, we have to make sure that the products continue to be developed
here and not overseas.

(46:39):
And how do we do that?
Again, through that proper workforce training that we've been discussing.
So it's illegal to hire illegal immigrants, but companies that hire illegal immigrants
often commit other crimes, wage theft or breaking child labor laws, for example.
I assume you agree that putting American workers first means that we hold companies accountable

(47:03):
that break the law and hire illegal immigrants.
My first question on that note is, why did the Biden administration refuse to allow ICE
to go into businesses to crack down on big businesses who hire the illegal immigrants?
I don't know what was going on during the Biden administration at ICE or the Department

(47:23):
of Labor.
What I can assure you in the Trump administration that you can enforce all laws.
And you don't have to not enforce certain laws at the detriment of other laws.
Whether it's immigration laws, whether it's employment laws, they can all be enforced
together.
And you know, if it confirms Deputy Secretary of Labor, you will have my full commitment
that all of the laws that the Department of Labor enforces will be enforced.

(47:46):
And other agencies will also be able to enforce their laws equally as well.
I understand that the Department of Labor shares some of these responsibilities with
ICE, who is the enforcement arm.
But is it correct me if I'm wrong?
But is it true that the Biden Department of Labor blocked ICE from entering workplaces
to enforce labor laws?

(48:10):
If confirmed, I can certainly work with you on those issues to see what was going on.
But you came into us today along with Secretary Tv Shavastarima that you will not block federal
law enforcement agencies from going into the workplace to enforce those laws, to put American
workers.
And I would like to put all of our federal partners to make sure that all laws of the

(48:31):
United States, and there's 180 of them that the Department of Labor, are fully enforced.
Mr. Chairman, it's crazy to me that the last administration would block law enforcement
from going into workplaces to enforce these important laws.
So that's the most important commitment that I've heard today.
I appreciate you being here.
You have my full support.
I yield back.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Blunt-Rodgers.

(48:51):
And thank you, Mr. Sondering, for your support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Sondering, for the meeting that we had.
I will tell you, I started my work here today with a list of questions.
But as I've heard other Senators ask questions, I've gotten more and more concerned.

(49:15):
I'm concerned when Senator Murray asked you if companies that discriminate should receive
taxpayer dollars, you did not give a clear answer.
I'm concerned that when the question of supporting people with disabilities and protecting them
with their rights came up, and the question of, well, how does that relate to DEI-A, and

(49:40):
how does that relate to civil rights protections, you were not clear.
I'm concerned that when we met, I asked you specifically about the employees at the department
and how many of them were let go, or what should be the responsibility of this department
for those workers, and numerous Senators asked the same question, and it still wasn't clear.

(50:06):
I literally, while I was sitting here, did a Google search and found on Bloomberg Law
information about how many employees from the Department of Labor were let go.
So I understand the saying that we, or you, and this administration, support American

(50:26):
workers, but to the people who are dealing with avian flu, to the veterans who make up
almost a third of the workforce, and half of those are disabled veterans, to the individuals
who were nuclear scientists that protected our safety.
To all of these workers, I don't think they feel very much seen or protected, and that

(50:50):
has impact on all of us, all of our safety, all of our health.
And so I only really have one question.
My question is, are these employees also the American workforce that you would put first?
Of course.
I don't feel it, they don't feel it, we're not seeing it, and we're all starting to feel

(51:13):
the impacts of this arbitrary, in some ways, using a chainsaw to get rid of employees that
really do make a difference in our lives.
I shared with you, I'm the former Secretary of Labor from the state of Delaware, what
we are seeing is not workforce planning, what we are seeing is not smart when we have a

(51:36):
national workforce shortage, and we are just firing people that we need.
So that was my only question, again, very disappointing.
And again, I would love to see not the same pattern of nominees coming in and saying,

(51:59):
I'm sorry I'm not in there yet, I can't answer that question, especially when you actually
are in the department.
I yield back.
Thank you, Senator.
And Mr. Chairman, I was not here when we took the vote before the committee to confirm
or to advance Laurie Chavez, Doremer, to be the Secretary of Labor.

(52:26):
I intended to support her nomination moving out of committee if it's appropriate.
I would ask unanimous consent to be recorded as yes by proxy.
Without objection.
Mr. Son, thank you for the opportunity for discussion last week.

(52:48):
As I shared with you, probably a greater length than you wanted.
I enjoyed it very much.
Well, you learned a lot about fish.
Yes, flying.
We're going to do it together.
We're going to take you up there, you're going to see for yourself, but I shared with you
the disappointment that I've had over the years that the department can be an obstacle

(53:09):
to us in obtaining H2B workers by not processing timely these labor certifications.
I share that I think that the system is broken.
We need these workers.
We would love nothing more than to have 100% American workers, but our reality is despite
every effort that we have made, we have been not successful with that.

(53:32):
If we don't have the workers, the fish can't be processed and we have an industry that
falls to its knees.
I really appreciate your commitment to working with me to help meet Alaska's seafood workforce
needs.
I look forward to that.
You have my full commitment.
We had a long, just very technical discussion about the H2B program, but I really think
that's a very good example of why there's a need for that program.

(53:55):
As you know, the Department of Labor is jurisdiction related to this.
It's not only to test the labor market, whether it be salaries or actually workforce, but
this is an example where there is no local workforce.
We need this program to be able to succeed in both in Alaska, Maryland, Virginia, more
closer by with the seasons and the technicalities of this.

(54:17):
I am fully committed to working on that with you together to make sure that the seafood
seasons, which don't align necessarily with other temporary working seasons, that we're
able to process this to you have my full commitment on that.
I look forward to working on that.
Let me shift to our veterans.
The Veterans Employment and Training Services Overseas Program designed to help our vets

(54:41):
transition, transition service members and our military spouses.
This is important as they're seeking to gain meaningful employment.
And Assistant Secretary for this program for vets hasn't been nominated yet.
Can you commit to prioritizing appointing a veteran who has first-hand experience with

(55:02):
the challenges of transitioning to civilian development?
Can you give me that kind of an assurance?
I think it's important.
Absolutely.
Let me say a few things on this.
It is very important, in my opinion, that a veteran lead that department, and one that
understands the complexities of leaving service and coming into the private sector workforce,
somebody who could actually help them with the military codes, change it to their resume,

(55:25):
and see the types of jobs that are best to their skill.
That's a huge part of the vets' commitment to ensure that not only they're spending
and training for that, but you actually can do that.
I think you have my full commitment, and I'm going to speak on behalf of the hopefully
soon-to-be Labor Secretary, that we will ensure that that role gets filled.

(55:45):
Great, thank you.
I appreciate that.
It is key, it's significant, and that kind of experience, you just can't replicate without
having that veteran background.
I was here when Senator Hussin was talking about the sensitivity of information at Department

(56:09):
of Labor, and know that this senator shares the concern about confidentiality of that.
We can talk pros and cons about how Doge is moving through, but as I'm talking to Alaskans,
one of the concerns that I'm hearing is we don't know why there are those who are gaining
access.

(56:30):
It may be fine, it may be not, but I'm nervous about it.
I think that we can alleviate anxiety and nervousness by just saying your sensitive
data is going to remain confidential, so I just wanted to put that up on the record
for that.
I want to talk to you about apprenticeships, and we've shared the concerns that we have

(56:52):
in rural areas.
It's just hard.
You've got folks who want to be part of the skilled workforce, but I think we need to
find some more creative ways to support workforce development in rural areas, not just Alaska,
other parts of the country, where communities are kind of disconnected from the traditional

(57:16):
workforce.
I don't know if you have any specifics that you can give me in 20 seconds or just a commitment,
but we need to focus on this rural workforce.
You have my full commitment, and as we discussed in my last time at Ways and Hours, I studied
the Alaska workforce, both from a DOL perspective and the needs that the Department of Labor
needs to give there, and you have my full commitment that we will work together again

(57:37):
in this administration to make sure that all aspects of the Department of Labor programs
are available in Alaska.
Thank you.
Senator Also Brooks.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and a good morning to you, Mr. Sonderling.
Thank you for being here.
Now, you've talked a lot in various points today included about your deep respect for

(58:02):
civil servants and for those who are career servants at the Department of Labor in the
important work that they do there every single day.
Yet, unfortunately, this administration continues to attack these workers.
The Department of Labor civil servants received the same email as others across government

(58:22):
over the weekend telling them to submit five bullet points describing the work that they
had done over the last week with Elon Musk saying to them that a failure to respond would
be considered a resignation.
Now this directive, and I believe this was the point of it, caused chaos, confusion,
and fear for department employees, and the Department of Labor staff apparently received

(58:46):
because of the sheer incompetence of this administration mixed messages from their supervisors
on how to respond.
Now some managers told staff that the choice to respond was at their discretion, and so
I would like to know who was involved in making decisions at the Department regarding the
guidance that was given to department employees.

(59:08):
Well, thank you, Senator, for that question.
The directives that come from OPM, whether it's the guidance related to responding to
emails or not, goes to the Office of Assistant Secretary for Management at Department of
Labor, which is the HR department at the OAL.
So any kind of response or not response, how to deal with it, I would have to defer to the

(59:32):
professional staff at the HR department.
Were you involved in that decision making?
I was not, and I did receive that email myself.
Well, you are a senior leader in the administration on the landing team, is that correct?
I was, I've been in the administration since the first day as an advisor, is that correct?

(59:52):
Okay, and so how is it possible that you weren't involved in such a high level decision as
a person who's a senior part of the transition team, or you've been there in the building,
you have been a part of the landing team, how is it possible that you weren't involved?
It is a large agency and there's professional career staff that handle various aspects of
the department.
The specific question you're asking about, go to the professional staff in the human

(01:00:16):
resources divisions, which I don't manage and I don't have authority over, and I trust
them fully.
But you were aware of these discussions?
I was not involved in these discussions.
But you were aware of the discussions and aware of the decision that was made to send
this out?
No, I'm from OPM?
From Elon Musk?
No, I was not involved in any of that.

(01:00:37):
I received email the same time everyone did on Saturday after I read about it on Twitter.
What I think again points to the sheer incompetence to even send the email to you, says something
horrible about the people in the building, but given the issues with conflicting guidance,
which we now acknowledge, you acknowledge that there were issues with this conflicting
guidance since you yourself received one of the ridiculous emails, I'd like to know,

(01:01:00):
can you commit that no one will lose their job due to to proceed non-compliance with
Elon Musk's order?
If confirmed, and I have oversight of the HR department, I will commit to you that our
HR professional career staff will follow all directives and all laws.
Okay, that doesn't necessarily answer the question because there are people who want

(01:01:22):
maternity leave who receive these messages and others, will you commit to protect those
individuals who had no opportunity to respond?
I will make sure that the professional career staff in the HR department follows all regulations
and all laws, and I trust them to do that.
Will those laws include collective bargaining agreements?

(01:01:43):
The department obviously has collective bargaining agreements with various federal government
unions.
There are divisions within the Department of Labor in that same HR group that handles
all of those.
They are the professionals in managing collective bargaining agreements and unions, and I trust
them fully to do their jobs.
Well, the reason I ask is because Ms. Chavez-Derimer, who's here I know today, was unable to affirmatively

(01:02:06):
commit to abiding to all terms and conditions of collecting bargaining agreements between
the Department of Agency staff, saying instead, I will work with the experts to understand
the collective bargaining process at the department.
So can you commit to abide by all terms and conditions of the department's collective
bargaining agreement, and do you understand the collective bargaining process?

(01:02:31):
I am not a traditional labor lawyer, but I know we have a lot of experts at the Department
of Labor career staff in this listed office that are experts in dealing with federal government
unions and collective bargaining.
Now, sir, working as you are a labor and employment attorney and you were a leader at the department
for years, correct?
And you don't know about collective bargaining agreements?

(01:02:51):
I know about them, but I trust the experts who have done this in their entire career
to help guide us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Senator Halley.
Mr. Sondering, nice to see you again.
Nice to see you.
I enjoyed our conversation today.
I've been talking about a pro-worker framework for policy and legislation that I hope to advance
in this Congress, doing comments and things like delivering transparency in the workforce,

(01:03:15):
building abusive employers accountable, making union elections fair and timely, getting fair
and timely initial contracts when employees vote for union and boosting penalties for
unfair treatment.
You and I have talked about this.
Some of you kindly offered in my office to work with me and provide technical feedback
on the legislation and other forms of support.
Are you willing to reaffirm that today and to help us as we try to advance in this Congress

(01:03:41):
legislation that will protect workers along the lines that President Trump has talked
about and also strengthen our economy?
Senator, I enjoyed our conversation.
I enjoy not only your passion for the workforce, but also President Trump's vision on bringing
everyone together in his administration.
And as we discussed for you or any other senator, you have the full resources of the Department

(01:04:04):
of Labor for any technical assistance on any part of the bill that this Congress decides
that they would like to move forward or any of the senators want to sponsor.
We will be there to assist you, providing technical guidance through both our political
and career staff to make sure that you all can pass legislation.
Good.
Very good.
Thank you for that.
Let me ask you a little bit about artificial intelligence, which is something else that

(01:04:25):
you and I discussed, and I enjoyed our conversation.
You talked about your tenure at the EEOC and your role that you played helping to determine
the appropriate uses for AI in hiring.
What role do you think AI should play when it comes to federal hiring?
I think that we have to look at this, whether it's the federal government or the private

(01:04:46):
sector the same way.
The tools that are being developed out of Silicon Valley are being used in the hiring
process not just here in the U.S., but across the world.
And I think the U.S. needs to obviously lead in that innovation.
We need to keep that innovation here, but how do we do that?
And that's what we discussed, making sure that all these tools are designed in accordance
with our longstanding laws.

(01:05:07):
No matter what the use is, we talked about employment, but there's obviously another
lot of different kinds of uses of artificial intelligence, and we are not going to be able
to succeed as a global leader in AI without making sure that the products are developed,
designed, and deployed in accordance with the laws that Congress have passed.
Not new laws yet, not new government bodies with what we have in the executive branch.

(01:05:30):
And there's a lot of old laws that we can apply to this.
They're not outdated.
That's our job to apply.
Let me just zoom out on this a little bit and ask you more broadly.
Many American workers are very concerned about losing their jobs to AI, concerns that I think
are very well-founded.
What's your message to American workers who feel at risk from this so-called AI revolution

(01:05:52):
and think, gee, pretty soon, I'm not going to have a job at all?
Well, this is a very, very important conversation.
Another conversation on how we win, making sure that all workplace workers who are going
to be either using these tools, subject to these tools, are not fearful that they're
going to be replaced by them.
And that's really working with the entire AI community, whether it's the venture capitalists,

(01:06:14):
the vendors, to ensure that these products are developed, designed, and deployed with
that in mind, that this is going to essentially make your job easier, better, and you could
be more enjoyable and thrive more in the workplace and not having that fear of displacement.
And if these tools are used to displace workers, that's a whole different conversation that
we need to have before that occurs, to make sure that all protections in the workforce

(01:06:37):
are built into the assistance.
Because if they're not, then that's a part we could use law enforcement if jobs are improperly
being displaced by our professional intelligence, the same way we would do if it was by humans.
Yeah, I just want to, I'm glad to hear that answer, and I just want to register a concern
here that I've registered in another context, which is we hear a lot about the AI revolution
and how wonderful it's going to be for workers.

(01:06:59):
And I hope that that's true.
And I think it should be the business of this Congress to make sure it is true, because
what I am not willing to see are large amounts of jobs, really any number of good paying
jobs ruined, destroyed, taken by AI.
We have too few good paying blue collar jobs in this country.
I don't want an AI revolution that takes away even more of those jobs.

(01:07:20):
I remember when the CEO of Microsoft not so long ago was sitting where you're sitting
and testifying before a different committee of which I was a member, and he said, oh,
we should love AI.
It's wonderful soon we will automate and take away all kinds of non-creative jobs that
we really don't need in this country anymore, like everyone who might work at a service
restaurant, for example.

(01:07:42):
We just won't need any of those people.
I said to him, that's not a utopia.
That sounds to me like a dystopia.
That sounds to me like you're eliminating hundreds of thousands, millions of jobs that
are often the way that workers get their foot in the door.
They get into the labor force.
So I'm glad to hear your answers.
I'm glad for your work on AI.
We've got to make sure that our workers are benefiting from the technology, not being

(01:08:04):
ravaged and preyed upon by this technology.
Senator Kim.
Thank you, Chair.
I actually just want to pick up exactly where that left off.
Just trying to get a little bit more clarity on your position regarding AI.
I saw a quote that you had given previously where you said, quote, less enforcement we

(01:08:24):
have, if you were talking about federal regulation, less enforcement we have on AI is a good
thing because employees aren't having their rights violated and employers aren't violating
these laws.
I guess I just wanted to ask you more specifically, what role do you think the federal government
can and should play when it comes to AI regulation as we're worried in a bipartisan way about

(01:08:47):
job loss and replacement?
Not augmentation of work, but replacement.
And I'm not sure I said it exactly like that, but what I meant to say, if AI can actually
be designed in accordance with not only our nation's laws and our nation's values, we
can hopefully, with a lot of qualifiers, get to a place where AI discriminates less than

(01:09:09):
humans in the employment application process throughout the employee life cycle.
As a former commissioner of the EEOC, we see that bias in employment decision making occurs
and there's a lot of statistics related to that.
What I was saying, if AI is designed, developed, and employed in a transparent manner where
we can understand what the factors are that go into that, it can discriminate less.

(01:09:32):
And if there's less discrimination, there's less enforcement.
That was the context of that very specific.
It was very much in the employment side in a very specific context and what I was arguing
there is if we have it right, we can actually have a contemporaneous record of how an employment
decision was being made.
If you think right now how an employment decision is being made, if there's bias, we don't know

(01:09:54):
what was in that hiring manager's brain.
We can't crack that.
And when you ask somebody if they discriminated, very rarely does anyone actually ever admit
that.
So what I was saying is that if we get the AI transparent, we can actually see those employment
decisions, see if it was fair or see if it was biased.
And that's very hard to do right now without technology.
That's a helpful clarification.
I guess I'd like to expand it and get your sense then along the lines of what my colleague

(01:10:17):
was just asking.
Are there any particular industries and sectors where you think that AI and next generation
technologies can get to a place where they are replacing and displacing workers, not
augmenting?
I'm just wondering are there certain areas, certain sectors, certain types of jobs you
are worried about and you would want to keep an eye on as the deputy?

(01:10:38):
Yeah, that's a great question.
There's been a lot of very fancy studies done on this and putting my former EOC commissioner
hat on, what I was concerned with from that job is who is going to, who would have this
proportionally impact from a discrimination standpoint?
How do we go back?
Sorry, I'm not asking about the employment side.
I'm asking about actually like, are you worried about, for instance, the trucking industry?

(01:11:00):
Yeah.
So tell them to tell, I'm trying to help people who are in juries across this country understand
what are the vulnerabilities when it comes to our workforce, when it comes to AI, get
your perspective as someone who may very well play a critical role in this.
Yeah, and this is where we have to use the other side of the department of labor to make
sure that if there are people being displaced by AI jobs, which I was getting to is inevitable,

(01:11:24):
that we have the tools to be able to reskill, upscale, whatever the fancy.
My question is, what jobs are you worried about?
What industries are you worried about?
And then we can hone in on figuring out how to try to address it, how to be able to provide
people in those industries certain types of training.
Well, I mean, if you look at the jobs being displaced by gendered AI, a lot of those are

(01:11:46):
knowledge worker jobs.
A lot of those are jobs that have been historically done within an office.
And now that's an area that we need to reskill and make sure that there are remaining parts
of their job.
If not, where else in the workforce do they fit with those skills that they previously
had?
I just want to switch gears.
I just want to ask you, do you support the work that OSHA does regarding safe workplaces

(01:12:09):
and environments?
Of course, it is one of the most important missions of the Department of Labor to ensure
that all workers have a healthy and safe workplace.
Do you think OSHA has been sufficiently funded over the years?
I am committed to doing a full workplace analysis, not just on OSHA, but every other
enforcement agency within the Department of Labor to make sure that each agency has the
investigative and law enforcement and safety resources that they need.

(01:12:33):
There have been some efforts in the past to try to cut OSHA.
When I was over in the House, we saw $95 million proposals by the House Republicans to cut
OSHA.
Does that concern you at all?
If confirmed, I will look at not only the workplace makeup, but also the budgetary needs
for the Department and work with the White House and this Congress to make sure that

(01:12:55):
the agencies are able to function with the proper budget.
But you recognize the importance of this, and if you're confirmed, you'll work with
this committee to make sure that it's being protected to the level that we need to ensure
safe work environment.
I will confirm and ensure you that for all the agencies within the Department of Labor
are all very important.
As Deputy Secretary, we will make sure that everyone has the resources they need.

(01:13:20):
Thank you.
Are you okay?
Senator Moody.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Sonning, I, number one, go Gators.
Go Gators.
So important.
We must get that out of the way.
You missed a photo with two former senators.
George Lemieux is here.
Go Gators is ruled out.
Oh, yes.
Oh, I just lost my confirmation.

(01:13:42):
Go Tigers.
Did not see a former Lemieux who I have the honor of now serving in his senatorial line.
So it's such a privilege.
You missed the Florida picture.
We'll have to make up for that.
I was, the first time we met was in the office when I got to interview for this important
nomination.
I was so impressed with you, not just because of your incredible educational pedigree, but

(01:14:04):
your grasp of what this department does, what it is meant to do, what it is not meant to
do, and the way that you have volunteered so selflessly when you could be doing so much
in the private world, probably to your pecuniary benefit, but using your talents and your gifts
of God to benefit this nation and this country that you love, it was very inspiring to me,

(01:14:25):
and I just want you to know that.
Thank you.
You know, the American labor plays a vital role in creating our wealth in this nation.
It's with the department's founding that the federal government sought to balance the rights
of the American laborer with the innovation and growth of American industry, and this
was a noble goal that was set forth in our earliest days, and although we were not always

(01:14:49):
perfect, it was through our efforts of a self-governing people and through our innovation that we
came to create the freest and most dynamic economy in the world.
Yet, under the previous administration, I was surprised and disappointed when I saw
the department veer from this crucial mission and instead take many times a hostile stand
against the independence of the American worker and the productivity of American business,

(01:15:14):
and rather than facilitate the collaboration and cooperation between Americans and all
sectors, the administration seemed to divide American from American.
In pursuit of political and ideological ends, Biden-appointed officials overzealously interpreted
the law to the detriment of Americans and attacked states that deviated from their ideological

(01:15:34):
line.
We talked a lot about this during your interview.
In Florida, we had federal funding threatened because our legislature, as representatives
of the people of Florida, dared to pass a law that limited automatic dues withdrawals
from paychecks and other common-sense reforms.
In response, I filed suit on behalf of Florida.

(01:15:56):
And I believe the department can play a vital role in growing our economy and at the same
time protecting the American worker while respecting the rights of the states to pass
common-sense laws.
I think it is very time, very important right now, this moment in our country's history,
that the American worker and the American business and the American economy comes first.

(01:16:20):
And we can do that at the same time.
And I believe you and your team will make that a reality.
But the Department of Labor must return to its core mission, and that is to help make
this country productive again.
And I just want to get from you, Mr. Sondling, I know we've talked about several things in
our meeting, but when the Biden administration threatened to withhold federal funding after

(01:16:43):
Florida enacted landmark legislation that enabled public workers to make their own decisions
on whether to join a union and prohibited unions from withdrawing union dues directly
from employees' paychecks without consent, we had to bring litigation over that because
$800 million was on the line to our state.
I would like to know how you will prevent that from happening in the future, and do

(01:17:07):
you respect the rights of states to enact common-sense right to work laws?
Thank you, Senator.
And number one, as you know, this issue is in litigation and the Department of Justice
represents the Department of Labor.
However, I can assure you as Deputy Secretary of Labor, all the laws that the U.S. Department
of Labor enforces will be done so fair and without any political bias or prejudice, period.

(01:17:34):
And I think to speak broadly about the Department of Labor under jurisdiction under the Federal
Transit Act related to certifying the funds going to certain states, you know, and very
technical issue with the 13C requirement with six various elements, what I can assure you
is that all elements like that, that the Department of Labor has to make a judgment call on, will

(01:17:56):
be done so in accordance with the law and nothing else, and no political bias will be injected
into that.
You have my absolute assurance whether it's on that issue or any issue across the board.
To your second question, of course, I respect states being able to pass bills.
You know, the bill in reference for Senate Bill 256, Florida is completely within its

(01:18:16):
jurisdiction to do that, and other states are similar as well.
And I will continue to respect that as Deputy Secretary of Labor.
And I will just tell the committee as I wrap this up, I had a whole other line of questioning
regarding the lost children in the Department of Labor's involvement in that.
Your preparation and ability to handle not only my interviews from very tough questions,

(01:18:44):
you were on the spot, you knew everything, and had a great response to every question,
I know you will serve incredibly well in this role.
I have great confidence in you.
No Florida bias there.
None at all.
Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Sondering.
The President has indicated that he wants to bring back Presidential Empoundment Authority.

(01:19:10):
The Congressional Empoundment Act of 1974 puts limits on the President's authority to
impound funds.
I serve on the Subcommittee of Appropriations that funds the Department of Labor.
And I would like to hear whether you will ensure that funding decisions that are made

(01:19:35):
and passed by this Congress are implemented as intended.
First of all, as Deputy Secretary, it will be my first time really diving into the federal
budget process, and I look forward very much to working with you and ensuring that at all
times any decisions related to funding or the Department's use and spending of that

(01:19:56):
funding is absolutely coordinated with our career solicitors office who understands those
laws.
When Congress passes appropriation bills funding the Department of Labor and its various subdivisions,
will you implement as Congress intends?
I will always follow along.

(01:20:18):
Okay.
In the past month you have been the Senior Advisor to the Acting Secretary of Labor.
In that time the Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, has received access to large data sets
within the Department of Labor, which include an incredible amount of very sensitive data,

(01:20:42):
including medical and financial records of Americans.
Mr. Sonderling, in your role as Senior Advisor, how are you interacting with and working with
DOGE?
Well, I can assure you that everything related to DOGE at the Department of Labor is being
handled right now by the Department of Justice.
There was a lawsuit filed by unions against the Department of Labor related to DOGE's

(01:21:07):
access to the Department of Justice.
What is the question that is before the court with regard to DOGE's access?
Whether or not they're allowed to have access to any assistance in the Department of Labor.
You can answer that in a question of have they been given access previously.
I would have to refer you to the court documents that lays out all of the access.

(01:21:30):
Is that the question before the court?
Yes, among other things related to DOGE, but any access to any assistance?
So the question is have they even had access to the data?
What was all being dealt with through the Department of Justice?
I can't even ask the question of whether you've interacted with anybody from DOGE in your
capacity as the Senior Advisor to the Acting Secretary of Labor.

(01:21:51):
Everything related to DOGE is tied up in the Department of Justice's defense of the lawsuit
related to their access or their assistance.
Who would I ask this question to?
The Department of Justice represents the Department of Labor in this bill.
The Department of Justice would tell me who at Labor has had access.
We need to be able to ask questions about what has happened to the sensitive data of

(01:22:16):
Americans, including medical records and financial records.
And you're saying you can't answer that question even though you've been there as this access
has taken place?
Everything related to DOGE's access or requested access to the Department of Labor is in litigation
right now here in DC and the Department of Justice represents the Department of Labor

(01:22:40):
on all of those matters.
One of the sets of records that they may have access to is with regard to OSHA.
OSHA collects a lot of information with regard to their enforcement of rules about workplace
safety.

(01:23:01):
Does DOGE have access to OSHA records at this point in time?
Everything related to DOGE's access to the Department of Labor is being dealt with in
court in DC and the Department of Justice represents the access frozen during the court's
contemplation of these issues?
According to my knowledge of the lawsuit, which is all based on public information, there
has been zero access given.

(01:23:24):
Can you make any comment about last week's report that OSHA closed a case regarding workers
death at a Tesla plant in Austin, Texas?
I am not aware of that.
You're not aware of that?
No.
I would defer you to the leadership in OSHA.
One of the issues that I have been involved with is, frankly, how dangerous it is to be

(01:23:51):
a healthcare worker and a social worker at this point in time in terms of workplace violence.
Do you support OSHA's role in creating rules to address workplace violence faced by our
healthcare personnel and social workers?
If confirmed, I will assure you that I will look into this issue and work specifically

(01:24:12):
with your office on this issue because it is important to you and everyone else.
Mr. Chair, I run out of time.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Sondling.
Good to see you.
Nice to see you, too.
Thank you for your time and access.
Back on January 25th, President Trump fired the 17 inspectors general across 18 agencies,

(01:24:39):
including the IG, the Department of Labor.
We didn't get any notice or any rationale.
The administration set goals to reduce fraud and waste.
But the firing inspectors from their posts, installing many of the audits on federal resources,

(01:25:02):
is definitely reducing transparency in the public.
We get hundreds of calls about what's going on.
Most of the question today has been around this stuff.
But do you report the transition?
Did you hear any rationale for getting rid of those inspector generals en masse, all
of them at once?
That was a decision that only President Trump can make as the leader of the executive branch.

(01:25:28):
And it is his authority, within his full authority, to make all personnel decisions related to
the executive branch.
But you'll really hear why, what the rationale was.
I don't argue he's got the authority.
I'm just curious whether he gave a rationale to you folks doing the work.
I'm not aware.

(01:25:49):
When you have an acting inspector general now, I understand.
Is that an over-seeing effort to reduce fraud and waste?
We do have an acting inspector general with the full powers of an inspector general.
They are separate from the Department of Labor.

(01:26:11):
We don't have direct oversight of them.
If I'm deputy secretary, they're independent.
So I believe they are functioning in full capacity.
And what kind of a vetting process did this inspector general go through?
The acting general?
Yes, the person in place now.
I'm not sure.
He was here before I started.

(01:26:34):
And I think he's a career employee now in the acting position.
So you have confidence in the work he's doing?
I have 100% confidence in the Department of Labor.
All the visions in the staff.
And you have a broad experience in government, some of the broadest actually of people we've
talked to in any of these confirmation hearings.

(01:26:57):
You obviously understand the importance of whistleblowers, making sure that we can get
relevant information at the relevant time and make sure that the public feels like there's
no cover-up, that there's no secret deals going on.
And we can find ways to understand what the workers are going through and find ways to

(01:27:18):
improve productivity, get rid of fraud and waste.
What assurances are we able to give those workers that they can blow the whistle, as
it were, report issues that they think are of real importance and yet be protected from
repercussions?
Well, Senator, this is a very important issue for the Department of Labor.

(01:27:42):
As you know, OSHA enforces over 25 whistleblower laws that Congress has determined that should
be at the Department of Labor even for areas outside of our jurisdiction.
So it is a very important part of the Department of Labor to deal with whistleblower cases
across many federal statutes.
To your specific question, there are whistleblower laws.

(01:28:03):
As a former EOC commissioner, there's also retaliation protection related to some of those
laws as well.
And I can assure you that all laws at the Department of Labor enforces, we will continue
to do that.
I appreciate that.
Last, you'll remember when we talked to the mayor for a while, Governor.
A lot of things.

(01:28:23):
Eight years of mayor, eight years of governor.
And we did work to make governor smaller.
And one of the things we, you and I discussed this a little bit, but when you're having
layoffs, and we've seen layoffs now in six of the departments in Labor, the morale is
so important.
And what steps do you anticipate taking when confirmed, if confirmed?

(01:28:50):
How do you go about addressing the issues about morale?
Because we are hearing from a number of employees, not even people who have been laid off, but
employees, they feel disheartened, disenchanted, that their morale is very low.
Yeah, I think, you know, two things.
One, if confirmed, I will make sure that all applicable laws and regulations are applied

(01:29:11):
in any kind of workforce development changes.
Number two, I think it's very important, and I think the Department of Labor employees
and all employees of the federal government truly believe in their mission.
And I think a lot of it is going to be refocusing on the purposes of these agencies at the
UAL to protect the American workforce.
Well, there are no laws about morale, so I guess I'll end it there.

(01:29:34):
Thank you.
Thank you, Senator.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Asundling, I believe that workers should be able to clock into work knowing that they'll
return home safe.
My father was a young man working in a factory, his finger got chopped off, and the boss said

(01:29:59):
to him, you should probably go to a Dr. John and see it work on them.
My father used to use another finger on the same hand to describe his attitude to us,
the boss, and that was before OSHA was put on the bus so long.
And he would make fun of that situation with us, but we know that he missed his finger.

(01:30:22):
Now at the time, Republicans said, well, if you put something like OSHA on the bus, it's
Marxist.
You can't have that kind of Marxism going into the private sector.
It's just a private bar between an individual and the worker and the company.
But of course, my father didn't view it that way.

(01:30:43):
He supported OSHA being put on the bus.
So 200 workers lose a finger or an arm or a leg at work every single month in America
today.
200 Americans.
And I'm a leg or a finger at work every single month.
And there are also 5,000 workplace fatalities every single year in the United States of

(01:31:07):
America, which translates into about 15 workers dying every single day across our country.
So even with OSHA on the bus, and it was much worse, no pressure, much worse in the
40s, in the 50s.
But it still is a lot of people every single day.
Yet according to the Department of Labor's own data, there's only one health and safety

(01:31:31):
inspector per 4,300 workplaces and 70,000 workers in the country even today.
$1.4 for 4,300 workplaces.
When the Department of Labor can't enforce worker safety laws, it's a handout, obviously,
to greedy companies that abuse their workers for profit.

(01:31:52):
In 2023, for example, Amazon brought in $30 billion in profit.
And that same year, 1 in 15 Amazon warehouse workers were injured on the job, breaking
their own backs, toiling under oppressive surveillance impunity, speed quoters to make
a buck for their boss.

(01:32:14):
Yet since President Trump was inaugurated, he and Elon Musk have fired Department of
Labor employees.
They've deleted worker safety information.
They've deleted the worker safety information from their websites.
And yesterday, they demanded the Department create a plan for mass staff layoffs.

(01:32:34):
But Mr. Sondling, do you commit today to protecting workers from employers like Amazon
so that every worker can go to work knowing that they will come home safe at the end of
the day to their families?
Senator Mark, thank you for that story about your father.
It was when I made use, moving forward, if that's okay.

(01:32:58):
As far as you have my full commitment, and I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for
protecting the American worker for worker safety.
So you have my full commitment, if confirmed, as Deputy Secretary of Labor.
I will go through each law enforcement agency and make sure that there's adequate resources,
including determining that the investigators are in the places they need to be with the

(01:33:18):
highest violations.
So you will oppose any action that would make workers less safe?
You would oppose any action?
The law is to make the worker safe.
I will uphold the law.
You would oppose any action?
I will reduce safety.
And what I read from the...
Is that yes?
You will oppose anything that will reduce safety?
I have confidence that even in the OPM directive in the executive order, it says health and

(01:33:43):
safety inspectors are exempt.
Will you oppose taking a chainsaw to the resources of the agencies that would enable
the Department of Labor to enforce those worker safety laws?
Would you oppose this?
I would keep my assurance that I will work with all the law enforcement agencies to have

(01:34:06):
the resources they need.
Yeah, I'm not hearing a yes.
Would you oppose anything that would actually result in an increase in the number of fingers,
arms, other body parts that account?
Would you oppose anything that would manifestly result in an increase in the danger to workers
in the workplace over in the year 2025 or 2026?

(01:34:31):
If confirmed, you have my assurances from both the Secretary and I that we will do everything
to protect worker safety.
I appreciate what you're saying.
Will you oppose anything that will increase the number of people losing their fingers,
arms?
We will faithfully enforce the law with all the Department's resources.
I'm not hearing a yes.
Again, my father would want a yes.
Okay, I'm listening to you, Papa.

(01:34:52):
I can't get the answer from him.
And I know that he sounds a lot like the boss that you were not happy with.
I just need guarantees here.
And I'm not hearing the guarantees to make sure that corporations can increase profits
at the expense of the public health workers.
Thank you.
Thank you, Senator.

(01:35:15):
This concludes our hearing.
Thank you for being here, Mr. President.
For any senators who wish to add additional questions, questions for the record will be
due by tomorrow at 5 p.m. and again, we gather a lot.
Good job.
Good job.
Thank you clergyman

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Safety Wars 3-4-2025 Testimony of Keith Sonderling, Nominee for Deputy Labor Secretary

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

Safety Wars 3-4-2025 Testimony of Keith Sonderling, Nominee for Deputy Labor Secretary

24/7 News: The Latest