Anti-worker group backs Van Drew, Smith and Kean, punctuating class war

The nation’s largest small-business advocacy organization endorsed three Republican members of New Jersey’s congressional delegation for reelection Tuesday, putting a spotlight on a sharp divide over wages, worker protections and the role of government in addressing the cost-of-living pressures facing New Jersey families.

The National Federation of Independent Business endorsed Reps. Jeff Van Drew of the 2nd Congressional District, Chris Smith of the 4th and Tom Kean Jr. of the 7th through NFIB FedPAC, the organization’s federal political action committee.

The endorsements came days after New Jersey Citizen Action held demonstrations targeting Van Drew and Kean over their votes on health care, food assistance, taxes and other economic issues. The events were part of “The Price Is High” Week of Action, a national campaign organized by Economic Security Project Action from Sept. 23 through Wednesday.

The competing messages present voters with starkly different interpretations of the Republican incumbents’ economic records.

NFIB said Van Drew, Smith and Kean earned its support because of their records on taxes and regulations affecting employers, but critics argue that the group advocates policies that would virtually allow slavery in America by denying workers a fair wage, time off for illness or family needs, and even protection from unsafe heat conditions.

“We are proud to endorse this group of pro-small business candidates to continue representing New Jersey in Congress,” Greg Biryla, an NFIB regional director, said in announcing the endorsements.

“New Jersey small business owners are known for their industrious nature, often having to navigate adverse state-level mandates,” Biryla said. “It is crucial that they have experienced leaders in Congress to ensure they can effectively operate and create jobs in their communities.”

Louis Bertolotti, NFIB’s political director, said the three Republicans “voted for policies that cut taxes and promote economic growth for Main Street” during the 119th Congress.

But NFIB’s definition of a pro-small-business agenda extends far beyond tax policy. The organization has opposed efforts to raise the federal minimum wage, expand overtime eligibility and mandate paid family and sick leave. It opposes the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, has challenged federal rules governing independent contractors and has fought a proposed federal workplace heat standard.

Those positions contrast with labor policies New Jersey has adopted, including a state minimum wage substantially above the federal $7.25 rate, mandatory earned sick leave and expanded family-leave protections.

NFIB has opposed the bipartisan Higher Wages for American Workers Act, legislation sponsored by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Democratic Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont that would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour and subsequently index it to inflation.

NFIB says 92% of its members opposed a $15 federal minimum wage in a member ballot. The organization argues that higher mandatory wages can force small businesses to raise prices, reduce workers’ hours or benefits, eliminate jobs or leave positions vacant.

Hawley and Welch argue that the federal wage floor has failed to keep pace with living costs. Adjusted for inflation, they said when introducing their legislation, the federal minimum wage was lower than at any point since the 1940s.

New Jersey voters have previously expressed considerably different views from NFIB members on that issue. A 2019 Monmouth University Poll found 66% of New Jersey residents approved of the state’s decision to gradually raise its minimum wage to $15, while 29% disapproved.

The poll is seven years old and is not a measure of current opinion, but it documents a substantial divide at the time between NFIB’s membership and the broader New Jersey public. The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 2009.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated in 1933 that “no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country,” but Van Drew, Smith and Kean reject that notion.

New Jersey’s three Republican House members have taken notably different approaches to wages and organized labor.

Smith has repeatedly crossed party lines on labor issues. In 2019, Smith was one of just three House Republicans to vote for the Raise the Wage Act, which 192 Republicans opposed. Smith has also supported collective bargaining rights and has received backing from organized labor during his five-decades-long congressional career.

Van Drew has compiled a more mixed labor record, opposing some wage and regulatory mandates while occasionally joining Democrats on worker-protection votes that sometimes put him at odds with Republican leaders.

Kean Jr. has generally sided with his Republican colleagues on federal fiscal and labor policy, representing the extreme partisanship that has consumed national politics in Washington.

Critics focus on Van Drew and Kean

As NFIB prepared to recognize Van Drew and Kean for their records, New Jersey Citizen Action was essentially making the opposite case.

NJCA and community members held events in Clinton and Northfield last week as part of the national “Price Is High” campaign, which organizers said was intended to examine congressional votes affecting household expenses.

NJCA organizers went to Kean’s district office after gathering in downtown Clinton, where they spoke with residents about living costs and collected personal stories. They delivered postcards from constituents to the congressman.

The group subsequently held a similar demonstration outside Van Drew’s Northfield office.

“The price of every essential has skyrocketed since the pandemic, and it’s forcing families to make impossible choices,” Liz Glynn, NJ Citizen Action’s director of organizing, said.

Glynn accused the Republican-controlled Congress of responding to those pressures with policies that increased rather than reduced costs for working families. That is NJCA’s characterization; Republicans have argued that their tax, spending and regulatory policies will ultimately reduce costs and promote economic growth.

The NJCA events focused on health care, nutrition assistance, taxes, energy expenses and other household costs.

Paul White, a self-employed handyman from Ringoes who participated in the campaign, said rising costs were forcing him to work longer hours simply to keep up.

“Rising gas prices are forcing me to work hours I simply don’t have, sacrificing my self-care and long-term stability just to cover immediate costs like housing and gas,” White said. “I’m already falling behind, and I don’t even have the cognitive energy to figure out how I’m going to catch up.”

In 2024, President Donald Trump and the GOP congressmen campaigned on lowering costs. Two years later, the receipts tell a different story.

Trump promised to “cut your energy prices in half” within his first year of office, said prices would come down “on day one,” and pledged to “cherish” Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Instead, the Republicans raised prices and gutted the social safety net for struggling families.

The cost of living crisis is crushing American families but as prices are skyrocketing, these Republicans raised the cost of healthcare, gas, groceries, electricity, and student loans, shredded the social safety net by gutting Medicaid, SNAP, and the Affordable Care Act. Then, they cut taxes for billionaires and big corporations.

Competing assessments of Republican tax bill

The central target of NJCA’s campaign was Van Drew and Kean’s support for the Republican tax and spending legislation commonly called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Both congressmen voted for the legislation.

NJCA and Economic Security Project Action released what they called “Republican Receipts” for Van Drew and Kean, contrasting campaign promises with congressional votes and arguing that the legislation shifted resources toward wealthy taxpayers and corporations while reducing assistance available through programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

The groups’ receipts accuse the lawmakers of “raising prices, gutting healthcare and SNAP, and cutting taxes for the rich while constituents suffer.”

Republicans describe the legislation differently, emphasizing its tax reductions, business incentives, spending restraints and other provisions they say will encourage investment and economic growth.

The law significantly changed SNAP eligibility and financing. Among other provisions, it expanded work requirements, changed eligibility for some immigrants and shifted additional administrative and benefit costs to states. The effects of those changes have been the subject of litigation and continuing disputes between the Trump administration and states.

NJCA said about 35,000 New Jersey residents had lost food assistance as a result of the changes. That figure comes from the advocacy group’s campaign materials and should be understood as NJCA’s estimate rather than an independently established total.

NJCA also argues that provisions affecting the Child Tax Credit left 46,000 children in Van Drew’s district and 21,000 in Kean’s district unable to receive the full credit. The figures are likewise presented by the organization as part of its “Republican Receipt” campaign.

“Congressmen Van Drew and Kean Jr. receipts show that they promised to give New Jersey families relief but then turned their backs on us in office,” Glynn said. “But a campaign promise becomes the criteria your voters will hold you to later.”

Different visions of the workplace

The contrast extends well beyond the Republican tax legislation.

NFIB opposes the PRO Act, legislation intended to strengthen workers’ ability to organize unions and bargain collectively. The organization argues that the measure would restrict businesses’ contracting freedom, eliminate state right-to-work protections, expose employers to secondary boycotts and create additional liabilities for small businesses.

NFIB also opposes federal paid-sick-leave and paid-family-leave mandates, arguing that small employers can have difficulty absorbing the expense and replacing absent workers.

New Jersey has taken a different approach. State law requires most employers to provide workers with up to 40 hours of earned sick leave annually and provides a state family-leave system.

The organization has also challenged federal attempts to expand overtime eligibility for salaried workers, arguing that higher salary thresholds impose additional payroll costs on small businesses.

Another dispute involves independent contractors. NFIB challenged the Labor Department’s 2024 worker-classification rule, arguing that it complicated the determination of whether workers should be employees or independent contractors and increased the risk of enforcement actions and lawsuits.

The organization says workers should retain the ability to operate as independent contractors and businesses should have greater certainty about how those relationships are classified.

NFIB has also opposed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s proposed workplace heat standard. The federal proposal would require covered employers to develop heat-injury prevention plans and provide measures such as drinking water, training, emergency procedures and, under high-heat conditions, rest breaks.

NFIB argues that the regulation would impose excessive compliance costs and paperwork on businesses already obligated to protect employees from workplace hazards.

Who bears the cost?

The disputes surrounding the endorsements ultimately reflect a broader disagreement about who should bear the costs of economic security.

NFIB’s policies generally seek to reduce taxes, payroll expenses and regulatory obligations imposed on employers, based on the argument that businesses with lower costs have more resources to hire workers, invest and expand.

Labor and consumer advocates counter that shifting those costs away from employers can mean lower wages, fewer benefits and weaker protections for employees, leaving workers or taxpayers to absorb expenses associated with health care, family leave and economic hardship.

That debate has particular resonance in New Jersey, one of the nation’s highest-cost states, where housing, property taxes, utilities, food and health care consume large portions of household income.

It also explains why the same congressional records can produce dramatically different judgments.

NFIB views Van Drew, Smith and Kean as dependable allies of employers and says their votes demonstrate a commitment to small businesses.

New Jersey Citizen Action views many of those same economic choices — particularly those made by Van Drew and Kean — as evidence that Congress has prioritized tax reductions and spending cuts over the immediate financial pressures confronting lower- and middle-income households.

The endorsements therefore tell voters considerably more than whether the three congressmen say they support neighborhood businesses.

They identify Van Drew, Smith and Kean as lawmakers NFIB believes can be relied upon to advance its employer-oriented approach to taxes, wages, benefits and regulation — an approach that differs substantially from several worker protections New Jersey has enacted and that is now being challenged by advocacy organizations focused on household affordability.

NFIB FedPAC is financed through voluntary contributions from NFIB members beyond their membership dues. NFIB says its endorsement decisions are based on a member-driven grassroots evaluation process.