Proposed changes to U.S. labor law from Senator Josh Hawley would impose costly mandates on businesses, limit workers' choices, and allow the government to force workers and businesses into union contracts without their consent.
Here are four reasons this proposal is bad for both workers and businesses.
1. Rushed elections undermine informed and fair decisions
The plan calls for a vote on unionizing within just 20 days from the time a union asks for an election—a timeline that’s too fast for workers to make informed decisions.
- Leaves workers uninformed: The proposal limits businesses' ability to hold meetings where they can share important information about how unionization could affect employees' jobs. Without these discussions, workers would have to make a major decision about their jobs without having all the facts they need.
- Overloads the system: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would face unworkable deadlines, leading to mistakes that hurt both workers and employers.
2. Forced contracts strip away control
One major concern is the use of government mandated, binding first contract arbitration. This process takes away important flexibility for both workers and businesses.
- Workers lose their voice: Mandatory arbitration would allow the government to force contracts on workers without their approval, leaving them stuck with terms that don’t suit them.
- Businesses face high costs: The government could also lock employers into costly, long-term agreements they can’t afford. Some might even have to join risky union pension plans, putting their future at risk.
3. Heavy fines targeting honest mistakes
The proposal pushes heavy fines for labor law violations, but it’s not as fair as it sounds. Penalizing small mistakes doesn’t help—it creates more problems.
- Confusing rules and tough penalties: Violations often occur because the regulations are unclear. For example, vague wording in workplace policies or dress codes can lead to fines even for businesses trying to do the right thing.
- Small businesses suffer most: Small businesses often lack the resources to navigate complicated rules. These fines could threaten their future.
4. Outdated mandates add costs without benefits
The plan brings back old ergonomic rules from the 1990s that were abandoned because they were ineffective and made everyday tasks unnecessarily complicated.
- Rigid rules, added costs: These one-size-fits-all requirements ignore the needs of today’s workplaces and pile on unnecessary expenses.
- Outdated and unhelpful: While workplace safety is crucial, Congress determined that a rigid ergonomics rule was unworkable, so voted to scrap them in 2001. The new proposal would create more headaches for businesses without making things better.
- Vague workplace quotas: This proposal could make it harder for warehouses to set clear productivity standards to ensure everyone does their fair share. The result could slow operations, make work less fair, and raise prices.
Bottom Line
The best way for policymakers to advance meaningful labor reforms is to prioritize solutions that bring workers and businesses together, not drive them apart.
