On March 3, Senators Josh Hawley and Cory Booker introduced the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA), which copies a provision from the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act—labor bosses’ wish list of bad ideas designed to force people into unions. The bill would empower the government to impose contracts on workers and employers, denying both parties of their rights.
The FLCA would require employers to collectively bargain with a newly-formed union within 10 days of an election, irrespective of employers’ legal rights to appeal the results. It would then impose a 90-day window for the two parties to attempt to reach a first contract, after which either party could seek mediation by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for 30 more days of talks. After that, the FMCS would appoint an arbitration panel that has the authority to impose a first contract, which would be binding on both parties for two year.
In other words, under the FLCA the government would have the de-facto power to set the terms of contracts between two private entities, a power it has never exercised before—and for good reason. That is not a role that a government entity is prepared to play because there are too many variables involved in operating a business for a panel of three arbitrators to decide. The panel may impose on the business a contract that it simply can’t afford or is unworkable.
Hanging in the balance are workers, who like the employer could be forced to live under the terms of a contract over which they had no say. Therein lies the irony of the FLCA, which its supporters argue is a “pro-worker” policy. Maybe they can explain how exactly it is “pro-worker” to trap workers, employers, and even unions into contract terms they might not have wanted—if they had been given a choice, that is. The Senate has repeatedly rejected the PRO Act. Senators should do the same with the FLCA.
About the authors
Sean P. Redmond
Sean P. Redmond is Vice President, Labor Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
