Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill keep uniting behind bad ideas that would make workers worse off, and the Faster Labor Contracts Act is the latest example. In this case, however, the union bosses pushing for the law might accidentally reduce their own power.
The bill would mandate that workers sometimes be subjected to labor contracts that they never vote for. The idea is to reduce the amount of time it takes between a union being recognized as the collective bargaining agent in a workplace and the enactment of an agreement.
The National Labor Relations Act requires recognized unions and employers to negotiate in good faith, but it does not say how long that negotiating may last. In some cases, it can last years.
The bill would require negotiations to begin within 10 days of union recognition. That starts a 90-day timer to reach an agreement. Absent a deal, federal mediators step in. If they can’t negotiate something in 30 days, then the dispute goes to binding arbitration.
Whatever the arbitrators decide would become the labor contract that all workers in the bargaining unit would be forced to abide by for two years. That means, just over four months after workplace democracy recognizes a union as the bargaining agent, federal bureaucrats would be able to force a contract without workers voting to ratify it.
Employer groups are opposed to the legislation because there would be no recourse if the terms of the mandated contract force companies into bankruptcy. The bill also runs contrary to the fundamental principles, found in the Constitution and labor-relations law, that work contracts must be voluntarily agreed to.
Americans have a right to how to use their own labor. Wars have been fought in support of this principle.
Even though major labor unions support this legislation, it could cause problems for them, too. Last year in a hearing, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana) asked a union shop steward what would happen if workers lost the ability to vote to ratify a labor contract. The shop steward said, “That would be removing the democracy from the workplace.”
It also removes power from unions and employers to negotiate. Federal arbitrators are not as intimately acquainted with the details of a given workplace as the union or the employer. Their job under this legislation would be to quickly split the baby, often based on insufficient information, in ways that could be impractical or harmful to the workplace.
Because of the monopolistic nature of American labor law, all workers in the bargaining unit — union members or not — would be bound by the contract that the arbitrators impose. This is not a power that the federal government should have.
Unions hope that the mere threat of arbitration would force employers to make concessions. It’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of their own abilities to negotiate that they think they need this heavy-handed approach to make deals. And rather than being able to hold out indefinitely for better terms, the legislation would force unions to accept provisions from the arbitrators that they vociferously oppose.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act looks like it might have a path to get out of the House. Rep. Donald Norcross (D-New Jersey) is collecting signatures to use a discharge petition to force a vote. His underlying bill already has 17 GOP cosponsors, enough to secure a majority if all Democrats vote to approve it.
A Senate version was introduced by Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) and Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) but remains short of the 60 votes that would be required to pass. Thanks go again to the Senate filibuster for stopping a terrible idea that would erode the principle of free labor.
The post A bipartisan bill that would hurt employers and unions appeared first on Washington Post.
