A divided House passed a bill that would impose strict bargaining timelines and final contracts on employers and labor groups when negotiating a first union contract. The Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) would empower arbitrators to impose final contract terms without a vote by either labor or management. Twenty Republicans joined 210 Democrats in supporting the union-backed bill, which reflects a growing contingent of rank-and-file GOP lawmakers breaking with leadership in support of organized labor.
Deadlines
Deemed by many opponents as the most radical change to U.S. labor law in a century, the FLCA would impose a series of firm deadlines for bargaining before interest arbitration can be requested. Under the framework, the following deadlines must be met after union certification:
- By day 10, the employer is required to begin bargaining.
- By day 100, federal mediation is triggered if no agreement has been reached.
- By day 130, binding interest arbitration is initiated if mediation fails.
- By day 144, an arbitration panel is seated to impose a final contract.
However, the bill doesn’t impose a deadline for the arbitrators to arrive at a final contract, nor, as noted, does it provide for a vote by the affected parties.
Radical Change in Labor Law
Ever since Samuel Gomphers rejected the creation of a U.S. Labor Party 150 years ago, one of the hallmarks of U.S. labor law has been keeping the government out of labor-management relations, particularly with respect to allowing the parties to reach a collectively bargained result.
The FLCA discards that legal framework in light of the often year-long bargaining sessions of recent negotiations and in an attempt to strengthen workers’ position in the face of job cuts resulting from artificial intelligence and advanced robotics. Critics note that there’s no evidentiary basis to believe the contracts imposed under the FLCA would achieve that result or even address those concerns.
Critics Cite Government Interference and ‘Unconstitutional’ Taking
The bill is bitterly opposed by business groups that argued it would set unrealistic timelines and would give an outsize role to government arbitrators who may not understand the nuances of individual labor disputes. In a letter to House leadership in April, the Chief Human Resource Officer (CHRO) Association, which represents HR officers, argued that the act violated the U.S. Constitution by “allowing the government to impose contractual terms on private parties.”
The bill now heads to the Senate, where Senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) have introduced a similar version. Senators Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) also co-sponsored the bill. This bipartisan support in the narrowly split Senate, on the verge of mid-term elections, may require the president to decide whether to veto the bill in support of the Republicans’ traditional pro-management base or sign it as an indication of support for the new populist MAGA base. The president’s animus against federal unions may not be a harbinger on his decision here.