The Pro Act
In light of the upcoming election, legislation form the past could come back into relevance. The Pro Act of 2018 is no exception.
INTRODUCTION
No policy discussions are more important toemployers than the one of labor relations, especially when it comes to unionsand the role of the federal government. No piece of legislation demands moreattention and concern than the Protecting the Right to Organize Act or Pro Actof 2021. While currently waiting to make it out of committee, the Pro Actrepresents a serious challenge to labor relations balance and federaloverreach. Such a bill, or others attempting to make similar changes, couldresult in serious economic consequences if passed. This article will givecontext to the Pro Act, outline its contents, and discuss potentialconsequences if the bill were to pass.
LEGISLATIVECONTEXT
The ProAct was originally introduced in 2019 following the 2018 elections, combiningseveral failed legislative attempts into one. The Pro Act of 2019 drew from theWorkplace Democracy Act introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and theWorkers’ Freedom to Negotiate Act introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). ThePro Act in 2019 was passed in the house and then failed to gain traction in theSenate. As political landscapes shifted a new iteration of the Pro Act wasreintroduced in the house in 2021 by Robert Scott (D-VA) and passed March 9,2021. In the Senate it was referred to the Committee on Health, Education,Labor, and Pensions in 2021. Since 2021 the bill has remained in committeereview, effectively tabling the legislation until a new opportunity presentsitself.
WHATIS THE BILL ABOUT?
The Pro Act is focused on changing laborrelations in two areas. The first is the strengthening of labor organizationssuch as unions, and the second is the expansion of federal power andresponsibility in relations between employers, employees, and labororganizations. Advocates of the billargue that the bill focuses on leveling the playing field for employees andemployers, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. The Pro Act seeks tocompletely disadvantage employers in labor relations and disputes. On top of itall, the Pro Act would dramatically increase the role of the Federal governmentin labor disputes and further diminish the importance of independent employersin America.
RIGHTTO WORK
One of the major challenges the ProActpresents is the dismissal of “right to work”. Currently, “right to work” statesdisallow the practice of requiring employees to pay for a labor organization asa condition of employment. Under the Pro Act employees could be required to payfor a labor organization regardless of their membership in the organization ornot. There are 28 states that are “right to work” states and the ProAct wouldeffectively make all states the same in relation to “right to work”. This wouldbe a huge blow to not only the states that would have to change to accommodatethe bill but could create concerning choices for employers in an alreadychallenging economic climate. This would force employers to allow labororganizations to force new employees to pay for an organization they might notwant or need. This would effectively allow unions and other labor organizationsto take center stage, rather than equitable relations between employers andemployees.
ADVANTAGESTO UNIONS
One of the main criticisms of the Pro Act isthat it is a political maneuver for a dying sector of organization. In 1950organized labor made up around 35% of the workforce (Chamber of Commerce).Since then membership in organized labor has declined steadily since withorganized labor accounting to only 10% of the workforce, with just 6.4% in theprivate sector (Chamber of commerce). Such sweeping changes would do nothing tochange the fact that employees no longer seek unions as an avenue for workplacesolutions and could only force employees into situations that they no longerneed or want. Despite the facts, these ideas remain and below are outlined someof the major changes the Pro Act would introduce for labor organizations.
These advantages include:
- Disallowing employers from replacing striking employees
- Allowing secondary strikes and boycotts
- Increased scope of influence via expansion of definition of “employee”
- Quickie elections and card checks
- Reintroduction of “blocking charge” to block the decertification of a union in the event of loss of majority support
This legislation would give absoluteadvantages to labor organizations and could lead to detrimental outcomes toemployers and to the overall economy.
In addition to the powers given to unions,federal power in labor relations would be significantly expanded. This issue isjust as important when it comes to this bill because it would lead toincreasing costs to employers and strain economically where it does not need tobe applied.
Federal powers:
- Increased federal arbitration between labor organizations and employers
- Expanded litigation rather than arbitration (can probably connect this with 4)
- Increased punitive damage allocation to employers rather than damages and fines used to restore status quo, which is the current method
- Prioritization of injunctions as a method to address grievance allegations (in the past federal injunctions have been used in extraordinary cases)
These changes would drastically increasefederal involvement in all areas of business. Employers would be under constantscrutiny to fulfill the terms of the Pro Act. At every level, from unioncreation, conflict resolution, and fineallocation the federal government would be present. This would be a huge stepback in terms of allowing employers and employees to find solutions amongstthemselves. In addition, there would be a significant amount of red tape addedto labor relations, with employers shouldering the brunt of the new rules andregulations. With the Pro Act, employers would be regularly subject to federalpanes and arbitrations where the rules are vague enough to where they wouldalmost always lose.
EconomicImpact
Economically this would make it harder foremployers to respond to their economic context. If they need to hire morepeople, there are extra steps. They have to make sure the new employees are okwith paying for union costs. This small step could delay the process justenough that businesses have a harder time capitalizing on times where they needthe extra labor. When it comes to layoffs, there could be even more issueswhere there are so many regulations and punitive measures in place that itwould be difficult for a business to operate effectively to economic signalsand cycles. In order to survive, businesses need to have some sort of laborfluidity and if that is interrupted there could be serious nationwide laborissues to arise.
Overall, a bill like this would hurt theindependent employer in America. With a bill like this, the list of regulationsto maintain would increase drastically, making it virtually impossible forsmall businesses to survive. The incentive structure to starting a business andmaking it grow would be significantly harmed. The Pro Act could effectivelydisincentivize small businesses from starting in the first place as they wouldhave to comply with a mountain of federal rules and regulations, and if they madea mistake they could face harsh punitive action.
Conclusion
Legislation such as the Pro Act could only bethe beginning of attempts at work reform in America. One of the most importanttools to combat legislation such as the Pro Act is information. So muchinformation surrounding legislation like this is misleading and notrepresentative of the intentions and contents of the bill. Once they are knownmost people would never support such legislation because of the direconsequences it would unleash.
