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 to employers than the one of labor relations, especially when it comes to unions and the role of the federal government. No piece of legislation demands more attention and concern than the Protecting the Right to Organize Act or Pro Act of 2021. While currently waiting to make it out of committee, the Pro Act represents a serious challenge to labor relations balance and federal overreach. Such a bill, or others attempting to make similar changes, could result in serious economic consequences if passed. This article will give context to the Pro Act, outline its contents, and discuss potential consequences if the bill were to pass.
LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
The Pro Act was originally introduced in 2019 following the2018 elections, combining several failed legislative attempts into one. The ProAct of 2019 drew from the Workplace Democracy Act introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and the Workers’ Freedom to Negotiate Act introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). The Pro Act in 2019 was passed in the house and then failed to gain traction in the Senate. As political landscapes shifted a new iteration of the Pro Act was reintroduced 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 committee review, effectively tabling the legislation until a new opportunity presents itself.
WHAT IS THE BILL ABOUT?
The Pro Act is focused on changing labor relations in two areas. The first is the strengthening of labor organizations such as unions, and the second is the expansion of federal power and responsibility in relations between employers, employees, and labor organizations. Advocates of the bill argue that the bill focuses on leveling the playing field for employees and employers, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. The Pro Act seeks to completely disadvantage employers in labor relations and disputes. On top of it all, the Pro Act would dramatically increase the role of the Federal government in labor disputes and further diminish the importance of independent employers in America.
RIGHT TO WORK
One of the major challenges the Pro Act presents is the dismissal of “right to work”. Currently, “right to work” states disallow the practice of requiring employees to pay for a labor organization as a condition of employment. Under the Pro Act employees could be required to pay for a labor organization regardless of their membership in the organization or not. There are 28 states that are “right to work” states and the Pro Act would effectively make all states the same in relation to “right to work”. This would be a huge blow to not only the states that would have to change to accommodate the bill but could create concerning choices for employers in an already challenging economic climate. This would force employers to allow labor organizations to force new employees to pay for an organization they might not want or need. This would effectively allow unions and other labor organizations to take center stage, rather than equitable relations between employers and employees.
ADVANTAGES TO UNIONS
One of the main criticisms of the Pro Act is that 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 with organized labor accounting to only 10% of the workforce, with just 6.4% in the private sector (Chamber of commerce). Such sweeping changes would do nothing to change the fact that employees no longer seek unions as an avenue for workplace solutions and could only force employees into situations that they no longer need or want. Despite the facts, these ideas remain and below are outlined some of 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 absolute advantages to labor organizations and could lead to detrimental outcomes to employers and to the overall economy.
In addition to the powers given to unions, federal power in labor relations would be significantly expanded. This issue is just as important when it comes to this bill because it would lead to increasing costs to employers and strain economically where it does not need to be applied.
Federal powers:
- Increased federal arbitration between labor organizations and employers.
- Expanded litigation rather than arbitration.
- Increased punitive damage allocation to employers rather than damages and fines used to restore status quo.
- 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 increase federal involvement in all areas of business. Employers would be under constant scrutiny to fulfill the terms of the Pro Act. At every level, from union creation, conflict resolution, and fine allocation the federal government would be present. This would be a huge step back in terms of allowing employers and employees to find solutions amongst themselves. In addition, there would be a significant amount of red tape added to labor relations, with employers shouldering the brunt of the new rules and regulations. With the Pro Act, employers would be regularly subject to federal panels and arbitrations where the rules are vague enough to where they would almost always lose.
Economic Impact
Economically this would make it harder for employers to respond to their economic context. If they need to hire more people, there are extra steps. They have to make sure the new employees are ok with paying union costs. This small step could delay the process just enough that businesses have a harder time capitalizing on times where they need the extra labor. When it comes to layoffs, there could be even more issues where there are so many regulations and punitive measures in place that it would be difficult for a business to operate effectively to economic signals and cycles. To survive, businesses need to have some sort of labor fluidity and if that is interrupted there could be serious nationwide labor issues to arise.
Overall, a bill like this would hurt the independent employer in America. With a bill like this, the list of regulations to maintain would increase drastically, making it impossible for small businesses to survive. The incentive structure to starting a business and making it grow would be significantly harmed. The Pro Act could effectively disincentivize small businesses from starting in the first place as they would have to comply with a mountain of federal rules and regulations, and if they made a mistake, they could face harsh punitive action.
Conclusion
Legislation such as the Pro Act could only be the beginning of attempts at work reform in America. One of the most important tools to combat legislation such as the Pro Act is information. So much information surrounding legislation like this is misleading and not representative of the intentions and contents of the bill. Once they are known most people would never support such legislation because of the dire consequences it would unleash.
