Washington has a funny way of defining “worker empowerment.”
Too often, it means giving somebody in Washington more power.
That is the concern I have with the Faster Labor Contracts Act, H.R. 5408, which passed the House in June and is now before the Senate. The legislation is being sold as a commonsense way to speed up first union contracts. Its supporters say workers sometimes wait far too long after voting to organize before securing an agreement.
That is a legitimate issue. Workers deserve good-faith negotiations.
But Washington’s proposed solution deserves scrutiny.
Under the Faster Labor Contracts Act, if a union and employer cannot reach a first agreement after 90 days of bargaining, the dispute can move to mediation. If another 30 days pass without agreement, subject to extensions agreed to by the parties, the dispute can ultimately go before a three-member arbitration panel whose decision is binding for up to two years.
Think about that.
Workers vote for a union because they want a voice in their workplace. Then, if negotiations stall, people who don’t actually work there can ultimately determine the terms of their first contract.
That doesn’t sound like more worker control to me.
Americans for Limited Government recently highlighted another concern in its report, “The Faster Labor Contracts Act: Advancing the Union DEI Agenda.”
ALG examined provisions appearing in existing union agreements involving DEI programs, affirmative-action initiatives, gender identity and pronoun policies, workplace “micro-aggressions,” equity training and restrictions involving cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
To be clear, the Faster Labor Contracts Act does not require arbitrators to put those provisions into contracts.
But ALG raises a question Congress should take seriously: What happens when controversial noneconomic provisions become part of first-contract negotiations that ultimately end in binding arbitration?
Who gets the final say?
That question matters because the American labor movement isn’t simply a collection of union executives in Washington. It is millions of truck drivers, electricians, teachers, police officers, factory workers, construction workers and other Americans who get up every morning and earn a paycheck.
Their priorities aren’t necessarily identical to the political priorities of union leadership.
Workers should have the strongest possible voice over the conditions governing their own employment.
So does the other side.
There is a big difference between requiring people to negotiate in good faith and empowering an outside panel to establish binding contractual terms.
And seniors should pay attention, too.
At 60 Plus, we spend most of our time fighting for Americans who worked for decades, raised families, paid taxes and played by the rules. They know from experience that when Washington creates another bureaucracy or expands another government process, the consequences rarely remain confined to Washington.
This isn’t about being anti-worker or anti-union.
I believe America’s workers deserve transparency, accountability and a meaningful say in the agreements governing their livelihoods.
If employers are refusing to bargain honestly, enforce the law.
If negotiations are being deliberately obstructed, address the obstruction.
But Congress should be extremely cautious about responding to one problem by creating another mechanism that shifts consequential decisions away from workers and employers and toward outside arbitrators.
Americans have had enough institutions telling them that somebody else knows what is best for them.
Trust the workers.
Give them a voice.