Slow down the Faster Labor Contracts Act

www.americanthinker.com

It’s an inside joke that everything, including life, moves more slowly in Washington, D.C. -- especially Congress. If you want to make a change quickly, don’t try appealing to lawmakers. Members of Congress, particularly senators, would prefer to filibuster, amend, and debate your proposal endlessly instead of enacting legislation to fix a problem.

This makes it very noteworthy when a proposal in Washington starts to move quickly: that usually means lawmakers are trying to pull a fast one and pass legislation before voters and stakeholders have even had a chance to analyze the language and spot issues or problems. That seems to be the case right now with a measure known aptly as the Faster Labor Contracts Act, which is being raced through the House of Representatives.

The proposal pretends to protect workers, yet it could limit their rights to vote on the terms and conditions of their own employment. Under the bill, the federal government would have the power to force a business and its workers into a union contract without either party’s consent. Unions and their allies in Congress are thus pushing for legislation to take away a worker’s right to vote. This idea is undemocratic by design, because neither union leaders nor left-wingers in Congress seem to like democracy very much.

The claim is that the bill would speed up negotiations between newly unionized workers and employers, which in theory could help workers get results more quickly. The truth is that under the law, Big Labor and the government could team up to force workers into a contract they don’t support. This includes first-contract arbitration, where the government could impose a contract without bothering to obtain worker approval at all.

Such a system is not what workers think they are voting for when they choose to unionize. Once a union is active, workers and employers have the freedom to negotiate contracts together by means of collective bargaining. It’s pretty much the point of having a union in the first place. It’s a straightforward, fair system that encourages both sides to compromise and find common ground.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act, however, could replace negotiation with forced, government-written contracts. That means less freedom for employees and businesses and more control for the government.

Such forced contracts are bad for workers and dangerous for small businesses, too. Federal mandates could force employers into expensive, long-term agreements that include risky pension plans and big spending. That kind of pressure can keep businesses from growing, hiring, or even making payrolls. Workers pay when the government inserts itself into decisions that should be made by workers and employers. That can mean fewer hours, fewer jobs, or even lost benefits.

This is where the question of speed comes in. The proposed law would allow unions to force companies into arbitration unless they came to an agreement quickly. The first deadline would kick in only three months into the negotiation process. Not nearly long enough for either side to cut a good deal. As any negotiator knows, it is a process to work out the details and proceeds in a less than linear fashion, which can encounter delays.

Federal mediation would be swiftly followed by mandatory arbitration. Lost in the process would be any voice for the workers themselves. Meanwhile, unions might refuse to compromise on their demands because they would realize that the government might step in and impose an agreement advantageous to them at the expense of the business.

Arbitrators may be experts at getting a deal, but they don’t necessarily understand the companies, industries, or issues they are called on to decide. Rulings can be based on industry trends and generalities, rather than the specific financial condition of a singular business operation. An arbitration panel decision would be binding on the parties for two years unless amended “by written consent of the parties,” and two years can be a long time in the business world.

FLCA was a Biden-era proposal that didn’t go anywhere during his administration. Now, it is moving forward swiftly, perhaps because pro-union Republicans want to position themselves as supporting the worker. Instead, they are helping big labor bosses put the screws to workers and companies alike.

Lawyers like to say that “time is of the essence” in an agreement. But that doesn’t necessarily apply to union contracts, which, once signed, will apply to workers for years if not decades. In that case, it’s important to slow down and get the best possible agreement that makes sense for both sides. That’s what lawmakers should demand. Instead of enacting the Faster Labor Contracts Act, they should demand better policies through legislation that leads to more successful negotiations, no matter how long they take.

Image: National Archives