"pro-union" bill would let Washington write your contract

[OT+]

[AlJackson1962!]

The article raises important problems with the legislation. In particular, binding arbitration as a last resort. Also, the FMCS mediation process does not charge the Union nor Employer for its services.. However, if the FMCS provides arbitration services, the selected arbitrator charges a daily fee that is shared 50/50 between the Union and Employer, including any days for research and writing a decision. This could run into significant costs for smaller local unions, as the arbitrator will be dealing with all of the terms and conditions of employment, not just a grievance subject to the terms of a contract already agreed to by the Union and Employer.

One of the major issues that Employer's often hold out on is Union Security, requiring that all unit employees become and remain members in good standing of the Union as a condition of employment. Given the Republicans' rabid opposition to Union Security, all of Trump's appointees to the Supreme Court voted to uphold the Janus decision, that bars Union Security for all public sector workers, what happens under the proposed legislation if the arbitrator rules for or against Union Security?

Will the Union lose the right to strike if it agrees to bargain under the Faster Labor Contracts Act?

In any event, taking away the power of the rank and file to determine their collective destiny, is a dangerous proposition. But it looks like O'Brien and his OZ enablers, are willing to work with the Republicans to win any piecemeal victories (?) , regardless of the long-term effects on worker power.

Organized labor in the US had a lot more power going into the 2024 Presidential elections. The NLRB under Biden was the most pro-worker NLRB in at least 45 years. Under Trump, workers' rights continue to be gutted; this piecemeal legislation, the FLCA, is not a step forward.

[Gimme_Danger]

The FLCA is literally written from a part of the PRO Act. Are you against the PRO Act?

[JWebb]

I Ilike the Pro-act but this ain't that. Wishful thinking won't make it so.

[Bob Randall]

Thoughtful and well written. If I remember correctly, Canadian "pro" labor law was written years ago to provide for card check where a union was recognized based on proof of signatures. However, the law written included new language that allowed employer activities that had previously been violative. Such as, mandatory meetings with membership during negotiations that included mandatory subjects of bargaining. What's the old saying? "Be careful what you wish for?"

[Ron Dans]

What you need to know about the Faster Labor Contracts Act.

[AlJackson1962!]

RonDans:: The video sounds like it came from an anti-union PR firm, notwithstanding the emphasis on loss of democratic ratification procedures.

There’s lots more to know about the details of the FLCA, and I count myself among those needing more details.

[Ron Dans]

Brother Al, thank you for your comments, they are appreciated. I did look-up before I posted the video by “Free Enterprise Alliance.” They are campaigning to halt the, so called, assault on America’s free enterprise system. You are also correct that there is not much information on the dangers of the FLCA. Basically, the only info I have found is of O’Brien promoting the FLCA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The video, as you point out, did explain in detail the undemocratic pitfall of the act. To me, that out-weighed the source. Perhaps a poor choice, but I certainly was not intending to promote anti-unionism. I should have included a disclaimer. Thanks again for your comments.

[AlJackson1962!]

#2.1
Gimme_Danger commented
05-17-2026, 08:08 PM
"The FLCA is literally written from a part of the PRO Act. Are you against the PRO Act?"

Yo, Gimme Danger: No I'm not opposed to the PRO Act, but this piecemeal piece, the FLCA, is cherry-picking from the least advantageous provisions of the PRO Act. Biden would have signed the PRO Act if it ever reached his desk, whereas, your buddy O'Brien's pal Trump, would veto the PRO Act, just like he'd veto anything that represents greater equity in the billionaires club that Trump represents and that O'Brien and OZ enable.

[Gimme_Danger]

The PRO Act isn't getting passed, it's weaponized to hold unions at arms length into subservience. A piecemeal approach could help move things forward. Remind me what happened to the EFCA from 2009-2010 with the 3 branches under one party with a filibuster-proof margin??

[Gimliboston9]

Does anyone know if this just applies to the FIRST contract ?

[Bob Randall]

Here's the key question.

[Watcher745]

When it comes down to having to negotiate or go to and arbitration, what company would not opted to go to an arbitration? They historically side on the company side.

[OT+]

Screenshot (208).png
Faster Labor Contracts Act fact sheet from Congressman David Norcross.

[AlJackson1962!]

Gimme_Danger commented
05-20-2026, 09:26 PM
"The PRO Act isn't getting passed, it's weaponized to hold unions at arms length into subservience. A piecemeal approach could help move things forward. Remind me what happened to the EFCA from 2009-2010 with the 3 branches under one party with a filibuster-proof margin?"

Yo Gimme Danger: EFCA never became law. This was the case notwithstanding the Democrats control of the Executive and Congress. Card check recognition has it's merits, no question.
However, I recall TDU endorsed Teamster 2011 GP candidate Sandy Pope* making the following valid comments concerning EFCA (I paraphrase here). An EFCA organizing campaign, conducted behind the scenes does not actively commit the card signers to openly organize and build the Union they so desperately need and want. EFCA is the opposite end of an open demand for Union recognition wherein workers leave their work stations, march into managements' offices, and present a signed petition of a majority of unit members demanding that the Employer recognize the Union and bargain a fair and equitable CBA (and the traditional RC Petition elections at the NLRB lie in between these two ends of organizing means). For a Union to be effective and empowered, the rank & file unit members must see their commitment and involvement in the organizing drive and subsequent battle for a first contract as their fight for their Union.

*If my paraphrasing of Sister Pope here is inaccurate, please advise.

Binding arbitration on a first contract, taking the decision making power out of the hands of, not just the rank and file unit members, but even the elected Union leadership, is contrary to the most basic tenets of Union democracy and rank and file power set forth in the IBT Constitution, and the entire history of TDU.

Would FLCA result in more and quicker first CBA's? Maybe so, but this minor provision that you say is lifted right out of the provisions of the PRO Act, is, without many of the far more important provisions of the PRO Act, a piecemeal bill. It is being used by OZ and the right wing allies of O'Brien, as a tool to gain favor with working class Americans before the midterm elections. And it will be surprising if FLCA becomes law - O'Brien endorsed Labor Secretary, Lori Chavez-Deremer supported the PRO Act knowing it was going nowhere based on the then environment in Congress. Would you Gimmee Danger, dispute that?

In my view, bottom line: The closer our Union leadership gets to the fascist, racist Trump/MAGA movement, the greater the danger to the Labor Movement. We were in a lot stronger position with the Biden policies and appointments then we are today under the Trump/MAGA debacle and disaster.

Dave Robbins, Local 251, retired

[NYNick]

What could go wrong? Between O’Brien and his daddy Trump they have negotiated some historic contracts! Imagine them working together? They could have the company reps over to dinner at Mar A Lago and settle the deal at the table ! Then get a photo op. Do you know what we could call that ? HISTORIC!

[Nickjamesups]

I have one question, would Paff have a seat at that table?

[DanaCos]

There's a lot of Democrat co-sponsors on that bill. Why?

[LastDriver]

Unions like it because it ends in some kind of contract as it stands now most organizing wins never result in a contract. Supposedly this only applies to first contracts.

[AlJackson1962!]

Below is a summary of the provisions of the PRO Act. OZ/TDU are pushing one component of this Bill; that's the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) that has binding arbitration on a first contract at a newly organized workplace. If the Union and Employer reach impasse (no tentative first contract) binding arbitration is imposed by the decision of a panel of three arbitrators (one picked by the Union, one picked by the Employer, and one picked by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service). The contract is not subject to ratification by the Union nor by the Employer - the arbitration panel determines all of the contract provisions, all wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment.

No dispute that first contracts (ones worthy of ratification by the rank and file) take way too long, and no dispute that Employers stall contract bargaining for the purpose of defeating the Union and wearing down the rank and file unit members. But there are provisions of the FLCA that are unclear.

1) Is the Union is required to bargain under the specific terms set forth in the FLCA? Or can the Union opt out of the FLCA?
2) Is the Union's right to strike impacted by the FLCA? Is the Employer's right to lock out impacted by the FLCA?
3) Are the fees for the three arbitrators paid by and shared equally by the Union and the Employer?

Many Teamster members are familiar with binding arbitration on contract grievances. If a UPS or Freight grievance panel deadlocks, it may be decided by a "neutral" arbitrator selected in accordance with the rules governing the Contract grievance/arbitration provisions. Same story on most non-national Teamster contracts; an arbitrator generally has the authority to interpret the Contract and render a binding decision on the grievance. Under the FLCA the arbitrators determine everything, including whether the Contract has a Union Security clause? That should be interesting if the FLCA ever becomes law, given the Republican appointed Supreme Court's ruling on the Janus decision that outlaws Union Security clauses for public sector workers - Oh yeah, and Trump appointed three of the Supreme Court Justices and they all voted with the majority to outlaw Union Security for public sector workers.

If OZ/TDU wants to use a piecemeal approach to winning specific provisions of the PRO Act, why start with the FLCA? Read the other PRO Act provisions; do you see the other PRO Act provisions as having a greater benefit for organized labor? I sure do. Starting with the FLCA (which may never see a Senate vote due to the 60 Senator filibuster threshold), is starting with a waiver of Union rights to determine what Contract is worthy of signing, and in the Teamsters, it waives our IBT Constitutional right for secret ballot ratification by the affected rank and file members.

Is the OZ/TDU push for the FLCA really about Sean O'Brien finding support for any piece of labor legislation from his pro-fascist Trumpster allies in the Republican Party; regardless of the legislation's impact on organized labor?

FOOD FOR THOUGHT BROTHERS AND SISTERS.

- Dave Robbins, Local 251, retired

The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act expands workers’ rights on the jobExamples of loopholes in current labor law and how the PRO Act closes them

Under current law, employers can drag out the union election process—the process by which workers form a union at their workplace—through litigation at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB is the principal government agency responsible for enforcing the rights of private-sector workers to organize and engage in collective bargaining with their employers—but current law is preventing them from doing their job, by giving too much power to employers, who are able to use delay tactics to postpone elections while they campaign against the union.	Under the PRO Act, workers and the NLRB set union election procedures. The employer is not involved.
Employers have free rein to make their employees attend “captive audience” meetings—where the employer delivers anti-union messages without giving the union an opportunity to respond.	The PRO Act prohibits employers from forcing workers to attend captive audience meetings.
Under the current system, workers can wait months and even years to be reinstated or receive back pay after being unlawfully discharged by their employer for joining together with their co-workers to improve their wages and working conditions. Workers’ rights to do so are protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)*—but that hasn’t stopped employers from retaliating, and the system isn’t set up to enforce workers’ rights in a timely manner.	The PRO Act requires the NLRB to go to court and get an injunction to immediately reinstate workers if the employer has illegally retaliated against workers for union activity.
Employers who violate workers’ rights under the NLRA face no civil penalties.	Under the PRO Act, employers who commit violations under the NLRA face civil penalties, and corporate officials can be held personally liable for violation of the the law.
Workers are prohibited from bringing civil lawsuits against their employer for violating their NLRA rights.	The PRO Act gives workers the right to file a civil action against their employer.
Employers are allowed to force workers to sign arbitration agreements—often buried in a stack of paperwork they sign on their first day of work—in which the workers waive their right to collective or class action litigation.	Collective and class action waivers are banned under the PRO Act.
Employers can misclassify workers as independent contractors—depriving those workers of the rights they would have as employees—without violating the NLRA.	The PRO Act makes employee misclassification a violation under the NLRA and requires employers to follow an “ABC” test for employee classification. An ABC test is a strict legal test for making sure employees are not misclassified as independent contractors.
Multiple employers are able to dictate workers’ terms of employment while evading collective bargaining with employees—a growing problem as employers outsource various functions to contractors and subcontractors. Under this system, each employer is likely to shift responsibility to the other employer(s).	The PRO Act codifies a strong joint-employer standard—meaning all firms that share control over a worker’s terms of employment are considered to be employers of that worker and are thus required to bargain with employees.
States may have “right-to-work” laws that undermine unions’ ability to collect “fair share fees” from workers whose interests they represent. Fair share fees cover the costs of bargaining, contract administration, and grievance processes that unions are required by law to undertake on behalf of all (union and nonunion) members of a collective bargaining unit. Without fair share fees, union power degrades quickly—which is exactly what anti-union employers want.	States must allow private employers and unions to enter into “fair share” agreements.
Employers can drag out the process of bargaining over a first collective bargaining agreement.	The PRO Act requires employers to follow a process for reaching a first agreement when workers organize, a process that uses mediation and then, if necessary, binding arbitration, to enable the parties to reach a first agreement in a timely manner.
Workers face limits on their fundamental right to strike.	The PRO Act prohibits employers from permanently replacing striking workers, bans the use of offensive lockouts, and removes prohibitions on secondary activity.

[Moyama]

Very good informaion, I understand your argument that there are better portions of the Pro Act than the one selected.

[Thisischange?]

If Sean's pushing this shit you know there's a hook. This asshole is a liar and a Trumper. Trump always fucks labor.

[CalTeamster]

How many of these arbitrated contracts will have union security?

[percap2high]

I think maybe people are missing the point here. O'Brien supports this because it guarentee's a contract, not a good contract but a contract. That means people are paying dues, even if its only a percentage of people its something. New money from new members vs. spending a lot of time and never getting a contract or new members or Dues.

[Gimliboston9]

The dirty little secret about contracts are that the union wants to settle just as much (if not more) as the company. The union does not want to risk having to pay out of the “ strike fund” and they always seem to have a wink and a nod with the company.
For example , if you take a real close look at this historic contract at UPS you will see an incredible public relations campaign structured to make the members feel STRONG lots of threats and bravado being spewed by O’Brien , lots of practice pickets, lots of press coverage to look tough at. What did UPS do? NOTHING!!
They say back and let him run his mouth. They allowed him to appear to be winning while they got exactly what they wanted. Five years of labor peace to institute their long thought out plan of automation and work force reduction ( lay offs)
What did we get? Split shifts, lay offs , buildings closed, weak language on robotics AND 50 cents less in our pension contributions…..oh wait, we all didn’t get 50 cents less, O’Brien’s New England fund got bailed out at the rest of the country’s expense. But we did get air conditioning, didn’t we?
letting an arbitrator settle a contract simply takes the union leadership off the hook, “ nothing we could do about it! The arbitrator screwed us!”

[Watcher745]

Who got air conditioning? We have not here in north Texas.

[Thisischange?]

Great points.