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

[AlJackson1962!]

The current House Bill "Faster Labor Contracts Act",(FLCA) see below provisions. It appears that all first contracts for workers covered under the National Labor Relations Act will be required to bargain under the terms of that proposed amendment to the current law. It does not address any opt-out provision for the Union; therefore, even if there is a strike or lockout, the final terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement will be decided by the appointed arbitration panel. This is a big fucking deal. If my reading of this Bill is inaccurate, please advise.

Our Teamsters General President who is sucking up to the Trumpster allies to pass this Bill should be including information pertaining to the impact of this, YES?

First contracts are tough as hell, we get it. But do Teamsters know they're giving up their current ratification rights to any NLRA covered first contract? If we won additional provisions of the PRO Act, eating the FLCA might not be as bad:



“(3) Whenever collective bargaining is for the purpose of establishing an initial collective bargaining agreement following certification or recognition of an individual or labor organization as a representative as provided under section 9(a), the following shall apply:

“(A) Not later than 10 days after receiving a written request for collective bargaining from an individual or labor organization that has been newly recognized or certified as a representative as provided under section 9(a), or within such further period as the parties agree upon, the parties shall meet and begin bargaining collectively, and shall make every reasonable effort to conclude and sign a collective bargaining agreement.



“(B) If after the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which bargaining is commenced, or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the parties have failed to reach an agreement, either party may notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service that a dispute exists, and may request mediation. Whenever such a request is received, the Service shall promptly communicate with the parties and use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to secure an agreement.



“(C) If after the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the request for mediation is made under subparagraph (B), or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the Service is not able to bring the parties to agreement by conciliation, the Service shall refer the dispute to a 3-person arbitration panel established in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service, with one member selected by the individual or labor organization, one member selected by the employer, and one neutral member mutually agreed to by the parties. The individual or labor organization and the employer must each select the members of the 3-person arbitration panel within 14 days of the Service’s referral; if the individual or labor organization or the employer fail to do so, the Service shall designate any members not selected by the individual or labor organization or by the employer. A majority of the 3-person arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties. Such decision shall be based on—

“(i) the employer’s financial status and prospects;



“(ii) the size and type of the employer’s operations and business;



“(iii) the employees’ cost of living;



“(iv) the employees’ ability to sustain themselves, their families, and their dependents on the wages and benefits they earn from the employer; and



“(v) the wages and benefits other employers in the same business provide their employees.”; and



(2) in subsection (g), by striking “clause (B) of the last sentence of section 8(d) of this Act” and inserting “subsection (d)(2)(B)”.

[WTF891]

Seems like there's more onus protecting the employer than the worker.

[JWebb]

There are thousands of NLRB election wins that would be forced into this new process and almost all would go the distance to arbitration. Does the now Trump gutted FMCS have the capacity to handle the huge load? No. This could end up taking longer than the current snails pace process.

[AlJackson1962!]

Excellent point!

[NYNick]

It actually serves corporate interests. What better way then to package it as a “ win” for labor?
Smoke and mirrors and the members will celebrate it as a victory.

[LastDriver]

There are thousands of NLRB election wins that would be forced into this new process and almost all would go the distance to arbitration. Does the now Trump gutted FMCS have the capacity to handle the huge load? No. This could end up taking longer than the current snails pace process.

Arbitration is always a long slow process (if you've ever been through one you know thats true). This allows deadlines to be extended by Mutual agreement, that happens more than half the time, in the real world.

[WTF891]

All O'Brien sees in this is a path to a first contract and dues payers dollars. Rest assured these deals will force agreements on workers that want to fight for a better contract. Cha Ching and Bada Bing this is not even a hollowed out version of the PRO act.

[AlJackson1962!]

All O'Brien sees in this is a path to a first contract and dues payers dollars. Rest assured these deals will force agreements on workers that want to fight for a better contract. Cha Ching and Bada Bing this is not even a hollowed out version of the PRO act.

WTF891: The Faster Labor Contracts Act is also being used by O'Brien to garner Trump/MAGA support for any piece of labor legislation, regardless of it's impact on winning first contracts (especially first contracts that rank and file members can be proud of). This is O'Brien's attempt to make his case for "bipartisanship" with the most right wing politicians in Congress; O'Brien's justification for his self branded image as the tough guy and pragmatist.

Wasn't it the Railway Labor Act's (federal law since 1926) restrictions on concerted activity and binding arbitration, that O'Brien used as an excuse for denying the Teamsters endorsement of Kamala Harris for US President during the Teamster GEB "roundtables" when candidates were interviewed at the IBT headquarters? How does O'Brien square that with his support for the Faster Labor Contracts Act that would require binding arbitration to settle disputes that reach impasse (and impasse is defined by set deadlines)? How does TDU square it's support (per the TDU website) when TDU has been fighting over 50 years for rank and file power as the means to win better contracts? The Faster Labor Contracts Act is a bureaucratic means of getting first contracts, not a means won through the power of the Union and winning the demands of the rank and file.

The PRO Act in it's entirety is a tremendous Bill, but the provision in the PRO Act that is now the Faster Labor Contracts Act , has to be the least advantageous piece of the PRO Act. The other PRO Act provisions will have a much greater impact on leveling the field in collective bargaining, including the impact on winning first contracts that will be ratified by the rank and file members (in the Teamsters anyway - where we've fought for decades to increase rank and file power). By example: The PRO Act (besides the Faster Labor Contracts provision) includes the following changes in federal labor law:

- The NLRB and the Union discuss and agree on the NLRB election procedures - the Employer is left out of that process

- No more captive audience meetings!

- Immediate NLRB filing of court injunctions to reinstate fired workers in the organizing drive and whenever the Employer fires workers in violation of the NLRA

- Employer accountability for violating the NLRA: fines, penalties; not just payment of back wages offset by any earnings the fired worker had during the period before the worker is reinstated

- Workers will have the right to sue their Employer for violating the NLRA

- Employee misclassification (ie. independent contractors vs. employees) is a violation of the NLRA under the PRO Act

- Joint Employer status clearly defined

- No "permanent replacements" (permanent scabs) allowed because of a strike (whether it's an unfair labor practice strike or an economic strike)

- States must allow fair share agreements (I believe this would end right to work for less laws). Fair share agreements meaning that current private sector bargaining unit members would have to pay dues under a Union Security clause as an agency fee if they refuse to join the Union

-The PRO Act removes prohibitions on secondary activity. (This would be huge!)

All of the above PRO Act provisions are a big step forward for organized labor, but the Faster Labor Contract Act by itself is not a step forward in working class power.

Dave Robbins, Local 251, retired

[Thisischange?]

Congress is going to recess soon you can forget getting any legislation done between now and the midterms. This bill seems to be more about corporate unionism and collecting dollars from newly organized workers than negotiating solid contracts. Sucking off republicans isn't a really good plan, neither is playing with rattlesnakes. There's no real difference.