Would the Faster Labor Contracts Act alone increase rank and file power?

[AlJackson1962!]

Brothers and Sisters:

I sent the below "Letter to the Editor" for publication in the TDU Teamsters Voice and TDU website, but have yet to receive any response - I'm a TDU member in good standing.
I'm interested to learn how other Teamsters view this matter.

Would the FASTER LABOR CONTRACTS ACT alone be a step forward for rank and file power?

Our Union supports passage of the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA). The FLCA is one of the
provisions included in the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act). If the FLCA becomes
law, any newly organized bargaining unit of workers will be required, upon impasse in
bargaining, to submit the terms of a first collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to binding
arbitration. I recognize how difficult it is to win a first contract that workers can be proud of.
I’ve been actively involved in bargaining first contracts as both a rank-and-file Teamster and as
an elected Teamster business agent. And I recognize that Employers under current law drag out
the bargaining process to frustrate the newly organized workers and Union leadership, and to
ultimately defeat the Union.

However, I believe we need to recognize the downside of winning the FLCA alone (without
the other important and critical provisions of the PRO Act). Our Teamster Constitution, after
decades of struggle, requires that any CBA be subject to a secret ballot majority rule ratification
vote by the rank-and-file members of the unit involved. No ratification vote will be held if the
first contract is imposed by binding arbitration. This may be a means for the Union to build a
Union culture on the job; the binding arbitration-imposed contract would be for two years.

The arbitration decision might be (for the workers) great, good, fair, bad, or terrible. It will be a
roll of the dice. In any event, our Teamsters Constitution would be overridden by the FLCA; the
rank and file and the Union leadership would be stuck with the binding decision by the
arbitrator for a period of two years.

Furthermore, the Union could be striking for a first contract during the initial bargaining,
mediation, and arbitration period of 90 or more days and be stuck with a binding contract that
falls far short of a contract acceptable to the Union leadership and the rank and file. Given
TDU’s history that Teamsters need the right to strike over grievances, consider the possibility
that a three-month strike results in a binding contract and workers are forced back to work for
24 months under a substandard CBA.

If our Union wants to win passage of any particular provision of the PRO Act, why start with
the FLCA? Why not start with some of the other provisions of the PRO Act such as: 1) only the
NLRB and the Union set the union election procedures (the Employer not involved); 2) no
Employer captive audience meetings; 3) NLRB must immediately go to court seeking an
injunction to immediately reinstate workers illegally fired for union activity; 4) Employer NLRA
violations subject to civil penalties and corporate officials held personally accountable for NLRA
violations; 5) Employee misclassification (independent contractor vs. employee status) would
violate the NLRA; 6) restoration of the right of Unions to engage in secondary activities; 7) an
end to permanent replacements (permanent scabs).

We TDU members know well that the current law protecting workers rights to engage in
concerted activity (collective action involving more than one worker) has no teeth; Employers
routinely violate that provision of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because the only
penalties imposed on Employers that unlawfully discipline workers because of workers’ union
activities are: 1) making the workers whole for lost wages/benefits and 2) posting a 60 day
notice at the workplace that the Employer agrees not to violate the law in the future.
Furthermore, lost wages are reduced by any wages that the worker(s) were paid during their
fight to be reinstated. Employers engage in unlawful discipline during a Union organizing drive
because the historical record shows such violations effectively chill the organizing drive and
intimidate the workers.

Why not start with putting real teeth into enforcement of existing law (by example numbers
3, and 4 -summarized in paragraph 5 above)? The last 45 years prove that the current penalties
don’t stop Employers from breaking the law; in fact, Employers recognize that unlawfully
discipling workers pays off for the Employer in the long run to take a slap on the wrist from the
NLRB, rather than follow the NLRA and bargain in good faith for a first contract.

Turning the tables by making the Employer risk substantial penalties for violating current
provisions of the NLRA might have a far better chance of becoming law than passage of the
FLCA. It’s during the early stages of the organizing drive that the Employer sows the seeds of
fear, divisiveness, and intimidation.
Don’t get me wrong, the PRO Act in its entirety would be a major transformative law for
organized labor and workers’ power. But the FLCA by itself could potentially work against the
Union and rank and file members’ interests. And unquestionably the Union will lose a core
component of rank-and-file power we in TDU have fought for: the right to majority vote
ratification of all contracts.

- Dave Robbins, Local 251, retired

[Bob Randall]

Thoughtful. Nice job.

[JWebb]

To answer the question, no, this will not help build Rank and File power. The motivations of it's supporters does not include building R&F power.

This is one of those "never gonna pass ideas" that no one has wasted time studying in detail. It's unworkable because 99% of organizing wins will result in the need for a defunded FMCS to inpliment the process. Imagine the backlog hust for starters.

[percap2high]

"The motivations of it's supporters" is generally dues and quick contracts not good ones.

[AlJackson1962!]

You’re right, the FMCS has been gutted under Trump.

[Graveyard]

My 2 cents,
The Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service (FMCS) had about 220 total employees at the end 2024. It’s $55 million annual budget was less than 0.0014% of the federal budget. In fiscal 2024, the agency conducted over 5,400 mediated negotiations and provided more than 10,000 arbitration panels to settle labor disputes. Reported; saved the American economy well over $500 million.

In March 2025 Trump signed Executive Order 14238 that cut almost the entire workforce that handles collective bargaining disputes in the private sector and across the federal workforce. FMCS employees said only a “skeleton crew” of about a dozen employees remained.

A federal lawsuit seeking to block the dismantling of the FMCS was filed by the AFL-CIO alongside a coalition of other major unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFSCME, AFT, IAM, SEIU, and UFCW. The IBT did not join as a plaintiff in the major labor coalition lawsuits challenging the Trump cuts. Federal judges—including a major ruling by a U.S. District Judge in New York—blocked the cuts ruling that the administration acted illegally and violated federal law.

While the sweeping shutdown and deep budget cuts were successfully challenged in court, observers note that the agency has retained a pared-down roster of around 60 active mediators compared to its pre-cut numbers.

And now O’Brien and his BFF Josh Hawley (R) publicly promote the FLCA that heavily depends on the FMCS to do our new members well. Can’t help but wonder what the increase to the 60 active mediators work-load would be? And more importantly, how long will it take to decide the new contract? Or will we have a one size fits all rubber stamp?

Also have to wonder, what’s in it for O’Brien & Hawley. Thinking Hawley wants union support in 2028 and O’Brien wants to increase the revenue flow because maybe $443,539 isn’t enough. Let’s not forget the great excuse, hey I (Obrien/Locals) didn’t negotiate that lousy contract, it was the FMCS!

[WTF891]

In the military tha term is AWOL. O'Brien is consistently absent without leave on issues that matter to working people.

[AlJackson1962!]

Also, Sean O'Brien stated in the below transcript from a 2024 PBS TV interview:

"We didn't get a commitment on vetoing national right-to-work. And, conversely, with Kamala Harris, we didn't get a commitment on protecting our members' right to strike under the Railway Labor Act. So there were a lot of mitigating factors on why we didn't endorse nationally."

O'Brien relied on the existing bar against railway strikes under the Railway Labor Act as the excuse to deny endorsement of Kamala Harris. Under that Act, a "cooling off period" that bars strikes can be imposed under federal law. Doesn't O'Brien's unequivocal support for the Faster Labor Contracts Act fly in the face of his stated 2024 position pursuant to the above quote?

Under the Faster Labor Contracts Act, the restrictions against Unions implementing a strike are more severe than the Railway Labor Act, yes? Once the arbitrator rules on the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, unless that arbitration decision does not include a no strike provision (you can bank on having a no strike provision typical of most Teamster contracts), effective the first day of the binding contract, any ongoing or future strikes during the term of the two year contract would generally be unlawful*.

*What about a first contract imposed by the arbitrator that does not include unit members' rights (currently allowed under the NLRA) allowing workers in the unit to refuse to cross or work behind any primary picket line or be permanently replaced for doing so? That contract provision is among the most important in the Union - it allows workers to act in solidarity. Despite the NLRA provision allowing concerted union activity such as economic strikes, the Union must win a waiver of a contractual no strike provision in order to protect unit members that (while working under a no strike contract) exercise their refusal to cross or work behind any primary picket line.Will our Union support revisions to the National Labor Relations Act that impose binding contract terms that force a worker to decide whether he/she will cross a primary picket line or get fired for doing so? That's what the FLCA could impose under binding arbitration.

This debate must take place in US organized labor now. The FLCA - the biggest change in the NLRA since Taft Hartley, could be (with these ambiguities and certainties) setting us up for a tougher road to hoe than we currently face for winning decent first contracts.

Again, I believe there are other provisions of the PRO Act that will be helpful in winning first contracts (as stated in my above post), without giving away the Union's ratification rights for a first contract. How will Employers strategize to frustrate and defeat first contract battles under the FLCA?

How many of us have personally witnessed and been impacted by grievance arbitration decisions that are supposed to be determined within the four corners of the written collective bargaining agreement, but somehow the arbitrator found a means to rule against the Union? Unions can seek to overturn an arbitrator's decision in federal court - but that almost never goes the Union's way.

[Sean'sBoss]

Good points. It's also about who the arbitrators are. It would be rare to find one with a labor backround.

[WTF891]

In his zeal to win a first contract and collecting dues on new members these members will be force fed poor contracts. Lots of decerts behind this.