Congress Must Not Pass The Faster Labor Contracts Act
Advancing American Freedom and 28 coalition allies sent the following letter urging members of Congress to oppose the Faster Labor Contracts Act (S. 844 / H.R. 5408).
Dear Members of Congress,
The Faster Labor Contracts Act (S. 844 / H.R. 5408) would hand a dangerous new power over to Washington officials: drafting and imposing labor terms on individual private businesses and their employees. Even with the best of intentions, government arbitrators could never wield this abuse-prone power effectively. At a time when Congress and the White House are working to rein in the federal bureaucracy and reduce government overreach, this legislation would move in the opposite direction by inserting Washington directly into private workplace negotiations.
Negotiating a contract with union officials can take a considerable amount of time. These contracts touch nearly every workplace policy, from pay and hours to benefits, and union negotiators often hold firm to demands many employers simply cannot meet.
Despite its name, the Faster Labor Contracts Act does not speed agreement; it forces bargaining onto a 90-day clock. After that, either side can bring in the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for 30 days of mediation, after which a panel of arbitrators can impose terms that bind both workers and employer for two years even if workers themselves never voted to approve those terms. This would expand the authority of a federal agency that the Trump Administration has proposed eliminating.
Unlike workers and employers, arbitrators have no skin in the game and face no real
consequences for dictating terms that cripple a company. Arbitrators have little way of knowing what any given business can reasonably afford, and if they get it wrong, jobs and even the business itself can be lost. Rather than preserving workplace democracy, the legislation risks imposing one-size-fits-all outcomes crafted by officials with little understanding of the unique needs of individual workplaces.
For these reasons, we urge you to oppose the Faster Labor Contracts Act. Doing so would protect worker choice, preserve the ability of employees and employers to negotiate agreements, and prevent unnecessary federal overreach into private-sector labor negotiations.
Respectfully,
Tim Chapman
President
Advancing American Freedom
Vincent Vernuccio
President
Institute for the American Worker
Daniel J. Erspamer
Chief Executive Officer
Pelican Institute for Public Policy
Akash Chougule
President
Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity
Ross Marchand
Executive Director
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Brent Gardner
Chief Government Affairs Officer
Americans for Prosperity
Charles Sauer
President
Market Institute
Sean Higgins
Research Fellow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Jason Rapert
President
Providence Financial Group, Inc.
Victor Riches
CEO
Goldwater Institute
Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
President
American Association of Senior Citizens
James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman
60 Plus Association
Chip Rogers
CEO
Americans for Fair Treatment
Eric Ventimiglia
Executive Director
Pinpoint Policy Institute
Mark J. Janus
Senior Fellow
Liberty Justice Center
Daniel J. Mitchell
President
Center for Freedom and Prosperity
David Guenthner
Executive Director
Workers for Opportunity
Jenny Beth Martin
Honorary Chairman
Tea Party Patriots Action
Ryan Ellis
President
Center for a Free Economy
Alfredo Ortiz
CEO
Job Creators Network
Dick Patten
President
American Business Defense Council
Kristen A. Ullman
President
Eagle Forum
Patrick D. Purtill
Executive Vice President & General Counsel
Unify.US
Brandon Arnold
Executive Vice President
National Taxpayers Union
Nathan Benefield
Chief Policy Officer
Commonwealth Foundation
Mailee R. Smith
Vice President of Policy & Litigation
Illinois Policy
Brigette Herbst
Executive Director
Gevura
George Landrith
President
Frontiers of Freedom Institute
Paul Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation
AAF FACT SHEET: FASTER LABOR CONTRACTS ACT
The Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) imposes an arbitrary and artificially short timeline for collective bargaining, beyond which workers and employers can be cut out of the bargaining process, with government-appointed arbitrators having the ability to impose labor terms on workers and employers that are binding for two years.
BACKGROUND
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) requires employers to bargain in “good faith” with unions to reach a first contract but does not impose any deadline or mandate that the parties achieve a collective bargaining agreement. Most first contracts take about 12 months to achieve, and more complex and contentious negotiations take longer. The FLCA would allow only 90 days for negotiations and 30 days for mediation before imposing a binding arbitration requirement.
Arbitrary and Unrealistic Deadlines
- The proposed one-size-fits-all deadlines of 90 days for bargaining and 30 for mediation prior to requiring binding arbitration are arbitrary and unrealistically fast.
- Some contracts are highly complex: the National Union of Healthcare Workers’ first contract with Tarzana Medical Center took about 18 months, and included 29 articles and 80 pages, and the first contract between the United Auto Workers and Volkswagen Chattanooga took 21 months and included 19 articles and 246 pages.
- Rushed timelines or ceding decisions to arbitrators who are unfamiliar with the business dramatically increases the risk that terms will be adopted or imposed that could cost jobs or entire businesses.
Consequences for Workers
- Workers do not get the opportunity to vote on terms drawn up by arbitrators and their ability to strike is restricted by the short timeline.
- It could result in slower first contracts because the arbitration timeline is unlimited and bringing an uninformed arbitrator sufficiently up to speed with the realities of unique operations (manufacturing, healthcare, education, etc.) takes time.
- The FLCA would make the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS)—which was revealed to be among the most corrupt federal agencies and which DOGE all but shuttered—the provider of supposedly “neutral” arbitrators.
Legally Questionable
- The FLCA would likely be challenged in court because mutual assent is a required element of a legally enforceable contract, and the Act could result in labor terms being imposed on either or both parties without their assent.
- The government imposing terms on private parties could constitute state action, opening the door to free speech and freedom of association challenges to any arbitration-ordered resolution.