Why Would Any Republican Support Forced Unionism? – Inside Sources

You might have thought Republicans winning Congress would put a full stop on the Democrats’ infamous PRO Act to ban right to work and force workers into unions, whether they like it or not.  

Yet here we are, with the so-called Faster Labor Contracts Act. The bill would revive key parts of the PRO Act to empower unelected bureaucrats to override the decisions of employers and employees, mandating binding contracts on a government-imposed timeline.

Under the Faster Labor Contracts Act, government regulations would force employers to begin collective bargaining within 10 days of receiving a union request. They would then have 90 days to reach a deal. If no agreement is reached, either side can drag the dispute to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for a 30-day mediation window. If that fails, a three-person arbitration panel issues a binding decision that locks both parties in for two years.

In practice, this means employers would have four months to negotiate a labor contract before critical business decisions are left to government arbitrators, whose decisions are binding and final.

That should be anathema to a Republican Party that professes belief in free-market capitalism, so how is it slated for a floor vote in a House controlled by Republicans?  The act is being forced onto the House floor by a coalition of House Democrats and seven Republicans who have signed a discharge petition to force Speaker Mike Johnson’s hand.

The seven Republicans taking this action effectively turned control of the House over to Hakeem Jeffries. They are: Mike Lawyer and Nick LaLota of New York, Rob Bresnahan and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Max Miller of Ohio, Don Bacon of Nebraska, and Riley Moore of West Virginia.  In the Senate, the lead sponsor is Republican Josh Hawley of Missouri, and two of his 15 co-sponsors are Republicans: Bernie Moreno of Ohio and Roger Marshall of Kansas.

What makes this even more shocking is that President Trump has proposed completely eliminating the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which the bill would supercharge.  The president understands that contracts imposed by government bureaucrats are more likely to be based on political than economic logic, and that negotiations are better left to the private parties.

Ironically, government-imposed contracts are likely to harm the workers whose union bosses are pushing this idea.  Because when economics don’t add up, it’s the workers who pay in layoffs, reduced hours and the diversion of capital investments that would have raised productivity.

This risks broader economic disruption by creating a threat perception that, at any time, a single union request could trigger a government-enforced contract clock.  That perception would tend to chill hiring and investing, especially by smaller businesses that can’t afford to fight out an arbitration battle.

The bill also raises serious constitutional questions. We don’t lose our due-process rights when we go into business. Binding arbitration is not a freely entered contractual arrangement but a government taking.

There are good reasons Republicans in Congress have overwhelmingly rejected the PRO Act. They have largely rejected unions because they have seen them undermine the competitiveness of many once-great American industries. The best, most productive employees would rather negotiate for themselves than trust union leaders and pay dues (often used to fund political donations) for the privilege. The Faster Labor Contracts Act is the PRO Act’s mandatory arbitration provision.

Voters expect Republicans to behave like Republicans, or else what’s the point of showing up on Election Day?