Bill Overview
Title: Employee Rights Act
Description: This bill makes various changes with respect to the collective bargaining process and labor relations. For example, the bill permits an employer to refuse to collectively bargain with a union within 90 days prior to the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement if the employer receives evidence that the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit do not support the union. The bill requires support from a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit (not just a majority of the employees voting) when electing union representation. The bill also requires unions to provide bargaining unit employees with the right to vote by secret ballot, including when voting whether to engage in a strike or refusal to work. Further, union dues, fees, assessments, and other contributions may be used for only collective bargaining or contract administrative functions. Additionally, the bill establishes a process for nullifying executive orders that the Office of Management and Budget determines are likely to result in an employer ordering a plant closure or mass layoff.
Sponsors: Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA-12]
Target Audience
Population: Unionized workers worldwide
Estimated Size: 14000000
- The bill directly affects employees who are part of or are eligible to be part of collective bargaining units, which includes unionized workers.
- There are approximately 14 million unionized workers in the United States according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of 2022.
- Globally, the number of unionized workers is much larger, particularly in countries with strong labor laws and union presence such as in European countries.
- The bill's impact is majorly on private-sector workers but also affects public-sector workers where applicable.
- The bill's clauses on secret ballots and dues usage affect all union members, providing them with specific rights and restrictions.
Reasoning
- The Employee Rights Act affects employees in collective bargaining units, focusing primarily on unionized workers in the private and some public sectors.
- Given there are around 14 million unionized workers in the U.S., this policy has a direct impact on a significant portion of these workers.
- The budget limitations imply that the policy cannot provide direct financial assistance or broad-based financial changes to union members on a large scale.
- The focus on secret ballots and specific dues usage may align with interests of those seeking more transparency, but could be viewed as restrictive by pro-union entities.
- It was important to include individuals with varying levels of enthusiasm toward union involvement to capture a broad spectrum of opinions and impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Steelworker (Pennsylvania)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the new requirement for union votes to reflect the majority of all employees as limiting some of our union's power, which makes me uneasy about future negotiations.
- Having the secret ballot is good as it ensures that votes are private and fair.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Teacher (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate that unions can't use my dues for purposes other than bargaining, but I'm worried this will limit what the union can do for us in terms of advocacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 9 |
Retail Worker (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having a secret ballot is a step forward, but the restrictions on union dues might weaken the support for important initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Automotive Manufacturing Technician (Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear that the ability of employers to avoid bargaining will put us in a difficult negotiating position, potentially risking jobs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Nurse (Ohio)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The change in rules might streamline some decision-making processes for our union, allowing a sharper focus on critical issues like work conditions and benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Public Transit Worker (Illinois)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could further fragment union power and harm our ability to negotiate better terms, especially with the new dues restrictions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Warehouse Operative (Missouri)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's beneficial to have a secret ballot, but these conditions might make it harder for us to respond quickly to workplace changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Automobile Industry Worker (Michigan)
Age: 41 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changing how unions operate financially could undermine our negotiating strength. It's crucial we maintain funding for all union activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Food Service Worker (Florida)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm undecided about how this will impact me since I'm not deeply involved with the union yet, but transparency in voting sounds fair.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired Machinist (Wisconsin)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm retired, the policies impact my former colleagues and how effective our union can be in protecting benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $40000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $40000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $80000000)
Year 10: $60000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $90000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $150000000)
Key Considerations
- The implications of requiring majority employee support for union actions can deeply impact the power dynamics within workplaces and have large economic and legal ramifications.
- Union rules adjustments could potentially strengthen accountability and have long-term effects on union operations.
- The process of nullifying executive orders related to potential mass layoffs requires careful consideration of potential unintended consequences.