Bill Overview
Title: No Tax Breaks for Union Busting (NTBUB) Act
Description: This bill denies employers a tax deduction for any expenditures incurred for attempting to influence their employees with respect to labor organizations or labor organization activities, such as elections, labor disputes, and collective actions. The bill requires employers to report on their attempts to influence their employees with respect to labor organizations and their activities.
Sponsors: Rep. Norcross, Donald [D-NJ-1]
Target Audience
Population: Unionized and unionizing workers and their employers globally
Estimated Size: 14000000
- The NTBUB Act aims to stop tax deductions for employers who try to influence union activities, which means it directly impacts employers who engage in anti-union activities.
- Employees in these workplaces may experience a shift in employer behavior due to this financial disincentive.
- Unionized workers, as well as those in the process of organizing, are likely to see an effect due to potential changes in employer strategies.
- With several major economies having significant unionized sectors, this legislation could impact a notable portion of the global working population.
- The bill indirectly affects workers who might benefit from or be hindered by employer anti-labor union activities, changing their work conditions.
Reasoning
- Unionized workers and those considering unionizing would experience different impacts based on employer responses to the policy.
- The policy primarily affects employers who are currently spending resources to combat unionization, potentially decreasing aggressive anti-union measures.
- Wellbeing changes for individual workers may vary depending on their position within firms, sector of employment, and personal views on unions.
- Higher potential impacts in industries with a historically strong anti-union stance, such as certain manufacturing or tech sectors.
- The policy does not directly affect individuals outside of the union context, so the general population will see limited impact.
Simulated Interviews
Automotive worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe that the policy will help keep our management from spending so much effort trying to break our union.
- We hope employers focus on improving our work conditions rather than fighting the union.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Warehouse worker (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might make it easier for us to organize without company interference.
- I'm unsure if it will have a strong enough impact to change management attitudes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Oil refinery manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act places financial pressure on my current strategies against unionization.
- If implemented, I would need to reassess where to allocate resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Public school teacher (Boston, MA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel secure in my current position and haven't experienced anti-union behavior.
- This policy may not affect my role directly, but can help fellow educators in less union-friendly districts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tech sector software engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could discourage my company from its current subtle anti-union practices.
- It might empower more of us to stand up without fear of backlash.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Finance executive (New York, NY)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our company will not be affected since we've maintained non-coercive employee relations.
- I see this as more of an issue for traditionally aggressive firms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retail worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this act stops my employer from acting against us if we decide to join a union.
- I'm worried about losing work if they retaliate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Nurse (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this will create more accountability, though it might not be a huge change for us.
- My workplace already respects union rights, but it's good for other industries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Manufacturing line worker (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might lessen the aggression from management against our unionizing attempts.
- I think we need more such measures to have fairer negotiations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Grocery store cashier (Boulder, CO)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy sounds relevant, but I don't think it will change much for me immediately.
- If there were talks of a union, it might afford some peace of mind.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $40000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $30000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $45000000)
Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $45000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- The extent of the cost will depend heavily on the IRS's capacity to enforce compliance and the additional resource allocation required for auditing and monitoring.
- Corporate responses to the bill could result in changes to employment structures or reporting strategies aimed at circumventing or minimizing perceived impacts, influencing overall effectiveness.
- Economic impacts will vary significantly across sectors with high union presence compared to those with minimal union interactions.