Bill Overview
Title: Union Integrity Act
Description: This bill establishes whistle-blower protections for union employees. It prohibits a labor organization from discriminating against any of its employees who (1) provide information to the labor organization, the Department of Labor, or any other state, local, or federal government authority or law enforcement agency regarding any violation of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 or any Labor or National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) order; (2) testify in any Labor or NLRB administrative or enforcement proceeding; (3) file or institute any such proceeding; or (4) refuse to perform an assigned task that the employee reasonably believes is a violation of any law, order, or prohibition enforceable by Labor or the NLRB.
Sponsors: Rep. Good, Bob [R-VA-5]
Target Audience
Population: Union Employees Potentially Covered by Whistle-blower Protections
Estimated Size: 14000000
- The bill targets union employees who are potential whistle-blowers regarding labor violations.
- There are approximately 142 million union members globally, with a significant number of employees working in roles where the whistle-blower protection would apply.
- In addition to unionized employees, it extends protections potentially impacting all employees under the jurisdiction of National Labor Relations Board in union environments.
- Whistle-blower protection generally aims to safeguard individuals across various industries, thus affecting a diverse section of the workforce.
- The bill aims to support a culture of compliance and accountability in labor organizations worldwide.
Reasoning
- This policy primarily affects union employees, particularly those who are potential whistle-blowers. The concern is the fear of retaliation when reporting violations which this policy seeks to mitigate.
- Considering budget limitations, the policy might need to focus on key sectors with prominent union activities or past allegations of violations.
- The policy could have varying impacts based on the industry, geographical location, and current union practices. For instance, industries with a history of labor violations might see a higher impact.
- The policy also indirectly influences non-union employees in environments with significant union presence, as changes in the union policy may alter workplace dynamics.
- We need to ensure coverage across various industries and scenarios to truly understand the differential impacts and perspectives.
Simulated Interviews
Automobile Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes me feel safer about reporting any unfair practices I might witness.
- Previously, there was a fear of retaliation even with union support.
- I believe the policy will encourage a cleaner working environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Film Industry Technician (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act reassures me about reporting safety concerns without risking my job.
- It could improve communication between workers and management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Oil Refinery Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wish this policy had been in place earlier during my tenure.
- It might not change everything, but it's a step in the right direction.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Educator - Public School (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy strengthens our stand while negotiating terms with management.
- Transparency and accountability are crucial in education.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Coal Miner (Charleston, WV)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Protection is welcome, though a bit late for me.
- Important for younger workers who are yet to face these challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tech Start-Up Employee (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The tech industry doesn't have a strong union presence yet, but this policy catalyzes necessary movement.
- Diversity efforts can pair with protecting whistle-blowers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Postal Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the policy, I feel more confident in holding management accountable.
- I hope this sets a precedent across other federal sectors too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Healthcare Nurse (Miami, FL)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Union activity in healthcare is critical; this policy reinforces our voice.
- Ensures matters like patient safety, and staff welfare can be transparently addressed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Dock Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this will spark honest conversations about labor conditions.
- Encouraging members to stand firm without fear is tough, but crucial.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Steelworker (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- At this stage, it offers little to me but helps ensure better conditions for new workers.
- Automation isn't going away, but this policy ensures our grievances can be addressed properly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $53000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $74000000)
Year 3: $57000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $78000000)
Year 5: $60000000 (Low: $36000000, High: $81000000)
Year 10: $68000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $92000000)
Year 100: $120000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $160000000)
Key Considerations
- The balance between increased administrative costs and potential cost savings due to decreased litigation.
- Investments needed for the Department of Labor to implement and sustain oversight functions.
- Potential economic benefits from improved labor market conditions.
- Whistle-blower protection laws must be communicated effectively to ensure compliance and minimize misuse.