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: Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]
Target Audience
Population: People engaged in or affected by union collective bargaining processes
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The bill affects employees who are part of or are considering joining a union, as it modifies collective bargaining rules.
- It impacts unions, as it changes the requirements for union elections and the use of union dues.
- The bill affects employers who have unionized workforces, as it gives them the ability to refuse collective bargaining under certain conditions.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts unionized workers, union members, and the employers who engage with these unions. Therefore, the interviews should be targeted towards such individuals.
- People who are not part of a union or do not work in a unionized environment might not feel a direct impact from this policy, hence they should also be included to represent the broader population.
- The wellbeing scores before the policy will help establish a baseline. After the policy implementation, these scores will offer insights into how significant changes caused by the policy may influence various stakeholders' lives over time.
- Given the budgetary limitations, the scale of the program is moderate, but enough to potentially enact significant changes and involve a broad demographic affected by union dynamics.
- It is crucial to represent different perspectives, including employees who support or don't support unions, employers, and union leaders, to obtain a comprehensive understanding of attitudes and potential impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support union representation because it gives us a collective voice.
- I'm concerned about the increased difficulty in bargaining if fewer of my colleagues support the union. It might impact our working conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Factory worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems to side with management in our long-standing negotiation issues.
- Limiting union dues to collective bargaining might reduce our resources in advocating for better conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
HR Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill provides us with pathways to address workforce issues without always conceding to union demands.
- It might improve management flexibility in operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Software Developer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Unions don't play a big role in my field, so I don't perceive any direct impact.
- I appreciate secure employment, and current conditions are favorable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Nurse (Denver, CO)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm proud of our union's work in securing better hours and pay.
- This policy might weaken our union's bargaining position, which worries me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Union Rep (Detroit, MI)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems designed to weaken union influence even further.
- Losing support of even a slight majority might undo years of work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Retail Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautious about unions as they haven't always been effective for part-timers.
- If the union can't bargain effectively, it might not be worth considering membership.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Grad Student/Lab Assistant (Boston, MA)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Joining a union could have helped improve my work conditions.
- The policy makes me question if collective bargaining will be less effective now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Factory Supervisor (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Balancing union and non-union workers has always been a task.
- This policy might ease some operational challenges if union influence decreases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Public Transit Worker (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've fought for our workers' rights for decades, and now I see our efforts being potentially dismantled.
- The provision against using dues for broader advocacy is particularly disheartening.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 1 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $24000000 (Low: $19000000, High: $29000000)
Year 3: $23000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $28000000)
Year 5: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $27000000)
Year 10: $21000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $26000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Key Considerations
- The administrative costs associated with compliance could increase negative feedback among employers and unions.
- There may be legal challenges to the provisions of the bill, potentially altering the cost and savings estimations.
- The impact on union membership and activity could have broader economic and sociopolitical implications.