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: Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]
Target Audience
Population: Employers engaging in union-related influence activities
Estimated Size: 300000
- The primary impact of the NTBUB Act will be on employers who currently receive tax deductions for anti-union activities.
- The legislation could indirectly affect employees and labor organizations as it aims to discourage employers from engaging in union-busting activities.
- Globally, many countries have similar legislation that governs union activities and labor rights, but this specific bill is focused on the United States.
- The global impact would be minimal other than possibly influencing labor policies in other countries through advocacy or policy modeling.
Reasoning
- The NTBUB Act will mostly influence employers who partake in union-busting activities by negating tax incentives for such practices, potentially altering their behavior over time.
- The policy may indirectly support labor unions and employees by reducing employer-driven anti-union actions, potentially improving workers' ability to organize.
- It's important to simulate a diverse group of interviews, including those directly impacted, such as business owners, and those who might be indirectly affected, like union members or non-union employees.
- There may be variations in policy impact based on industry, union presence, and corporate practices among different employers.
- I accounted for individuals not engaged in union-related activities as part of the general population who would likely see no impact.
- Over time, changes in union engagement might reflect in the wellbeing scores, depicting a shift due to broader acceptance of union activities.
Simulated Interviews
Factory Owner (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the NTBUB Act as another layer of bureaucracy.
- Given our current practices, the financial impact might not be significant, but it could alter our approach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Union Organizer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a positive step towards giving workers a fairer chance.
- It will hopefully deter some aggressive anti-union tactics from employers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
HR Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I need to report all anti-union activities under this policy, which changes our strategic approach.
- The policy forces us to reconsider our engagement tactics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Tech Worker (Boston, MA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see it impacting me directly as we're not unionized.
- It's interesting to see potential cultural shifts in larger companies.
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 | 8 | 8 |
CEO of a Retail Chain (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's more regulation, making it complex for us as there are union talks in some areas.
- We need advisors to navigate this policy effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Public School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally, a policy that might even the playing field for union members.
- This could lead to better negotiations during our contract talks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Bartender (Austin, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see positive outcomes for unionized folks, which indirectly benefits everyone.
- If more workers get organized, it may lead to higher wages and better conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think employers might ease up on their anti-union stance due to cost.
- This could make it more appealing to join a union.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't foresee any direct impact on my job or company.
- It's reassuring to see protections are being strengthened, though.
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 | 8 | 8 |
Health Care Worker (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopefully, this policy will create a fairer environment for those considering unions.
- It could positively impact our upcoming decisions on forming a union.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $90000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $85000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $115000000)
Year 3: $80000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $110000000)
Year 5: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $105000000)
Year 10: $70000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $100000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- The full impact on employer behavior is uncertain as they may find alternative ways to engage with union activities without incurring tax-deductible expenses.
- Administrative costs could vary significantly based on the complexity and enforcement rigor of the reporting requirements.
- The potential chilling effect on union-busting activities could promote broader union organizing, impacting labor market dynamics.