Bill Overview
Title: Nationwide Right To Unionize Act
Description: This bill provides authorization for labor agreements to require membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment regardless of state law (thus preempting state laws that prohibit such agreements).
Sponsors: Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: People whose employment could be subject to labor union agreements
Estimated Size: 160000000
- The global workforce is approximately 3.5 billion people which includes diverse types of employment subject to unionization.
- Many countries, particularly Western democracies and industrialized nations, already have strong labor rights and the presence of unions.
- Not all jobs are unionizable or benefit directly from unionization efforts, such as gig economy jobs or certain small business sectors.
- While precise global statistics on union membership are challenging, countries with high numbers of unionized workers like Northern European countries, the United States, Canada, and Australia contribute significantly to the global population likely to be impacted.
Reasoning
- The workforce impacted by the policy primarily includes employees in sectors open to unionization. This includes manufacturing, education, healthcare, government sectors, and possibly some service jobs.
- Given the policy budget constraints, we must consider sectors where unionization is feasible and is most likely to have significant impacts on worker wellbeing.
- The target population is relatively large (160 million workers in the U.S.), so the policy needs to prioritize sectors where unionization could provide the most substantial benefits.
- Those not impacted include workers in small businesses, those who are already union members, and gig economy workers who typically lack a traditional employer-employee relationship required for union contracts.
Simulated Interviews
Automotive worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe unions can help improve working conditions and wages, especially in industries like ours.
- This policy might finally give us the power to negotiate better terms with management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Tech industry programmer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm neutral; our industry hasn't seen much union activity and I doubt this would change significantly.
- The tech industry is dynamic and traditional union models might not fit well here.
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 |
Teacher (Birmingham, Alabama)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this law would restore some of our bargaining power.
- Union negotiations are crucial for education sectors to secure better funding and conditions.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Service industry (restaurant) (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am skeptical because jobs in our sector are high turnover and often low pay, making cohesive union efforts difficult.
- If it works, it could help us have a voice against unfair practices.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Oil industry engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support it; workers need protection, and current laws have undermined our unions.
- This policy could strengthen current agreements and help in renewing them.
- Impact might be limited as our industry already has strong union presence.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Freelance graphic designer (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see this affecting me much as I choose projects myself.
- There's interest in gig worker rights, but unionization isn't the focus yet.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired postal worker (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- During my time, unions were essential in securing our benefits.
- For current workers, this policy could bolster the unions.
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 nurse (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen how unions can make a real difference in working conditions and patient care.
- This policy could provide the push needed to strengthen union negotiations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Supermarket cashier (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful it might help us get more stability and better wages.
- Part-time roles often lack sufficient benefits, and union help could change that.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Call center operator (Miami, Florida)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Call centers often have tough working conditions; improved union standing could help negotiate better terms.
- Our work environment could greatly benefit from stronger collective bargaining power.
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 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000000 (Low: $3000000000, High: $7000000000)
Year 2: $5200000000 (Low: $3200000000, High: $7400000000)
Year 3: $5408000000 (Low: $3328000000, High: $7776000000)
Year 5: $5832000000 (Low: $3582000000, High: $8394000000)
Year 10: $6750000000 (Low: $4050000000, High: $9675000000)
Year 100: $13400000000 (Low: $8040000000, High: $19260000000)
Key Considerations
- The legality and enforcement of preempting state right-to-work laws pose significant legal challenges and could lead to lengthy court battles.
- The act's success would depend on both federal and union administrations' ability to smoothly integrate and regulate the new union requirements.
- Rural or heavily anti-union areas might resist the implementation, affecting compliance and overall efficacy.