News & Insights

The Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act, reintroduced this week, would harm manufacturers and their employees alike if it passes, the NAM and allied organizations told the Senate Tuesday.
 
What’s going on: The PRO Act, reintroduced Wednesday by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), purports to broaden labor protections for workers.

• In truth, however, it “would limit workers’ right to secret ballot union representation elections, allow government bureaucrats to unilaterally impose contracts on the private sector, trample free speech and debate, jeopardize industrial stability and limit opportunities for small businesses and entrepreneurs,” according to the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, a group of organizations representing employers and employees. The NAM is a member.

Why it’s a problem: “The PRO Act is designed to push union representation on workers whether they want it or not,” the coalition said. The legislation would do this by:

• Limiting the right of employees to vote for or against union representation via secret ballot, instead instituting “card check”;
• Limiting employees’ right to free speech, effectively silencing debate;
• Giving the government unprecedented control over private-sector employment contracts;
• Requiring employers to give union organizers employees’ personal information without the employees’ consent;
• Eliminating right-to-work protections nationwide; and
• Allowing unions to choose a bargaining unit that maximizes its chances of winning an election instead of having the National Labor Relations Board choose a unit fairly.

The “ABC test”: In addition, the PRO Act would limit people’s opportunities for self-employment by imposing California’s failed “ABC test” on workers to determine whether they are independent contractors or employees.

• “The ABC test makes it very difficult for someone to work as an independent contractor by defining the term ‘employee’ very broadly,” the groups told the Senate. “Nationwide implementation would forcibly reclassify millions of workers who routinely say they do not want a traditional employee relationship and prize the flexibility and autonomy independent contracting provides.”    

Joint employment: The measure would also replace the existing standard for determining who is a “joint employer” under federal labor law with a much broader, more vague definition.

• “The current standard focuses on whether the potential employers have direct and immediate control over employees. The PRO Act standard, on the other hand, would establish joint employment liability based on indirect or even just reserved control.”
• “It would overturn decades of established labor law and undermine nearly every contractual relationship, from the franchise model to those between contractors and subcontractors and suppliers and vendors.”

The economic impact: The PRO Act would be economically devastating to companies, workers and the country, the coalition said.

• The measure’s independent worker classification alone could cost up to $57 billion nationwide, while its joint-employer standard would cost franchises as much as $33.3 billion annually.
• This would mean more than 350,000 job losses and a 93% spike in lawsuits.