The Pro-Worker Agenda
Tracking policies and legislation that either empower or impede workers.
Policies
Worker choice is the strongest form of worker voice today. Rather than advancing a forced union agenda, leaders should champion a pro-worker agenda that puts workers first and recognizes the dignity found in all pathways of work.
In I4AW’s report, “How To Empower Workers,” Austen Bannan discusses policies that are included in proposed labor legislation being considered by members of Congress. I4AW tracks these policies below to determine whether they empower or impede workers.
Tools that Empower
Enfranchise Legal Workers
The Employee Rights Act (ERA) ensures anyone voting in a union election is a citizen or legally authorized to work in the United States.
Legal Clarity for Independent Workers
The Employee Rights Act (ERA) and the Modern Worker Empowerment Act give workers the freedom to choose how and when they want to work in self-employment pathways, including in the gig economy. It provides much-needed legal clarity and harmonization by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) with a predictable control and economic dependence test, making it easier for entrepreneurs to work for themselves.
Privacy Protections
Unlike the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, the Employee Rights Act (ERA) protects workers’ privacy by empowering them to choose what contact information is shared with a union seeking to organize them. Under current law, workers do not have the option to opt out of having their personal contact information shared with a union, such as their home address, phone number, and personal email.
Protection for Small Business Owners
The "Joint-Employer Standard" is a test to determine if the employees of one business, who also work with another business, are considered employees of both- thus making the two businesses joint-employers. A properly crafted joint employer standard would ensure that business-to-business relationships occur the way all parties want them to proceed. In doing so, it would help to fuel the small business growth that has been the backbone of America’s economy. It would be difficult to overstate the positive impact of a stable pro-worker, pro-entrepreneur joint employer policy. Consider franchising. More than 820,000 businesses employing nearly 9 million workers use it. Millions of additional workers and small businesses eagerly operate as vendors and contractors to other businesses to earn their living. The 2024 joint employer standard President Biden’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) put in place cut off these productive relationships and favored unionization and lawsuit campaigns by trial lawyers. Congress then acted on a bipartisan basis to reject this standard. President Biden vetoed the congressional action, but thankfully a federal court rejected the subjective and indirect standards rule imposed on businesses. It is now time to enact a permanent standard that helps American small businesses thrive.
Regular Recertification Elections
As few as 5% of workers have voted for the unions that represent them, and it is quite difficult for workers to successfully complete the steps needed to decertify a union. Given these facts, recertification elections would greatly improve workers’ opportunity to decide what representation they want, if any. For instance, there could be recurring recertification elections, such as every 3 years, or when the workforce has turned over by more than 50% since the most recent election. Recertification models exist in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Florida for government employees. These models could be applied to the private sector with new federal legislation.
Restrictions on Union Discrimination and Harassment
The Employee Rights Act (ERA) stops a Biden era interpretation of federal labor law permits racist and sexist harassment at the workplace if it is tied to labor union activity, as I4AW recently documented in its report Battle of the 7s study. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 penalizes people for discrimination and harassment in workplace if they make racist and sexist comments. But Lauren McFerran, Chair of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) during much of President Biden’s time in office, argued that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) exempts certain harassment if it relates to Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the NLRA establishes “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” A general protection from harassment is also included in the Protection on the Picket Line Act."
Right to a Secret Ballot
Workers should have the right to vote in secret ballot elections so they can express their true preference without outside influence. There should be open and robust debate during union organizing campaigns, and workers should hear from both sides so they can make informed decisions. All of this is enhanced by secret ballots, which are protected under the Employee Rights Act (ERA). Members of the public (more than 70% in a recent survey) prefer secret ballot elections over “card check” campaigns for union organizations. People in union households prefer it even more, weighing in at 76%. In “card check” campaigns, union representatives gather signatures face-to-face, sometimes using intimidation tactics, and then count each signature as a “yes” vote for unionization. It’s no surprise that people prefer secret ballot elections.
Voting Quorums
The quorum required to hold a valid union election should be a majority of all workers, or at least a significant plurality. In many elections that determine whether there will be a union, however, far less than half the workers vote, and only a majority of those who do vote need to say “yes” for the union to take its place. As I4AW mentioned in its Unions Need Democracy paper, Jetstream Ground Services unionized in 2023 with only 87 out of 339 workers — barely a quarter of the total — voting for the union. A vote held at a California Starbucks remains unresolved, and it could lead to unionization, even though only 3 of 28 workers voted for the union. The Worker Enfranchisement Act would also require that at least two-thirds of workers vote in a union election for it to be valid.
Worker’s Choice
Employees should be able to refrain from joining or paying a union. Beyond that, they also should be free to negotiate directly with their employer and not be forced to accept representation from a private third-party union they do not support. This also means unions shouldn’t have to represent workers who are not members. By ending the current practice of union contracts and union leadership representing even non-members in the workplace, the Worker’s Choice Act found within Employee Rights Act (ERA), would establish this important pro-worker policy of individual contracts, thus improving union policy.
Equal Representation for all Employees
The Employee Rights Act (ERA) bans union leaders from including diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, hiring practices, and other workplace policies in collective bargaining contracts. This helps ensure equal representation for all workers and a collective bargaining process focused more directly on job-related matters.
Obstacles that Impede
Allowing Union Gerrymandering
Under the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, the Obama-era “micro union” rule, resuscitated by the Biden administration, would be codified into law. This allows for small, gerrymandered parts of a business to be unionized rather than the workplace as a whole, making life more complicated for workers and businesses but easier for unions.
Banning Right to Work
This policy would take away protections in 26 right-to-work states that prevent unions from getting private sector workers fired for declining to pay union fees.
Banning Employer Meetings on Unionization
Americans support employers being able to require meetings on the topic of unionization so that workers hear from both sides, according to recent polling commissioned by I4AW. The PRO Act and Sen. Hawley's Framework would ban employers from holding such meetings. Interfering with freedom of speech and the freedom of contract of businesses would undermine worker education and tilt the playing field in favor of union leaders.
Exposing Workers to Intimidation
In the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, employers would be required to share their workers’ personal contact information with a union during an organizing campaign. The information would include personal phone numbers, home addresses, and work and personal email addresses, all in an electronically searchable format.
Destroying Independent Contracting
By implementing a California-style “ABC test” to determine if workers can be self-employed or must be employees, numerous self-employed workers would be reclassified as employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Implementing the ABC test would increase opportunities for unionization and destroy self-employment career pathways that so many rely on. This approach is included in the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act.
Erasing Franchising and Small Businesses
An Obama-era “joint employer” standard would expand the definition of joint employer to cripple or even end small business franchises, contractors, temporary staffing firms, and vendors. The policy, which is included in the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, would establish that when a business is serving another business or receiving a service from another business, the government can force a business and its workers to be considered employees of the other business as a joint employer. No longer would the government need to establish that a business had “direct and immediate” control over the workers of another business. Instead, a joint-employer determination could be made if the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) subjectively determined that indirect and potentially even theoretical control of some workers was sufficient. The Biden NLRB attempted a shift back toward the Obama standard via a rulemaking but was blocked in court.
Forced Involuntary Arbitration
Under the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act and Senator Hawley's Faster Labor Contracts Act, employers and employees could be forced into a union contract via binding arbitration at the hands of third-party arbitrators. This might happen even if one of the parties never agreed to arbitration. Forced arbitration could work out poorly for workers and businesses, but even a bad contract means unions could begin collecting dues.
Instituting Ambush Elections
Instead of allowing workers and businesses time to educate themselves on union election processes and what is at stake, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act would force an expedited process that leaves workers with incomplete information before having to vote. Former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Marvin Kaplan dissented against one of the board’s Biden-era ambush election rules that the PRO Act would require. He argued that its supporters value “quick elections over fully informed voters.” As I4AW noted in evaluating a similar Biden-era NLRB rule, “The hasty process leaves workers with a lack of opportunity to be presented different perspectives and weigh the true costs and benefits of unionizing before an election is held, as well as potentially having no opportunity to vote by secret ballot on union representation if businesses fail to meet complicated NLRB demands.”
Undermining the secret ballot in union organizing elections
Under the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, if a union makes an unfair labor practice (ULP) claim against an employer, the employer can try to convince what could be a very partisan National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that it did not interfere in an election. If the employer fails this subjective test, the NLRB can allow the union to use the cards it collected in a campaign to bring about a certification election as a reason to grant a union control of a workplace. It doesn’t matter if this is what workers want or what the union promised them. Businesses would be unionized via “card check,” a process that exposes workers to intimidation tactics, rather than via a secret ballot election.
Legislation
American workers today face an increasingly shifting and more technological job market, yet many laws governing employment are nearly a century old. Unfortunately, some political and union leaders have doubled down on those laws, and as a result, workers are increasingly chasing permission instead of opportunity.
I4AW promotes modern labor policy for a modern workforce. Below we outline which existing labor bills, if enacted, would empower or impede workers.
-
Empowers Workers
-
Impedes Workers
American Franchise Act
The American Franchise Act (AFA), introduced by Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK) with bipartisan support, focuses solely to preserve the franchise model by clarifying when a franchisor may be considered a “joint employer” under federal labor laws. The bill codifies that a franchisor is not a joint employer of a franchisee’s employees unless it directly, actually, and immediately exercises significant control over essential terms and conditions of employment. This would align the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) with longstanding precedent and counter recent regulatory efforts that attempted to broaden joint employer liability. The Save Local Business Act and the Employee Rights (ERA) Act have similar provisions but apply more broadly to the other sub-contractors and small businesses in addition to the franchisees.
Association Health Plans Act
The Association Health Plans Act would legalize pathways for small businesses and independent workers to come together to offer affordable health care plans under the association health plan (AHP) model.
Employee Rights Act
The Employee Rights Act (ERA) of 2025 safeguards and strengthens the rights of American workers. It guarantees workers’ right to a secret ballot election, ensures they can work directly with their employer if they opt-out of union membership, protects worker privacy, allows workers to choose to fund union politics or not, provides legal clarity for small business owners and independent contractors, and guarantees fair representation for all American workers.
Fairness in Filing Act
The Fairness in Filing Act penalizes people, including union and business leaders, for filing unfair labor practice charges that are frivolous or in bad faith, which are often filed to impede the exercise of labor rights by other parties or cause other forms of hardship rather than hold a guilty party accountable for actual wrongdoing.
Independent Retirement Fairness Act
Independent Retirement Fairness Act empowers independent workers to participate in existing retirement plan pathways like pooled employer plans and single employee pension IRAs that current laws and regulations deny to independent contractors.
Modern Worker Empowerment Act
The Modern Worker Empowerment Act would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to protect independent contractors, better address the current economy, and encourage additional growth. It would redefine the criteria for classifying workers focusing more heavily on entrepreneurial opportunity, ensuring that those who are genuinely independent contractors are not misclassified as employees.
Modern Worker Security Act
The Modern Worker Security Act would provide a safe harbor to companies that provide portable benefits to workers, including independent contractors—ensuring these companies would not be classified as an employer under “any federal law” simply because they offer these benefits.
National Right to Work Act
The National Right to Work Act would grant private sector workers the ability to opt-out of a union and prohibit unions from getting workers fired for not paying them. Right to Work, under this bill, would apply to workers covered by both the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Currently, 26 states have adopted Right to Work laws. However, those laws apply only to workers under the NLRA and only in those states.
NLRB Stability Act
The NLRB Stability Act, a bill that would prevent the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) from enforcing requirements on businesses that conflict with U.S. court of appeals rulings they are trying to follow. This prevents businesses from having to navigate conflicting legal requirements that could lead to penalties no matter which action they take.
Protection on the Picket Line Act
The Protection on the Picket Line Act is a bill that protects employees from harassment and abuse. It does so by providing safeguards for employers to discipline workers engaged in harassment and abuse of others, activities that some have argued are immune from punishment under section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because those actions are protected when someone is trying to partake in otherwise legal union activity. See the “Restrictions on Union Discrimination and Harassment” section for more information on Section 7 of the NLRA vs. Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act below.
Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees (RAISE) Act
The Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees (RAISE) Act is a short, two-page bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and allow employers the option to pay wages higher than the level set by a collective bargaining agreement. Under this change, employers could grant merit-based pay raises to individual employees irrespective of the wage scales within that workplace’s collective bargaining agreement.
Save Local Business Act
The Save Local Business act would amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to only consider a business a “joint employer” if it directly, actually, and immediately exercises control over employment decisions, such as the hiring, pay structure, and overall contractual employment of each employee. Being classified as a joint employer means a business shares with another business the control of employees as well as legal liability. That exposure could be devastating for small businesses, contractors, and franchisors.
Start Applying Labor Transparency (SALT) Act
The Start Applying Labor Transparency (SALT) Act would require deceptive paid union organizers, known as salts, to file the same reporting forms as management hired labor consultants. In the process of salting, unions pay organizers who then apply for jobs at non-union companies to unionize the employer. These union organizers then encourage their colleagues to unionize. Employers who hire these salts have no idea they are paid by unions to organize the workplace. The SALT Act would create an equal playing field in union organizing efforts where workers stand to benefit the most.
TEAM Act of 1995
The original Teamwork for Employers and Managers (TEAM) Act of 1995 sought to provide a clear legal framework for employee involvement programs, which would empower workers. However, a newer TEAM Act of 2024, which would impede workers, has been introduced in more recent Congresses. Several parts of it would allow alternative organizations to operate much like unions. It is not clear how workers could opt out of membership in those organizations, how workers could dissolve them, and which obligations employers would have toward them. Furthermore, individuals might be selected as the lead representative of workers, displacing the idea of workers taking the lead themselves. These union-like entities would have access to private board meetings, further undermining employer-employee relations outside of these new organizations.
Union Members Right to Know Act
The Union Members Right to Know Act seeks to amend the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) to enhance transparency and accountability within labor organizations, ensuring that union members’ rights are well-known and strengthened. It provides workers with a “right not to subsidize labor organization nonrepresentational activities”. This would protect union members by prohibiting the use of their dues or fees for activities unrelated to collective bargaining or contract administration without their explicit, annual written authorization.
Worker Enfranchisement Act
The Worker Enfranchisement Act amends the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to require secret ballots and strong employee participation in workplace union elections. It mandates a two-thirds quorum of eligible employees in unionization elections to ensure that workers’ voices are heard in a more democratic fashion. If fewer than two-thirds of workers participate, the election results are invalid.
Worker Privacy Act
The Worker Privacy Act, introduced by Sen. Tim Scott (SC), secures information privacy for workers by letting workers decide what information is shared with unions and requiring unions to use contact information only for updating workers on representation proceedings unless workers give additional permissions.
Worker RESULTS Act
The Worker RESULTS Act is a bill that would secure several important rights for workers. First, secret ballot union elections would be guaranteed, and, two-thirds of workers would have to participate in a secret ballot union election in order for a majority vote to be valid. Further, it would ban “no raid” agreements from being added to union contracts, which otherwise reduce worker options by preventing different unions from seeking to represent workers when union contracts are expiring. The legislation also would not allow unrelated and unsubstantiated unfair labor practice (ULP) charges to delay or dismiss union elections or proceedings. In other words, the bill would limit contract “bars,” settlement bars, and blocking charges, used for instance by union leaders who file ULP claims to stop a representation or decertification election they feel won’t go their way.
Worker’s Choice Act
The Worker’s Choice Act would let workers who opt out of a union in a right-to-work state represent themselves before employers. It would also free unions from having to represent nonpaying workers.
Working Families Flexibility Act
The Working Families Flexibility Act would give workers the choice of accruing additional paid time off or accepting overtime pay when overtime compensation is required from their employer. The bill amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to allow private sector employers to offer paid time off in lieu of overtime pay to an employee working overtime. It would be a voluntary option for the employer to offer and voluntary for the employee to accept paid time off instead of overtime pay.
Faster Labor Contracts Act
The Faster Labor Contracts Act would force union contracts on workers and employers—even allowing government bureaucrats with expanded authority to make these important employment decisions for workers in some instances. It would require negotiation on a contract to begin within days of the favorable union vote and provides that, if an agreement is not reached within mere months, the federal government will step in to engage in mediation and, eventually, binding arbitration.
Hawley’s PRO Act Lite
Senator Josh Hawley’s proposed “framework” for reforming America’s private-sector labor law is, in reality, a repackaged and slimmed down version of the radical left’s Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act and Warehouse Worker Protection Act (WWPA). Instead of proposing meaningful reforms to protect the American Worker—by leveling the playing field between unions and business—it does the opposite at every turn.
Protecting the Right to Organize Act
The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act would weaken worker freedom and protections, increase regulation of businesses, and strengthen collective bargaining to increase the union share of the workforce. This is a comprehensive rewrite of labor rules for the workplace. Provisions impact employees and employers alike, while greatly expanding the union privileges.
TEAM Act of 2024
The original Teamwork for Employers and Managers (TEAM) Act of 1995 sought to provide a clear legal framework for employee involvement programs, which would empower workers. However, a newer TEAM Act (2024), which would impede workers, has been introduced in more recent Congresses. Several parts of it would allow alternative organizations to operate much like unions. It is not clear how workers could opt out of membership in those organizations, how workers could dissolve them, and which obligations employers would have toward them. Furthermore, individuals might be selected as the lead representative of workers, displacing the idea of workers taking the lead themselves. These union-like entities would have access to private board meetings, further undermining employer-employee relations outside of these new organizations.
Report
How to Empower Workers: Embracing a Pro-Worker Agena Built on Choice
Read I4AW’s comprehensive report on Empowering Workers written by Austen Bannan, Honorary Senior Fellow at I4AW ad Senior Policy Analyst of Employment at Americans for Prosperity.
Read Our Report