Posts tagged Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
Op-ed: Republicans should stop helping Democrats empower union bosses
July 29, 2026 // Policies built on employee choice, such as right-to-work protections, reflect what American workers actually want. The partisan legislation now moving through Congress reflects only what union leadership wants. Pro-worker legislation is not synonymous with pro-union legislation; in fact, they often are opposites. It is time for Congress to wake up and realize this.
Beckley beverage delivery strike continues without agreement
July 26, 2026 // The Washington, D.C.-based Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, an independent federal agency that assists unions and employers in resolving labor disputes, provided the mediator. However, the agency lacks the authority to force either party to accept an agreement. Farley said the mediator separated the parties and explored possible compromises during an eight-hour session that ran from about 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Op-ed– MY TURN: Washington’s one-size labor law doesn’t fit Alaska
July 9, 2026 // Forced arbitration doesn’t resolve disputes. It delays them and adds uncertainty to project timelines that are already difficult to manage. For the major energy and infrastructure projects Alaska is now positioned to advance, that uncertainty isn’t just an inconvenience. It could be catastrophic. America needs bold steps toward a more robust energy future, and shortsighted federal mandates stand in the way of that.
Faster is Not Always Better: House Passes Bill Seeking Radical Change in First Contract Bargaining
June 17, 2026 // The bill also raises questions about the lawfulness of strikes and lockouts during these first contract negotiations. Typically, where parties agree to interest arbitration (or where it exists in the public sector) it is premised on a mutual commitment of labor peace, i.e., the union will not go on strike, and the employer will not lock employees out while negotiations are ongoing and the arbitration is pending. However, in the private sector and in the absence of such a mutual commitment, both such economic weapons may be used offensively in furtherance of a party’s bargaining demand. The FLCA does not explain if or how a party may exercise such an economic weapon in furtherance of their bargaining position if the dispute will be submitted to an FMCS panel for binding interest arbitration. Equally troubling is the FLCA’s potential impact on unilateral implementation. Unilateral implementation upon reaching a good-faith bargaining impasse has long been a vital bargaining tool for employers. The possibility of implementing terms when negotiations stall has been an effective tool to encourage the parties to continue making movement towards the other. Eliminating this option will alter bargaining leverage and strategies particularly in successor contracts where the FLCA’s temporal framework does not apply.
Social conservatives split over abortion and transgender medicine in union contracts bill
June 16, 2026 // Beck said he believes abortion and transgender medical coverage would be “an easy thing” for arbitrators to use as a bargaining chip to reach an agreement on the three-person panel. “It’s going to be easy for the arbitrator to say, ‘OK, employer, I’m not going to make you pay the high wages that the union is demanding,’” Beck said as a hypothetical. ‘“But what I am going to make you do is I’m going to make you give generous health benefits and give very generous access to abortion on demand and give very, very generous access to so-called gender-affirming care.”
Exclusive: Group warns labor bill allows govt takeover of union contract negotiations
June 14, 2026 // Institute for the American Worker President Vinnie Vernuccio called the House-passed bill an example of “gross government overreach.” “There are better ways out there, things that increase collaboration, increase penalties even, to get people to negotiate,” Vernuccio told The Center Square. “Those are far preferable than government forced arbitration.”
The House Just Passed a ‘Pro-Worker’ Bill That Takes Power Away From Workers
June 11, 2026 // "Supporters of this bill assure businesses and workers that it is about worker empowerment and efficiency," Walberg said. "I may be misremembering the definition of empowerment, but I can guarantee it does not mean taking away a worker's right to vote on his or her own contract and giving that power to a Washington bureaucrat with no stake in the outcome."
Why Would Any Republican Support Forced Unionism?
June 9, 2026 // What makes this even more shocking is that President Trump has proposed completely eliminating the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which the bill would supercharge. The president understands that contracts imposed by government bureaucrats are more likely to be based on political than economic logic, and that negotiations are better left to the private parties. Ironically, government-imposed contracts are likely to harm the workers whose union bosses are pushing this idea. Because when economics don’t add up, it’s the workers who pay in layoffs, reduced hours and the diversion of capital investments that would have raised productivity. This risks broader economic disruption by creating a threat perception that, at any time, a single union request could trigger a government-enforced contract clock. That perception would tend to chill hiring and investing, especially by smaller businesses that can’t afford to fight out an arbitration battle.
Workers for Opportunity joins the fight against the Faster Labor Contracts Act
June 8, 2026 // Vincent Vernuccio, a senior fellow with Workers for Opportunity and president of Institute for the American Worker, recently recapped a Senate hearing where he testified. An unwitting union official opposed the Faster Labor Contracts Act idea of forced arbitration. Vernuccio wrote: [U.S. Senator and Chair of the federal labor committee Sen. Bill] Cassidy explained this policy in real-world terms, saying that it would “take workers out of the process by removing the need to ratify a contract.” He put a finer point on it by saying that if the government mandated arbitration, workers “cannot reject” the resulting agreement, even though it would be binding on them. “What would happen,” he asked, “if workers lost that ability to ratify a contract?” The union official didn’t mince words: “That would be removing the democracy from the workplace.” Then he doubled down: Such democracy “is the whole point of the union,” he said, because it gives workers “a say.”
Why Is Josh Hawley Carrying Water for Union Bosses?
May 21, 2026 // This government-mandated arbitration panel would then have the power to impose contract terms on the business and union involved. In other words, the give-and-take of labor contract negotiations would be taken out of the hands of private entities such as businesses and unions and placed into the hands of a government-mandated panel. This would let union bosses refuse to budge in negotiations and punt to a friendly mediator to impose contract terms. This is absolute madness from an allegedly conservative Republican.