Posts tagged Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
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.
Why Are Republicans Looking To Pass Obama-Era Forced Unionization Bill?
May 20, 2026 // Instead of contract bargaining, there would be “binding arbitration.” For 90 days, unions and employers would come to the table as normal and work toward an agreement. After that, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service could be called in to “mediate” the talks for an additional 30 days. If no agreement was reached, the agency gained the power to convene an arbitration panel that would write up a contract that bound both the union and the employer for two years. EFCA made unionization faster, but only by taking away checks that workers and employers had on union bosses. Today, unions are still pushing for the “binding arbitration” half of EFCA. It’s on the smorgasbord of provisions in the so-called PRO Act, a union-backed bill supported by all but a few congressional Democrats, and it’s central to the Faster Labor Contracts Act.
Commentary: Josh Hawley’s Pro-Union Bill Would Let Washington Write Your Contract
May 16, 2026 // A Hawley-backed bill, known as the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA), seems to be picking up steam and may soon pass the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the FLCA is a trifecta of bad public policy: It suffers from constitutional infirmities, revives a corrupt government agency, and takes away the voice of both businesses and workers. Earlier this Congress, Hawley introduced the FLCA in the Senate, alongside one other Republican senator and three Democratic senators; he has since picked up another Republican and 10 more Democrats. Companion legislation in the House has 99 cosponsors, 17 of which are Republican.