The Faster Labor Contracts Act disempowers workers

The Faster Labor Contracts Act, will soon get a vote in the House of Representatives, thanks to a discharge petition filed by Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.). This proposal enjoys almost universal support from Democrats and from several Republicans. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) promised the Teamsters union the bill would pass in the House, “That is a guarantee.”

That would be unfortunate for working people, because the bill would deprive them of the ability to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, substituting instead edicts from government-mandated arbitrators.

For more than 90 years, federal law has required that when employees form a labor union, their employer must negotiate in good faith about their wages and other terms and conditions of employment. When negotiations are concluded, the result is a contract called a “collective bargaining agreement.” Over the last several decades, this process has led to contracts between the Teamsters and UPS, between the United Auto Workers and the Big Three automakers — and countless other contracts between labor unions and employers.

But labor unions are claiming the system is rigged against the workers they represent. Proponents of the Faster Labor Contracts Act assert that too many workers who choose union representation wait too long for a first contract. The bill’s solution is alluringly simple: If negotiations don’t result in a collective bargaining agreement within an artificially compressed timeframe of 120 days, employers and unions would be forced into binding arbitration, where government-mandated arbitrators dictate wages, benefits, scheduling, work rules, disciplinary systems, staffing, and other terms and conditions........

© The Hill