Senator Josh Hawley’s Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) purports to expedite union contract negotiations, but it poses significant constitutional, logistical, and economic risks to businesses. This bill would guarantee union wins, strip employers of bargaining power, and hand unprecedented control to government arbitrators.
Constitutional Violations: A Government Power Grab
The FLCA would allow government arbitrators to impose a binding labor contract if negotiations don’t conclude in time. This directly contradicts long-standing U.S. labor law principles and raises significant constitutional concerns:
Logistical Nightmare: Unrealistic Timelines
FLCA mandates an impossibly short timeline for first-contract negotiations:
Bargaining must begin within 10 days of a union election win.
If no agreement is reached within 90 days, the dispute moves to mandatory government mediation.
If mediation fails after 30 days, a government-appointed arbitrator will impose a binding contract for a period of two years.
This arbitrary, one-size-fits-all deadline is wildly unrealistic. First, contracts are complex, requiring negotiations on wages, benefits, scheduling, and work conditions. Forcing rushed agreements will only lead to bad contracts or send most cases into arbitration—where the government decides everything.
FLCA Encourages Bad-Faith Bargaining
FLCA may be intended to help workers, but employers argue it would backfire by poisoning the negotiating process. How will that affect bargaining behavior if both sides know that binding arbitration is waiting at day 120? The concern is that it will encourage bad-faith tactics, especially from union negotiators. Instead of working toward a fair compromise, unions might see an advantage in stalling talks, avoiding concessions, and running out the 90-day clock — betting that an arbitrator could award them a better deal than they could secure at the table.
ABC raised concerns that the FLCA "would encourage unions to prolong negotiations in hopes of securing a more favorable deal from arbitrators." This creates an unfair imbalance, undercutting the very idea of good-faith bargaining, as it shifts the leverage away from meaningful dialogue and discourages unions from reaching an agreement before arbitration steps in. The bill also sets arbitrary and unrealistic deadlines, forcing employers to finalize first contracts with newly elected unions or face "binding interest arbitration," thereby wholly dismantling the concept of a voluntary agreement, which is a cornerstone of U.S. labor law. Under this system, contracts would be imposed on everyone—workers, employers, and unions—without the opportunity for a final vote.
“Giving bureaucrats the authority to force two parties into an agreement is a serious overreach,” said ABC CEO Michael Bellaman. “This has never been done in the private sector, and it should never be. The parties involved should be the ones to set the terms and conditions of employment.”
Guaranteed Union Win: Why Wouldn’t Everyone Unionize?
The FLCA guarantees workers a contract, regardless of whether the employer agrees or not. That means:
Vote for a union and get a contract.
The government sets wages, benefits, and work rules.
Unions have no incentive to negotiate fairly—just run out the clock.
This isn’t bargaining; it’s a government-mandated wealth transfer. Businesses will foot the bill for contracts written by bureaucrats who lack an understanding of industry realities or financial sustainability.
Final Thoughts: A Disaster for Businesses and Workers
The Faster Labor Contracts Act isn’t just a bad idea—it’s an assault on free enterprise and the fundamentals of labor relations. It eliminates true bargaining, encourages bad-faith negotiations, and forces businesses into government-dictated contracts with no recourse. If passed, it would lead to higher costs, fewer jobs, and increased uncertainty.
