Advocacy

The PRO Act (H.R. 842 and S. 420) attempts to increase union density and union leverage without regard for the negative impacts it would have on workers, businesses, and the economy.

Reminiscent of the Employee Free Choice Act, this bill will strip away workers’ free choice in union elections, as well as their privacy rights by forcing employers to share their employees’ personal information – including home addresses, shift schedules, and personal contact information – with unions. It will also codify the National Labor Relations Board’s controversial joint-employer standard that has threatened our country’s small, local businesses and limit opportunities for people to work independently through gig economy platforms, such as Uber and Lyft or more traditional independent contractor roles.

For these reasons, ABC opposes the passage of the PRO Act (H.R. 842 and S. 420).

OVERVIEW

The Davis-Bacon Act is an 80-year-old wage subsidy law administered and enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) that mandates so-called “prevailing” wages for work performed on federally financed construction projects. Davis-Bacon hinders economic growth, increases the federal deficit, imposes enormous burdens that stifle contractor productivity, ignores skill differences for different jobs, and imposes rigid craft work rules.

BACKGROUND

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly criticized DOL’s Davis-Bacon wage determination process for its lack of transparency in how the published wage rates are set, as well as its tendency to gather erroneous data through unscientific wage surveys. DOL’s responses to these and other independent government reports have been dismissive at best, and demonstrate that the agency is incapable of administering and enforcing the Davis-Bacon Act in a fair and responsible manner.

Despite years of low union density in the construction industry, DOL’s flawed wage survey process somehow mandates union wage rates more than 60 percent of the time. These wage determinations force federal contractors to use outdated and inefficient union job classifications that ignore the productive work practices successfully used in the merit shop construction industry.

Davis-Bacon also fails to provide equal access to work opportunities because complexities and inefficiencies in the act’s implementation make it nearly impossible for many qualified small merit shop firms to competitively bid on publicly funded projects. These businesses are at an even greater disadvantage due to low net profit margins and high unemployment facing the industry.

DOL’s mishandling of the Davis-Bacon wage determination process is not just bad for construction—it’s bad for taxpayers as well. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Davis-Bacon Act will raise federal construction costs by $13 billion between 2015 and 2023. However, despite repeated criticisms from GAO and DOL’s Office of Inspector General, the agency has implemented few, if any, meaningful reforms in its administration of the act since the early years of the Reagan administration.

ABC SUPPORTS

• Repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act.
• Legislative and regulatory efforts designed to improve federal wage determinations and limit the negative impacts of DOL’s current policy.

ABC OPPOSES

• Unequal access to work opportunities. Davis-Bacon prevents many qualified small merit shop contractors from bidding on publicly funded projects
• Waste, fraud and abuse. Davis-Bacon sets artificial wages and restricts competition, resulting in billions of dollars being unnecessarily added to the cost of public works projects.
• Expansion of the Davis-Bacon Act into areas of public and private projects in which it previously has not been mandated.

OVERVIEW

The five-member National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is tasked with interpreting and enforcing the National Labor Relations Act. The agency is supposed to serve as a neutral arbiter of federal labor law, but under the current administration, it has promoted the narrow policy goals of the politically powerful unions.

BACKGROUND

The NLRB recently finalized its controversial “ambush” elections rule. The rule significantly changes the union election process by reducing the amount of time between when a union files a representation petition and accelerates an election from a current median of 38 days to as few as 10 to 14 days. The rule also seeks to “streamline” the process by deferring or eliminating long-held employer rights. In addition, the rule requires employers to hand over their employees’ names, home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, work locations, shifts and job classifications to union organizers.

The NLRB “ambush” elections final rule will work hand-in-glove with the U.S. Department of Labor’s pending “persuader” rule, which ABC also opposes. Together, these two rules could achieve a primary objective of the deceptively named Employee Free Choice Act by forcing labor neutrality on employers.

If left unchecked, NLRB actions will further jeopardize economic recovery and profoundly impact millions of American employers and their employees. It is imperative that Congress works to restore much-needed balance to the workplace.

ABC SUPPORTS

• Balanced policies that reflect to the NLRB’s original mission to fairly interpret and enforce federal labor law.
• Legislation that preserves longstanding union election procedures by safeguarding the right of workers to make informed decisions about union representation, ensuring the ability of employers to communicate with their employees, and protecting the privacy of workers and their families.

ABC OPPOSES

• The NLRB’s final rule that implements “ambush” style union representation elections. Such policies unfairly obstruct and silence employers while violating workers’ privacy and depriving them of valuable information.
• Any efforts by the NLRB to redefine who qualifies as a “joint employer” under the NLRA.
• Any efforts by the NLRB to overturn balanced precedent or implement anti-employer policies and rulemakings.