Union Members Right to Know Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/3114

Last Updated: November 7, 2025

Union Members Right to Know Act

S. 3114, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$162,500 raised

20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 633-635 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Analysis and Summary of S 3114: Union Members Right to Know Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and astute observer of the legislative landscape, I'll dissect this bill with surgical precision, focusing on its implications for my empire's wealth and influence.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary objective of this bill is to amend the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, ostensibly to enhance transparency and accountability within labor organizations. The proposed legislation aims to empower union members by providing them with more information about their rights and the activities of their labor organization.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Required Disclosures**: Labor organizations must provide members with detailed information about their rights, including summaries of relevant laws and court decisions. 2. **Right Not To Subsidize Labor Organization Nonrepresentational Activities**: Employees can opt-out of contributing to non-collective bargaining activities, such as political advocacy or charitable donations.

These changes will likely lead to increased administrative burdens for labor organizations, potentially weakening their influence and creating opportunities for my empire to expand its reach.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

1. **Labor Organizations**: Unions will face increased transparency requirements, potential loss of revenue from opt-out provisions, and additional administrative costs. 2. **Union Members**: Employees may benefit from greater awareness of their rights, but may also be subject to more complex decision-making processes regarding their union dues.

As a savvy entrepreneur, I recognize that this bill's impact on labor organizations will create opportunities for my empire to capitalize on the resulting power vacuum.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The Union Members Right to Know Act has significant implications for my wealth and influence:

1. **Weakened Labor Organizations**: Increased transparency and opt-out provisions may lead to reduced union membership, revenue, and influence, creating an opportunity for my empire to expand its reach in industries with historically strong labor presence. 2. **Increased Regulatory Burden**: The added administrative costs and complexity will likely lead to a decrease in the overall competitiveness of labor organizations, further solidifying my empire's position as a dominant market force.

In conclusion, this bill presents a strategic opportunity for my empire to capitalize on the potential weakening of labor organizations. By leveraging our vast resources and influence, we can navigate these changes to further consolidate our power and wealth.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law. This one, S. 3114, is called the Union Members Right to Know Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) to require labor organizations to make certain disclosures to their members. The objective is to provide union members with more information about their rights, including the right not to subsidize non-representational activities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes two key changes:

1. **Required Disclosures:** Labor organizations must now provide each member with a copy of this Act and summaries of certain titles, as well as information about their rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Supreme Court's decision in Communications Workers v. Beck (1988). This includes details on how to seek reasonable accommodations based on religious beliefs or practices. 2. **Right Not to Subsidize Labor Organization Nonrepresentational Activities:** The bill adds a new section to the LMRDA, which prohibits labor organizations from using an employee's dues for purposes not directly related to collective bargaining or contract administration without the employee's written authorization.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* Labor organizations (unions) * Union members * Employees who are required to pay union dues as a condition of employment

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could lead to increased transparency and accountability within labor organizations. It may also give employees more control over how their union dues are spent. However, it's worth noting that the actual impact will depend on how the regulations are implemented and enforced.

Now, remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances in our system? This bill is a perfect example of how Congress can use its power to amend existing laws and create new ones. As I always said, "the legislative process is like a game of chess – each move has consequences."

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today, we're going to dissect the so-called "Union Members Right to Know Act" (S 3114). On the surface, this bill appears to be a benevolent attempt to increase transparency within labor organizations. But, my friends, don't be fooled! There's more to this legislation than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to amend the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, requiring labor organizations to provide certain disclosures to their members. Sounds innocent enough, right? But what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Required Disclosures:** Labor organizations must now provide members with a copy of the act, summaries of titles, and information about individual rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Supreme Court's decision in Communications Workers v. Beck (1988). 2. **Disclosure Requirements:** Organizations must provide this information to new members within 30 days of joining and to existing members within one year. They must also maintain a website with a hyperlink to this information. 3. **Right Not To Subsidize Labor Organization Nonrepresentational Activities:** This provision prohibits labor organizations from using member dues for purposes not directly related to collective bargaining or contract administration without explicit written authorization.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Labor Organizations:** The obvious targets of this bill, they'll be forced to comply with new disclosure requirements and restrictions on how they use member dues. 2. **Union Members:** On the surface, this bill appears to benefit union members by providing them with more information about their rights and organization activities. But what if I told you that this is just a clever ruse to distract from the real agenda? 3. **The Government:** Ah, yes! The government will be keeping a close eye on labor organizations, ensuring they comply with these new regulations. But why? What's their true motive?

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Transparency:** On paper, this bill seems to promote transparency within labor organizations. However, I suspect it's just a smokescreen for more insidious intentions. 2. **Restrictions on Labor Organizations:** By limiting how labor organizations can use member dues, the government is effectively strangling their ability to advocate for workers' rights. 3. **Government Overreach:** This bill represents a clear example of government overreach, as they're inserting themselves into the internal affairs of private organizations.

Now, my fellow conspiracy theorists, let's connect the dots:

* Why would the government suddenly care about transparency within labor organizations? * What if this bill is actually designed to weaken labor unions and limit their ability to negotiate on behalf of workers? * Could this be part of a larger agenda to dismantle worker protections and pave the way for corporate interests?

Wake up, sheeple! This bill is not what it

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and performative outrage)

Folks, we've got a real doozy for you tonight! The "Union Members Right to Know Act" - sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong! This bill is a masterclass in conservative genius, a cleverly crafted Trojan horse designed to dismantle the very fabric of our unionized workforce. (wink, wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated goal of this bill is to "require labor organizations to make certain disclosures to its members." Sounds reasonable, but trust me, it's just a ruse. The real objective here is to undermine the power of unions and give employers more leverage over their workers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 by requiring labor organizations to provide members with information about their rights, including the right to seek reasonable accommodations based on religious beliefs (because, you know, freedom). It also adds a new section that prohibits labor organizations from using dues for non-representational activities without explicit member authorization. (Gasp!) The horror!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Unions, of course! Those pesky labor organizations that have been fighting for workers' rights for decades. But let's be real, folks, this bill is really about empowering the "little guy" - aka corporate America.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has the potential to significantly weaken unions and give employers more control over their workforce. It's a clever move by our conservative friends in Congress to chip away at collective bargaining rights and further erode the power of organized labor. (Cue ominous music)

Now, I know what you're thinking - "But wait, isn't this just about transparency and giving workers more information?" Ah, no! Don't be fooled, folks. This is a classic case of conservative sleight-of-hand. They're using the language of freedom and transparency to push an agenda that's really all about undermining the rights of working-class Americans.

(With a smirk) And you know what? It just might work. After all, who doesn't love the sound of "Union Members Right to Know Act"? Sounds like a real winner for the little guy... (wink)

Stay vigilant, folks! The elites are at it again, trying to pull the wool over our eyes with their fancy legislation and clever wordplay. But we won't be fooled. We'll keep fighting for freedom - the freedom to work long hours for low wages, without those pesky unions getting in the way! (Sarcasm alert!)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the real disease beneath.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The "Union Members Right to Know Act" is a cleverly crafted bill that pretends to empower union members with more transparency and control over their dues. But don't be fooled – its true purpose is to undermine labor unions and further erode workers' rights.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill amends the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, requiring labor organizations to provide detailed disclosures to members about their rights, including the right to opt out of paying dues for non-representational activities. Sounds reasonable, but it's a Trojan horse.

The real kicker is Section 106, which prohibits unions from using member dues for any purpose not directly related to collective bargaining or contract administration without explicit written authorization from each member. This is a thinly veiled attempt to starve unions of resources and limit their ability to advocate for workers' interests.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The obvious targets are labor unions and their members, who will be forced to navigate this bureaucratic minefield. But let's not forget the real beneficiaries: corporate interests and anti-union lobbyists who have been pushing for this kind of legislation for years.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill is a classic case of "death by a thousand cuts." By imposing onerous disclosure requirements and restricting union activities, it will slowly strangle labor organizations' ability to effectively represent workers. The result? Weakened unions, emboldened corporate interests, and further erosion of the already precarious balance between labor and capital.

In medical terms, this bill is akin to a patient presenting with symptoms of "union-itis" – a fictional disease that only affects labor organizations. The diagnosis? A bad case of "corporate-itis," where the patient's symptoms are merely a manifestation of a deeper infection: the insatiable greed and influence-peddling of corporate interests in Washington.

Treatment? A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong immune system against spin and propaganda, and a willingness to call out this legislative charade for what it is – a cynical attempt to further disempower workers and enrich the already powerful.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Union Members Right to Know Act (S 3114)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Union Members Right to Know Act aims to increase transparency and accountability within labor organizations by requiring them to disclose certain information to their members. The bill seeks to empower union members with knowledge about their rights, the use of their dues, and the responsibilities of labor organization officers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) in two key ways:

1. **Required Disclosures**: Labor organizations must provide members with a copy of the LMRDA, a summary of their rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and information about their rights to seek reasonable accommodations based on religious beliefs or practices. 2. **Right Not to Subsidize Nonrepresentational Activities**: The bill prohibits labor organizations from using member dues for non-collective bargaining purposes without explicit written authorization from the member.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Labor organizations (unions) and their members * Employees who are required to pay union dues as a condition of employment * The Secretary of Labor, responsible for enforcing compliance with the amended LMRDA

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill's provisions may lead to:

1. **Increased transparency**: Union members will have better access to information about their rights and the use of their dues. 2. **Greater accountability**: Labor organizations will be required to disclose more information, potentially reducing the risk of misusing member funds. 3. **Changes in union practices**: The bill's restrictions on non-collective bargaining expenditures may alter how unions allocate resources and prioritize activities. 4. **Potential impact on union finances**: If members opt out of authorizing non-representational expenditures, labor organizations may experience reduced revenue.

Overall, the Union Members Right to Know Act aims to promote transparency, accountability, and member empowerment within labor organizations.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down the Union Members Right to Know Act, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about transparency and giving union members more control over their dues, man. The main objective is to amend the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) to require labor organizations to disclose certain info to their members. It's like, if you're part of a union, you should know what's going on with your money and your rights, right?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes some key changes:

* Labor organizations gotta provide new members with a summary of the LMRDA, including their rights under the Civil Rights Act and the Supreme Court's Beck decision (which is all about not having to pay dues for non-representational activities). * Unions gotta disclose this info within 30 days of a new member joining, or within a year for existing members. * They also gotta put this info on their website, if they have one. * The bill adds a new section that says union dues can't be used for non-representational activities (like politics or charity work) unless the employee explicitly authorizes it in writing. This authorization has to be renewed every year.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects:

* Union members: They'll get more transparency and control over their dues. * Labor organizations: They'll have to comply with new disclosure requirements and get explicit consent for non-representational activities. * Employers: They might see some changes in how union dues are handled.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill could lead to:

* More informed union members who know their rights and can make better decisions about their dues. * Less money being spent on non-representational activities, which could impact labor organizations' ability to advocate for workers' rights. * Potential conflicts between unions and employers over the handling of dues.

Overall, this bill is all about giving union members more transparency and control, bro. It's like, if you're part of a union, you should know what's going on with your money and your rights. But, it could also lead to some changes in how labor organizations operate, which might have some implications for workers' rights.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 3114 - Union Members Right to Know Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Union Members Right to Know Act, sponsored by Senators Cassidy, Blackburn, Ernst, and Tuberville, aims to increase transparency within labor organizations. The bill requires unions to provide members with detailed information about their rights, including the ability to opt-out of paying dues for non-representational activities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) of 1959 in two significant ways:

1. **Required Disclosures:** Unions must provide members with a copy of the LMRDA, a summary of their rights under the Civil Rights Act, and information about the Supreme Court's decision in Communications Workers v. Beck (1988). This information must be provided within 30 days of joining the union or annually for existing members. 2. **Right Not to Subsidize Nonrepresentational Activities:** Unions are prohibited from using member dues for non-representational activities without explicit written authorization from the member. This provision aims to prevent unions from spending member funds on activities unrelated to collective bargaining or contract administration.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill directly affects labor organizations, their members, and employees who pay union dues as a condition of employment. The National Right to Work Foundation (NRWF), a prominent anti-union organization, has expressed support for the bill.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* **Increased Transparency:** The bill's disclosure requirements may lead to greater transparency within labor organizations, allowing members to make more informed decisions about their union involvement. * **Reduced Union Revenue:** By giving members the option to opt-out of paying dues for non-representational activities, unions may experience reduced revenue streams. * **Potential Litigation:** The bill's provisions could lead to increased litigation between unions and employees who dispute the use of their dues.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The National Right to Work Foundation (NRWF) has been a vocal supporter of this legislation. NRWF is funded by various conservative organizations, including the Koch-backed Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce. The bill's sponsors have received significant campaign contributions from anti-union groups and individuals, suggesting that these interests may be driving the legislation.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) has jurisdiction over this bill. HELP Committee members have historically received significant funding from labor unions and anti-union organizations, which could influence their decision-making process.

In conclusion, S 3114 aims to increase transparency within labor organizations while also limiting union revenue streams. The bill's provisions are likely to be contentious, with labor unions opposing the measures as an attempt to weaken their power and influence.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$162,500

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$162,500

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

YAWITZ, JESS B. MR.

1 transaction

$14,000

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

1 transaction

$9,900

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

1 transaction

$9,900

JAYASINGHE, SAMAN K. DR.

1 transaction

$9,900

KARP, ALEXANDER C.

1 transaction

$9,900

OBERNDORF, SUSAN

1 transaction

$9,900

OBERNDORF, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$9,900

YAWITZ, ALICE G.

1 transaction

$9,900

GRIGSBY, BOBBI F. MRS.

1 transaction

$6,600

GRIGSBY, L. LANE MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

GOLDEN, GRADY CARLTON MR. JR.

1 transaction

$6,600

MYERS, GINGER

1 transaction

$6,600

MYERS, KEITH MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

GATES, MELINDA FRENCH

1 transaction

$6,600

MEHLMAN, KENNETH B.

1 transaction

$6,600

HAGER, SUSAN

1 transaction

$6,600

PANDE, VIJAY

1 transaction

$6,600

ROM, COLIN

1 transaction

$6,600

KAPLAN, JONATHAN L.

1 transaction

$6,600

KAY, ALISON

1 transaction

$6,600

Donor Network - Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 52 nodes and 20 connections (46 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $162,500

Top Donors - Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.

−Labor Unionsconfidence 0.95
Section 2(b) adds a new right not to subsidize labor organization nonrepresentational activities, requiring written authorization for dues used for non-collective bargaining purposes, which imposes administrative and financial burdens on labor unions.
−Teachers Unionsconfidence 0.90
The bill applies to all labor organizations, including teachers unions, by requiring disclosures and restricting use of dues for nonrepresentational activities, imposing compliance costs and operational constraints.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Strong

Vector: 71%

Pages: 633-635AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns closely with Project 2025's emphasis on increasing union transparency and accountability, particularly through mandatory disclosures and restricting the use of dues for non-representational activities, which mirrors the Intermediate Bodies Rule and T-1 Trust reporting goals."

Key themes:union transparencydues accountabilityfinancial disclosuremember rightslabor organization oversight

— 600 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise of state or local employees are exempt from this filing requirement. These dis- closure requirements help workers and the public understand how union leaders are raising and spending union dues; they also can serve as a vital source of infor- mation that helps workers decide if the unions they are asked to join are good stewards of the funds they collect. DOL, under both George W. Bush and Donald Trump, tried rulemakings (known as the Intermediate Bodies Rule) that would require some government unions to file the same information that is required of private-sector unions. Under President Trump, OLMS required unions to disclose involvement in trusts that they either own a majority stake in or control. In the past, union trust spending has been hidden, and it appears that trust assets have occasionally been corruptly spent for the benefit of private interests in union leadership— such as $30,000 spent on a private party, $37,500 spent on a Montblanc pen, condominiums for those in power, golf outings, and a Ferrari.20 But the Biden DOL eliminated a transparency rule requiring the filing of the T-1 Trust Annual Report. More generally, OLMS, which is charged with enforcing the law of union dis- closure, has historically been underfunded when compared to other DOL agencies. This relative lack of funding has made ensuring disclosure more difficult. l Enact transparency rules. The substance of the Intermediate Bodies Rule should pass into law, either through rulemaking or through legislation. The T-1 Trust Annual Report annual filing requirement should be restored. l Increase funding levels. Congress should expand the funding of the Office of Labor-Management Standards. Duty of Fair Representation. Unions have a duty of fair representation to their members, yet they too often abuse that duty to use their members’ resources on left-wing culture-war issues that are unrelated, and in fact often harmful, to union members’ own interests. l The NLRB should take enforcement or amicus action advancing the position that political conflicts of interest by union leadership can support claims for breach of the duty of fair representation in a manner analogous to financial conflicts of interest and analogous to breaches of the fiduciary duty of loyalty in other areas of law. Interpreting “Protected Concerted Activity.” In an effort to prevent employers from retaliating against workers who express a desire to unionize, cer- tain activities are deemed “protected concerted activity” (under §7 of the NLRA). — 601 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies The NLRB has issued extreme interpretations of these activities, such as deter- mining that a business’s requiring its employees to be courteous to customers and one another is an unlawful infringement on the free speech rights implicit in the protected concerted activity protections in the NLRA. l Reverse unreasonable interpretations of “protected concerted activity.” The NLRB should return to the 2019 Alstate Maintenance interpretation of what does and does not constitute protected concerted activity, including listing eight instances of lawful actions by employers. Injunctive Relief and Worker Organizing Activities. Within the confines of the more reasonable definition of protected concerted activity described above, the NLRB should increase its pursuit of reinstatement injunctions. Firing work- ers engaged in concerted activity has an immediate chilling effect on organizing, but remedies under the NLRA typically come only much later and amount only to backpay. In NLRA section 10(j), Congress empowered the NLRB to obtain temporary injunctions that immediately reinstate workers to their jobs in these circumstances. This provides a more meaningful remedy to the worker and creates a significant deterrent to unfair labor practices, because prompt reinstatement will tend to reinforce the legitimacy of the organizing effort. The NLRB overwhelmingly prevails when pursuing an injunction, succeeding 100 percent of the time in 2020 and 91 percent of the time in 2021. l Increase the use of 10(j) injunctive relief. The NLRB should increase its use of 10(j) and should articulate guidelines for situations in which it intends to seek injunctive relief; the board should delegate authority to pursue such injunctions to the general counsel and the general counsel should establish a policy of considering them expeditiously in all retaliation cases identified by regional offices. Dues-Funded Worker Centers. Under current law, both labor unions and unionized employers must file financial disclosures with DOL on an annual basis to ward off potential fraud and corruption of the sort that has been seen recently within the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). However, worker centers, which have grown in number and influ- ence enormously over the past decade, are not required to file these disclosures. l Investigate worker centers and require financial disclosures. DOL should investigate worker centers that look and act like unions and bring enforcement actions to require them to file the same financial disclosures.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Strong

Vector: 71%

Pages: 633-635AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

Key themes:union transparencydues accountabilitylabor organization oversightmember rightsfinancial disclosure

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 633-635AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on union transparency and member rights regarding dues usage, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on labor organization accountability and financial oversight, though it does not directly address NLRB injunctions, worker centers, or persuader rules."

Key themes:labor organization transparencyunion dues accountabilitymember rightsfinancial disclosureOffice of Labor-Management Standards

— 601 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies The NLRB has issued extreme interpretations of these activities, such as deter- mining that a business’s requiring its employees to be courteous to customers and one another is an unlawful infringement on the free speech rights implicit in the protected concerted activity protections in the NLRA. l Reverse unreasonable interpretations of “protected concerted activity.” The NLRB should return to the 2019 Alstate Maintenance interpretation of what does and does not constitute protected concerted activity, including listing eight instances of lawful actions by employers. Injunctive Relief and Worker Organizing Activities. Within the confines of the more reasonable definition of protected concerted activity described above, the NLRB should increase its pursuit of reinstatement injunctions. Firing work- ers engaged in concerted activity has an immediate chilling effect on organizing, but remedies under the NLRA typically come only much later and amount only to backpay. In NLRA section 10(j), Congress empowered the NLRB to obtain temporary injunctions that immediately reinstate workers to their jobs in these circumstances. This provides a more meaningful remedy to the worker and creates a significant deterrent to unfair labor practices, because prompt reinstatement will tend to reinforce the legitimacy of the organizing effort. The NLRB overwhelmingly prevails when pursuing an injunction, succeeding 100 percent of the time in 2020 and 91 percent of the time in 2021. l Increase the use of 10(j) injunctive relief. The NLRB should increase its use of 10(j) and should articulate guidelines for situations in which it intends to seek injunctive relief; the board should delegate authority to pursue such injunctions to the general counsel and the general counsel should establish a policy of considering them expeditiously in all retaliation cases identified by regional offices. Dues-Funded Worker Centers. Under current law, both labor unions and unionized employers must file financial disclosures with DOL on an annual basis to ward off potential fraud and corruption of the sort that has been seen recently within the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). However, worker centers, which have grown in number and influ- ence enormously over the past decade, are not required to file these disclosures. l Investigate worker centers and require financial disclosures. DOL should investigate worker centers that look and act like unions and bring enforcement actions to require them to file the same financial disclosures. — 602 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Office of Labor-Management Standards Initiative. Currently, the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) may investigate potential employer mal- feasance with regard to union funds in the absence of any complaint by a worker or union but may not do the same with regard to potential union malfeasance. If OLMS has evidence that a union may be violating the law based on information available to the agency (such as annual financial disclosure reports, information developed during an audit of a union’s books and records, or information obtained from other government agencies) it should be permitted to open an investigation. It should have the same enforcement tools available for both employers and unions. l Revise investigation standards. The Office of Labor-Management Standards should revise its investigation standards to authorize investigations without receiving a formal complaint. Persuader Rule. During the Obama Administration, DOL created significant regulatory burdens for employers with respect to the advice that employers receive about union activity. As a general matter, employers who hire lawyers or other con- sultants to advise employees about union issues must file disclosure forms with the department, as must the lawyers and consultants themselves. Prior to the Obama Administration, advice provided solely to the employer required no disclosure. The Obama Administration attempted to eliminate this “advice exemption” with a directive known as the “persuader rule,” which was successfully challenged in court. In 2018, the Trump Administration formally rescinded the persuader rule. l DOL should rescind the persuader rule once again should the Biden Administration revive it. Unionizing the Workplace: Card Check vs. Secret Ballot. Under the NLRA, instead of having a secret ballot election about the decision to unionize a workplace, a union may instead collect signed pro-union cards from a majority of the employees it wishes to represent and then ask the employer and National Labor Relations Board for voluntary union recognition. That request gives the employer the option to hold a secret-ballot election or to recognize the union with- out any such election. This “card check” procedure is likely to induce employees to provide their signed cards in ways that do not accurately reflect their true pref- erences—ranging from a desire not to offend the signature requestor to a wish to avoid intimidation and coercion to signing based on false information provided by union organizers. In short, the card check procedure sidesteps many aspects of democratic decision-making that free and fair elections conducted by secret ballot are supposed to accomplish. Notably, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board has recently proposed an esoteric legal theory that card-check

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 62%

Pages: 636-638AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on union transparency and member control over dues usage, which shares a theme of increasing member empowerment and limiting union expenditures on nonrepresentational activities—a goal also present in Project 2025's broader aim to reduce union influence and enhance worker choice, though it does not directly address the specific proposals on card check, contract bars, or negotiable defaults."

Key themes:union transparencymember rightsdues accountabilitylimiting nonrepresentational spendingworker empowerment

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 636-638AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on union transparency and member rights regarding dues usage, while Project 2025's DOL section emphasizes eliminating card-check, contract bars, and prevailing wage laws—none of which are addressed in the bill. There is minimal thematic overlap beyond general labor policy."

Key themes:labor unionsunion accountabilitymember rights

— 603 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies decision-making is required under the law, basing this theory on an old NLRB case, Joy Silk, even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected mandatory card-check recognition. l Discard “card check.” Congress should discard “card check” as the basis of union recognition and mandate the secret ballot exclusively. Contract Bar Rule. Although current labor law allows a union to establish itself at a workplace at more or less any time, the calendar for any attempt to decertify a union is considerably more constrained. If a union is recognized as a collective bargaining agent, then employees may not decertify it or substitute another union for it for at least one year under federal law (the “certification bar”). Similarly, when a union reaches a collective bargaining agreement with an employer, it is immune from a decertification election for up to three years (the “contract bar”). A typical consequence of these rules is that employees must often wait four years before they are allowed a chance at decertification. Employees then have only a 45-day window to file a decertification petition; if the employer and union sign a successor contract, then the contract bar comes into play once again—meaning employees with an interest in decertification must wait another three years. l Eliminate the contract bar rule. NLRB should eliminate the contract bar rule so that employees with an interest in decertification have a reasonable chance to achieve their goal. Tailoring National Employment Rules. National employment laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)21 and the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act22 set out one-size-fits-all “floors” regulating the employment rela- tionship. These substantive worker protections often do not mesh well with the procedural worker protections offered through the NLRA’s collective bargaining process. Unions could play a powerful role in tailoring national employment rules to the needs of a particular workplace if, in unionized workplaces, national rules were treated as negotiable defaults rather than non-negotiable floors. l Congress should amend the NLRA to authorize collective bargaining to treat national employment laws and regulations as negotiable defaults. For example, this reform would allow a union to bless a relaxed overtime trigger (e.g., 45 hours a week, or 80 hours over two weeks) in exchange for firm employer commitments on predictable scheduling. Alternative Policy. While some conservatives (including the author of this chap- ter) believe that it would be a mistake to antagonize unions’ core interests, others — 604 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise argue that the next Administration should end Project Labor Agreement require- ments and repeal the Davis–Bacon Act. And while some conservatives have chosen not to address massive federal subsidies for unionized labor, others believe that current laws and regulations that pick winners and losers to the detriment of the majority of construction workers and to all taxpayers should not be ignored. Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are short-term collective bargaining agreements that apply to construction projects. There are a few reasons that con- struction projects may benefit from a PLA, and there are many reasons that even when actively encouraged to do so public construction projects have declined to use PLAs. Among the consequences: The majority of construction firms and construction workers are not unionized and their temporary forced unionization results in large-scale wage theft; construction companies are significantly less likely to bid on projects with PLAs; and PLAs consistently drive up construction costs by 10 percent to 30 percent. The Davis–Bacon Act23 requires federally financed construction projects to pay “prevailing wages.” In theory, these wages should reflect going market rates for construction labor in the relevant area. However, both the Government Account- ability Office and the Department of Labor’s Inspector General have repeatedly criticized the Labor Department for using self-selected, statistically unrepresenta- tive samples to calculate the prevailing-wage rates that drive up the cost of federal construction by about 10 percent. The Davis–Bacon Act redistributes wealth from hardworking Americans to those that benefit from government-funded construc- tion projects. Repealing the Davis–Bacon Act would increase worker freedom and end a longstanding effective tax on American families. l End PLA requirements. Agencies should end all mandatory Project Labor Agreement requirements and base federal procurement decisions on the contractors that can deliver the best product at the lowest cost. l Repeal Davis–Bacon. Congress should enact the Davis–Bacon Repeal Act and allow markets to determine market wages. THE STATES Worker-led Benefits Experimentation. Workers depend on unemployment benefits to navigate inevitable market frictions and seek new employment oppor- tunities. But existing unemployment insurance (UI) is bureaucratic, ineffective, and unaccountable. The outdated system’s myriad failures during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for innovations that respond to recipients’ needs. The most promising avenue for innovation is to involve workers and private-sec- tor organizations more directly, freed from unnecessary bureaucratic strictures. Americans take for granted that unemployment benefits must be administered by

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Cassidy, Bill

College Transparency Act

119/s/2511

21st Century Dyslexia Act

119/s/3010

Health Information Privacy Reform Act

119/s/3097

Back to All Bills