Protection on the Picket Line Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/3124
Last Updated: November 10, 2025

Sponsored by

Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

ID: T000278

Follow the money

The bill

Protection on the Picket Line Act

S. 3124, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

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

The money

$90,700 raised

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

The alignment

55% 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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of Senators Tuberville and Cassidy. The "Protection on the Picket Line Act" - because nothing says "protection" like a bill that's about as effective as a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** To create the illusion of protecting employees from harassment and abuse while actually doing squat to address the real issues. This bill is a classic case of "legislative lip service," where politicians pretend to care about workers' rights while catering to their corporate donors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, adding a new subsection that supposedly protects employees from harassment and abuse during labor disputes. However, this "protection" comes with a plethora of loopholes and caveats that render it virtually useless. For instance, employers can still take disciplinary action against employees if they can prove (with evidence, no less) that the employee engaged in activity protected under Section 7. Yeah, good luck with that.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: big business, corporate lobbyists, and the politicians who serve them. Oh, and let's not forget the poor, naive employees who think this bill will actually protect them from harassment and abuse. Ha!

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a joke, folks. It's a weak attempt to placate labor unions and worker advocacy groups while maintaining the status quo of corporate dominance. The real impact will be zero - zilch - nada. Employers will continue to harass and abuse employees with impunity, and this bill will serve as a convenient fig leaf to cover their behinds.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of "Legislative Laryngitis" - the inability to speak truth to power or actually address the problems it claims to solve. The symptoms include empty rhetoric, watered-down provisions, and a healthy dose of corporate influence. Treatment: a strong dose of reality, followed by a swift kick in the pants for these politicians who think they can fool us with their half-baked legislation.

In short, this bill is a farce - a pathetic attempt to pretend that Congress cares about workers' rights while actually serving the interests of big business. Don't be fooled; this "Protection on the Picket Line Act" is nothing but a bad joke.

Related Topics

Labor & Employment Policy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$90,700
21 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$20,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$69,800

No PAC contributions found

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
3 transactions
$9,100
2
BROAD METRO LLC
1 transaction
$3,300
3
SUMMERLIN FARMS
2 transactions
$2,000
4
KENT HANCE BUSINESS
2 transactions
$2,000
5
BEACH ICE LLC
2 transactions
$1,000
6
LEELAND VENTURES LLC
1 transaction
$500
7
C&D CANNON FARMS
2 transactions
$500
8
LOROC FARMS
2 transactions
$500
9
OAK WILLOW CREATIVES LLC
2 transactions
$500
10
WINDHAUSEN FARMS
2 transactions
$500
11
DEMOTT PEANUT CO.
1 transaction
$250
12
DEMOTT TRUCKING LLC
1 transaction
$250
13
DEMOTT PEANUT CO
1 transaction
$250
14
HARWOOD REAL ESTATE
1 transaction
$250

No committee contributions found

1
MILES, WILSON DANIEL
1 transaction
$13,200
2
STAHL, LEWIS ARNOLD
1 transaction
$10,000
3
CALDWELL, MATTHEW THOMAS
1 transaction
$10,000
4
CALDWELL, JOSEPH W.
1 transaction
$10,000
5
CARTER, LEWIS M. JR
1 transaction
$10,000
6
CARTER, LEWIS M JR
1 transaction
$10,000
7
SPITZER, TERRY
1 transaction
$6,600

Donor Network - Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 32 nodes and 30 connections (42 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $90,700

Top Donors - Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

14 Orgs7 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

  • +Labor Unionsconfidence 0.80

    Section 2 of the bill protects employees from harassment and abuse during activity protected under section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which suggests a benefit to labor unions.

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

Weak
Vector: 65%
Pages: 633-635AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill strengthens protections for employees engaging in protected concerted activity, while Project 2025 seeks to narrow the definition of such activity and reduce NLRB enforcement in organizing contexts, creating a policy tension rather than alignment."

Key themes:protected concerted activityNLRB enforcementlabor rightsemployer disciplineNLRA

— 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

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on protecting employees from retaliation during protected labor activities like picketing, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes independent contractor classification, joint employer standards, and overtime rules—areas with minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:NLRAlabor protectionsemployer-employee relations

— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules. — 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Minimal
Vector: 62%
Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Protection on the Picket Line Act focuses on labor rights and protections for picketing/striking employees, whereas the Project 2025 policy section concerns sex discrimination enforcement based on a binary definition of sex, pro-life workplace measures, and religious employer protections; there is no substantive thematic overlap."

Key themes:unrelateddifferent policy areas

— 585 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Direct agencies to refocus enforcement of sex discrimination laws. The President should direct agencies to focus their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of “sex.” PRO-LIFE MEASURES l Promote pro-life workplace accommodations for mothers. Federal law should protect life and promote pro-family policies. Current law, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,3 provides nondiscrimination protections in the workplace for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)4 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for women “to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” unless “the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the [employer’s] business.” The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also provides nondiscrimination and accommodation protections in the workplace for certain pregnancy-related disability.5 None of these laws requires an employer provide health insurance benefits for elective abortion. l Pass a law requiring equal (or greater) benefits for pro-life support for mothers and clarifying abortion exclusions. Congress should pass a law requiring that to the extent an employer provides employee benefits for abortion, it must provide equal or greater benefits for pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, and adoption. That law should also clarify that no employer is required to provide any accommodations or benefits for abortion. l Keep anti-life “benefits” out of benefit plans. Some benefits attorneys and pro-choice advocates have argued since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision6 that the longstanding doctrine of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)7 preemption should block individual states’ efforts to prohibit employers from helping employees procure abortions via offering various kinds of coverage under employee-sponsored benefit plans. ERISA should not be allowed to trump states’ ability to protect innocent human life in the womb. Congress and DOL should clarify that ERISA does not preempt states’ power to restrict abortion, surrogacy, or other anti-life “benefits.” RELIGION l Provide robust protections for religious employers. America’s religious diversity means that workplaces include people of many faiths and that many employers are faith-based. Nevertheless, the Biden Administration has been hostile to people of faith, especially those with traditional beliefs

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills