A new labor bill introduced in the House is drawing strong criticism from construction industry leaders who say it could reshape contract negotiations in ways that sideline employers and workers alike.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA), introduced by Rep. Pete Stauber (R-Minn.), proposes to mandate binding arbitration between employers and newly unionized workers if no agreement is reached within 120 days of bargaining.
Supporters say it would speed up contract resolutions. Critics argue it would hand too much power to government-appointed arbitrators and strip away the right to negotiate key workplace terms.
“By imposing government-mandated contract terms on employers and employees, the FLCA takes away the parties’ basic rights to freely negotiate workplace conditions,” said Michael Bellaman, president and CEO of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC).
According to ABC, the FLCA includes several provisions that mirror elements of previous legislation rejected by Congress, such as the Protecting the Right to Organize Act and the Employee Free Choice Act. Both were heavily debated in past sessions for their potential to shift longstanding labor negotiation practices.
What the FLCA Proposes
The bill would impose several changes that some in the construction industry see as overreach, including:
- Mandatory arbitration: If an agreement isn’t reached within 120 days, an outside arbitrator could dictate the terms of the contract without employer or worker approval.
- Government-dictated terms: Arbitrators would be able to set wages, benefits, leave policies, and even safety procedures, regardless of whether the business can afford them.
- No ratification process: Workers would have no opportunity to vote on or reject the final contract. Once decided by an arbitrator, the agreement becomes binding.
- No business recourse: Employers would have no ability to appeal or renegotiate the imposed contract terms.
The concern raised by opponents is that these measures bypass traditional labor negotiations entirely, replacing voluntary agreement with federal mandates.
“This has never happened in America before,” Bellaman said. “The parties, not the government, should determine the terms and conditions of employment.”
A Departure from Longstanding Labor Norms?
Under current labor law, negotiations between unions and employers are expected to be voluntary and open-ended, allowing both sides to work toward mutual agreement. The FLCA would create strict timelines and introduce third-party arbitration into that process.
Some believe this could place a heavy burden on employers, especially small and mid-sized businesses that lack the resources to comply with federally imposed terms. Critics argue it also removes flexibility needed to address the unique circumstances of individual workplaces.
“The FLCA drastically expands federal bureaucrats’ authority over agreements in the private sector,” Bellaman noted.
Supporters of the bill see it as a way to reduce drawn-out contract delays after union elections. But in the construction sector where every jobsite and contract can look different, there’s concern that standardized timelines and government intervention may do more harm than good.
Industry Calls for Rejection
ABC, a trade association representing more than 23,000 members nationwide, is urging lawmakers to vote against the FLCA.
“ABC calls on members of the House to stand with workers, entrepreneurs and small businesses by rejecting this misguided bill,” Bellaman said.
The debate over the FLCA is part of a larger national conversation about the future of labor law and who gets to decide what’s fair, what’s enforceable, and what works in the real world of construction.
