Listen to “Bill Mandating Binding Contract Arbitration Goes Too Far” on Spreaker.
The United States House of Representatives recently passed what is known as the Faster Labor Contracts Act. If you haven’t heard of it, that isn’t surprising. It hasn’t generated much fanfare or media attention.
Here’s the nutshell version: the legislation requires binding arbitration if a newly certified union and an employer fail to reach a first collective bargaining agreement within specified timelines (120 days). Rather than continuing to negotiate, an arbitration panel would impose the terms of the contract on both sides for a period of two years.
Twenty Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the bill, including West Virginia’s Riley Moore. Rep. Carol Miller voted no.
An editorial in the Wall Street Journal brought the legislation to my attention. The editorial board criticized the bill on several fronts, including what it described as a “GOP Gift to the Cultural Left.”
The board argued that Republicans may not have fully considered the broader implications of the legislation. It noted that AFL-CIO model bargaining language encourages local unions to seek coverage for abortion services and gender-affirming care in employer-sponsored health plans. If an arbitrator has the authority to impose contract language, critics argue it could increase the likelihood that provisions like these become part of first contracts.
Whether that’s a concern is for you to decide, but it is not hyperbolic to conclude such a policy wouldn’t be popular in West Virginia.
The more fundamental issue is the precedent this sets for American business.
Not so long ago, Republicans were widely viewed as the party of business. Votes like this raise legitimate questions about whether that remains true.
No one is questioning workers’ right to organize. No one is arguing against unions themselves. Whether to join a union is a decision every worker should make. If employees vote to unionize, so be it.
But when government tilts the scales so heavily toward one side that a private company can ultimately be compelled to accept the terms dictated by a government-appointed arbitration panel rather than those mutually agreed to among the parties, we’ve crossed an important line.
There is no guarantee the arbitrators will have meaningful experience in the industry they’re overseeing — its economics, competitive pressures, cost structures, or operational realities. Yet the owners and shareholders who built the business through years of investment and risk-taking could find themselves operating under terms largely written by government appointees.
And remember, workers would also be bound by that contract without having the opportunity to vote on the final agreement.
The concern also goes well beyond any single company.
If arbitration produces contracts that aren’t economically sustainable, companies are likely to respond the way businesses typically do: reduce payroll, delay hiring, accelerate automation, relocate investment, or raise prices.
None of those outcomes helps working families.
Higher prices make life less affordable. Fewer jobs mean fewer opportunities. More automation means fewer workers are needed.
History is filled with examples of government interventions creating unintended consequences. This legislation may prove to be another.
Ronald Reagan often joked that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” Whether you agreed with Reagan or not, his larger point was that government solutions often create new problems while trying to solve old ones. That hasn’t changed.
But what of the worker? Rest assured, if companies would refuse to negotiate in good faith stretching out negotiations for months or even years, the market already provides consequences. Businesses that fail to attract and retain good employees eventually struggle to compete. They often fail.
Consumers, investors, and workers all influence whether those companies succeed or fail. They’ll vote their dollars to reward or punish a company that does or doesn’t do right in negotiating a contract.
That responsibility imposed… that stronghold the market uses every day to regulate business is powerful. Tilting the scale further against business than the market already correctly does threatens new entrepreneurial pursuits and innovations – the backbone of this country.
As for Riley Moore’s vote, I don’t know why he supported the legislation because I haven’t had the opportunity to ask him. My assumption is that he believes the bill does more good than harm, but that’s ultimately a question only he can answer.
To his credit, Moore has never avoided difficult questions from me, and I have zero doubt he’d be more than willing to explain his reasoning to any West Virginian who asks. And if you have concerns on either side of the argument, you should ask.
Many business organizations — including the West Virginia Contractors Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and numerous employers speaking on background — oppose the legislation and are urging the Senate to reject it.
The Senate now has the final opportunity to decide whether this legislation is ultimately a better deal for American workers — or a worse one for American businesses.
Editor’s Note: to watch interviews on this topic from West Virginia Contractors Association CEO Jason Pizatella and West Virginia AFL-CIO President Josh Sword, visit the Talkline section of MetroNews Television.