Faster Labor Contracts Act

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters from Alex McDonald and Roger King, in opposition to H.R. 5408.

Re Opposition to the Faster Labor Contracts Act--H.R. 5408

June 9, 2026.

Hon. Tim Walberg,

Chairman, House Committee on Education and Workforce,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Walberg: We are writing regarding H.R. 5408,

the Faster Labor Contracts Act (``FLCA''). The FLCA is a

deeply flawed piece of legislation that should not be

considered by this Congress--or any other. It aims to speed

up negotiations for first collective-bargaining agreements

between employers and workers. The bill's authors evidently

believe that those negotiations take too long. But while

negotiations are long, they are long for a reason:

negotiating a first contract is hard. It involves detailed

financial and operational tradeoffs, which the parties must

negotiate from ground zero. So it is no surprise that

contracts often take weeks, months, or years to finalize.

That ``delay'' is not a sign that the process is broken; it

is a sign that the process is working.

Worse, the bill proposes to solve that problem with a

deeply flawed approach. It would funnel the parties through a

compressed bargaining schedule, terminating in compulsory and

binding arbitration. Parties would have only 90 days to

negotiate their own agreements, after which the bill's

processes would kick in. Those processes would be

exceptionally burdensome and expensive, requiring complex and

cost-heavy hearings to ``prove'' what a ``fair'' contract

would be. America's businesses cannot afford that burden, and

Congress should not force them to swallow it.

If that weren't enough, the bill is likely

unconstitutional. It would raise serious questions under the

Due Process Clause, the Vesting Clauses, and the Appointments

Clause. It would also threaten to convert every collective-

bargaining agreement imposed under its procedures into

``state action,'' dragging constitutional doctrines into the

American workplace. These problems have not been considered,

much less vetted. The bill needs serious rework, and members

should not vote for it if they take seriously their oath to

uphold the Constitution.

Yet despite these problems, some members are pushing the

legislation through with an unusual procedure--the discharge

petition. That procedure is inappropriate in most cases and

especially inappropriate here. This bill is deeply

problematic and needs the scrutiny of ordinary legislative

processes. It should not be rammed through with extraordinary

procedural maneuvers.

We urge you and the other members of Congress to reject the

discharge petition and reject this bill.

As you are aware, the House will be considering H.R. 5408

as a result of a discharge petition signed by certain Members

that requires the House to consider and schedule a vote on

this legislation without the benefit of Committee

deliberation. This discharge protocol and procedure is not

the preferred method to consider legislation. It precludes

meaningful input from all stakeholders who are potentially

impacted by the legislation in question. H.R. 5408 has not

had the benefit of any meaningful Member or staff analysis.

No hearings have been held on this legislation. No

opportunity has been provided for stakeholders to file

comments and submit questions regarding the legislation.

More troubling, no technical analysis has been undertaken

regarding the legislation. And that analysis is badly needed,

as this legislation is technically defective in several

respects and is not in proper form to be considered by the

House of Representatives. No financial or cost analysis has

been undertaken. No Committee markup has occurred regarding

this legislation.

This legislation should be referred back to the House

Education and Workforce Committee (``Committee'') to permit

Members and all stakeholders to consider counterproposals,

amendments, appropriate background research information, and

academic studies regarding the impact of this legislation. We

urge you and your colleagues to have H.R. 5408 returned to

the Committee.

Proponents of H.R. 5408 assert that there is a significant

problem with the time period it takes parties to reach an

agreement on an initial collective bargaining agreement. They

allege that employers are largely responsible for delays, and

such delays in the negotiation process are designed to

undermine union representation. They further allege that such

delay strategies are often part of employers' plans to

decertify or remove a union. There is no reliable data to

support these arguments and allegations.

First, it is very difficult to ascertain the start date of

collective bargaining in negotiations, especially for first

contracts, where the parties may not have any prior

relationship. Does the start date of negotiations begin when

one party sends another party a request for information and

documents?--a procedure often used by unions to prepare for

negotiations. Does the negotiation start date begin when the

parties start general discussions about the issues to be

discussed in negotiations? Does a preliminary discussion

regarding whether the parties should conclude non-economic

issues before moving to economic issues start the negotiation

process? Do mutually agreed upon delay periods in

negotiations--which often occur--count toward the average

time it takes for first contracts to be completed? When does

the negotiation period end? Does it end when a tentative

agreement is reached or when any tentative agreement is

ultimately ratified by bargaining unit members? What if a

tentative agreement is reached between a union and an

employer, but the bargaining unit rejects it? Does the

subsequent period after such a tentative agreement is

reached count toward the average negotiation period for

initial contracts?

Further, how should legitimate litigation initiatives be

counted under the days it takes to negotiate an initial

contract? A union or an employer may have good faith reasons

to contest a decision of the National Labor Relations Board

(``NLRB'' or ``Board'') regarding the categories of employees

that the Board included or excluded from the bargaining unit.

Well-established federal labor law permits unions and

employers to appeal decisions through the federal court of

appeals--test of certification cases. Such appeal periods

can, at a minimum, take months if not over a year depending

on if a circuit-worthy appeal is filed. Additionally, what if

a union legitimately believes it needs certain information

from an employer before it can sufficiently bargain or

conclude bargaining? For example, information regarding the

cost of certain employer-provided health benefits and limits

of coverage of any employer policy could be information that

the union believes is necessary to make proposal in the

health insurance area. Should the period it takes the NLRB to

resolve any dispute of the scope of the information request

be included in calculating the time period to negotiate an

initial collective bargaining agreement? There are many other

examples that could be listed and should be analyzed and

considered in calculating the number of days that it takes

parties to negotiate labor contracts.

Absent a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the details

of hundreds of initial collective bargaining negotiations

over an extended period of time, there can be no meaningful

or reliable data to support any conclusions about the average

time it takes parties to negotiate such agreements.

Even if thoughtful or comprehensive studies could be

conducted to determine the average time it takes parties to

reach an initial collective bargaining agreement--which has

not been done to date--the results of any studies, in all

probability, would show it takes a substantial amount of time

to reach initial labor contract agreements. Such an analysis

may very well show that it takes in excess of over four

hundred days (400) on average to reach an agreement. Members

of Congress need to understand that this is a complex

process. Labor contracts often contain many articles and, in

some cases, are over one hundred (100) pages. These initial

agreements also often contain appendices, memoranda of

understanding, and ``side letters.'' These agreements,

especially from the union perspective, attempt to cover

virtually all of an employee's relationship with their

employers. The bottom line is that bargaining these contracts

takes time--considerable time.

The importance of carefully and thoughtfully negotiating

first contracts and their terms cannot be emphasized enough.

Such negotiations are critical for employees, unions, and

employers. There are good reasons that it takes time to

negotiate initial collective bargaining agreements. The

parties are not just negotiating over wages. They are

constructing a comprehensive workplace contractual framework,

including work schedule details, health and retirement

benefits, paid time off and holidays, discipline standards,

grievance and arbitration procedures, and dozens of other

topics critical to employees and employers. These

negotiations can be time-consuming because the results of

such negotiations and the contents of an initial collective

bargaining agreement are critical for the union to continue

as a representative for employees and for the employer to

continue its business operations.

Additionally, there are other reasons that may explain that

a significant amount of time is needed to negotiate initial

collective bargaining agreements. For example, either unions

or employers may exercise lawful, legitimate litigation

rights that must be resolved before and during negotiations.

Further, a union may have made a considerable number of

promises in its campaign prior to an election--a tactic that

is often used by unions and is lawful under the National

Labor Relations Act (``NLRA'' or ``Act''). It may take the

union a considerable period of time to try to convince an

employer of the merits of its proposals related to campaign

promises to bargaining unit members. Alternatively, it may

take considerable time in negotiations before a union and its

members conclude that an employer will not agree to such

proposals. The union may also attempt to obtain an agreement

on issues that fall into the category of ``permissive

subjects of bargaining'' under the NLRA. An example would be

a union proposal regarding the number of employees that an

employer would be required to hire to run its business,

including staffing on certain units or departments. An

employer may lawfully disagree with the unions proposal

regarding these permissible bargaining proposals. These types

of negotiations can be very time consuming.

Initial collective bargaining agreements are also

singularly important to the parties because they carry much

greater weight than common law contracts. As explained in

more detail below (see discussion of the Supreme Court's Katz

no unilateral change doctrine), the terms included in a first

contract do not expire when the contract expires. In effect,

they are legally presumed to continue indefinitely, until or

unless they are expressly altered by mutual agreement of the

parties. This unusual characteristic of federal labor law

contracts gives their provisions a kind of initial inertia

that tends to carry them through many successful agreements

for literally decades.

It is important for members of Congress to understand the

significance and complexity of initial collective bargaining

agreements before enacting any regulation or oversight. H.R.

5408, unfortunately, is an improper intrusion into the

collective bargaining process and, as further detailed below,

fails to recognize the complexity and time necessary to

negotiate an initial collective bargaining agreement.

H.R. 5408 should be rejected, and this legislation should

be returned to the House Education and Workforce Committee

for further deliberation.

Sincerely,

G. Roger King,

King Labor Law.

Alex MacDonald,

Co-Chair, Littler Mendelson Workplace Policy Institute.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5408.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5408, the so-called Faster Labor Contracts Act. I will give credit to whoever named this bill because it certainly accomplishes two things faster: It fast-tracks government intrusion into private workplaces, and it erodes workers' rights faster than we have ever seen before.

Under the FLCA, if the private parties involved do not reach a first contract on an accelerated timeline, a government-appointed arbitration panel steps in and imposes one.

The panel does not merely recommend contract provisions or serve as a neutral entity while parties work to reach an agreement. Instead, it imposes a contract on employers and employees for at least 2 years without their consent.

Let's call this bill what it really is: a massive expansion of Washington's power over American workers and job creators.

It is the latest attempt to put workers under the thumb of Federal bureaucrats. Under the bill, government bureaucrats can parachute into workplaces they have never set foot in, override the voice of the workers and industries they know little about, and leave them with contracts that may not serve their interests.

Mr. Speaker, supporters of this bill assure businesses and workers that it is about worker empowerment and efficiency. I may be misremembering the definition of empowerment, but I can guarantee it does not mean taking away a worker's right to vote on his or her own contract and giving that power to a Washington bureaucrat with no stake in the outcome.

As for efficiency, this bill inserts the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, FMCS, an agency that President Trump rightly sought to eliminate for its corruption into the bargaining process.

Reports came out last year about the agency's alleged mismanagement of funds and other fraudulent activities. Now we are expected to give this agency a role in deciding workers' wages, benefits, scheduling rules, disciplinary procedures, and working conditions whenever contract negotiations extend beyond an arbitrary time frame.

I really doubt this agency will be able to do much, if anything, efficiently. If the bill supporters truly care about efficiency--and I believe they do--this is a strange way to show it.

For more than 90 years, Federal labor law has required employers and unions to bargain in good faith. Despite what supporters of this bill seem to suggest, that system is still working today. Whether it is the Teamsters, UPS, or United Auto Workers and the Big Three automakers, countless agreements across the country have been reached because both sides negotiated compromise and arrived at terms that made sense for their unique workplaces.

Under this bill, small businesses, in particular, could be forced into long-term, expensive, one-size-fits-all contracts written by bureaucrats. Those contracts could mandate spending that small employers cannot sustain, threaten jobs, kill growth, and in some cases, shut businesses down entirely.

Mr. Speaker, simply put, the FLCA is not proworker. It is an ideological Trojan horse that harms the very people it claims to help, empowers bureaucrats over workers, and undermines the collaborative process that has long-defined American labor relations.

Ultimately, workers value having a voice in workplace decisions.

The Trump administration has prioritized putting America's workers first and strengthening the Nation's workforce. This bill goes directly against the President's vision for America: to have the most capable and competitive workforce in the world.

It takes decisions out of the hands of workers and job creators and places them in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.

Mr. Speaker, we do not need government-imposed contracts. We do not need bureaucrats writing workplace rules. We certainly do not need a bill that claims to champion workers while stripping them of their ability to approve contracts that govern their livelihoods, whether they understand that or not.

If Congress truly wants to support American workers, we should strengthen workplace democracy, protect workers' rights, and encourage honest bargaining--not replace negotiation with government mandates.

The FLCA is wrong for workers, wrong for businesses, wrong for the economy, and wrong for the country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the chairman emeritus of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect my good friend and colleague from New Jersey, the sponsor of this bill, and his desire to move processes forward. I just have a significant concern that it is short-sighted to think that government intrusion into this process will ever work in the end and what would be considered optional wouldn't eventually become mandatory in the fact that the workers themselves aren't making these decisions, that the best interests of the union leadership may be carried on, but not the workers'. That is my concern.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a man who knows what it means to be involved in negotiations from both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we talked about efficiency and moving the issue forward 400-some days, but this bill is being rushed. It is being rushed in other ways. It requires a report from the Government Accountability Office, examining the length of time between recognition of a union in the workplace and the initial collective bargaining agreement. However, that report will not be issued until 1 year after enactment of the bill.

We are passing a bill that could impact millions of employers and employees, only then to request a report to understand the alleged issue that this bill aims to address.

I think back to the 2010 ObamaCare vote, when Members of this body were told to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it. We face a similar question today.

Why must we vote on a proposed solution before we even know the problem? Instead, let us do the reasonable thing before this bill goes to a vote.

That is just something we ought to consider, especially when we have the opportunity to do that, as opposed to pushing this directly to the floor without even having a GAO study beforehand.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), a great member of our Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder), another great member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine), one who stands up for workers and is a great participant in the Education and Workforce Committee as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as a former union steelworker, I certainly understand the value that unions play in the workplace. I also understand the value that employers play in the workplace. I sometimes have my concerns about union officials and where they put their greatest agenda items at and the greatest concerns.

Unions can only force workers to pay dues or fees if there is a signed contract in effect. This means that between the time a union is certified and when a first contract is signed, the union is not getting paid to represent workers.

Once the dues spigot is open, nearly all unions funnel that money to opposing President Trump and the Republican Party goals to lower taxes and make the American Dream affordable.

For decades, unions have increasingly spent more of their money on political campaigns--it is part of the record--and fringe social issues with a paltry sum spent on actually representing their members at the bargaining table and fighting for their rights.

From 1990 to 2010, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, was the second largest political donor on record, but spent 98 percent of its dollars on the other party, Democrats.

President Trump is a strong supporter of Israel, but millions of dollars of union dues from unions like the SEIU, United Electrical Workers Union, and United Auto Workers are going to a pro-Hamas, anti- Israel agenda.

President Trump has fought to get DEI initiatives out of our schools, workplaces, and government agencies. Union money has been propping up that agenda for more than a decade. These are hard truths.

President Trump supports a pro-life policy, but union money flows into Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations.

Union-funded House Democrats have not spent their time fighting for workers like they promise. Instead, they have spent their time undermining President Trump's agenda and trying to get him removed from office. These are hard truths.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act is just the latest attempt to undermine the President and his proworker agenda. It will go to union leadership. They will still be pulling it in while the bureaucrats make decisions for the employees.

I urge colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5408, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), a great member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, through you to my friend from the region where we both grew up, Hammond, South Side of Chicago, Calumet City, steel area and all the rest, I just make one point: Our President is clearly for private sector workers, very much so.

When he dealt with the Federal Government, it follows the pattern of trying to reduce the cost, the size, the scope of the Federal Government. In fact, that is what we are talking about here, of expanding the scope of the Federal Government to come in and force on employees and employers contracts that in many cases they will not have voted on. I just remind my good friend of that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just to bring clarity, my exact words were: President Trump is a strong supporter of Israel, but millions of dollars of union dues from unions like SEIU, the United Electrical Workers, and the United Auto Workers are going to support a pro-Hamas, anti-Israel agenda. I stand by that.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill asks us to believe that workers are empowered when their right to vote on a contract is taken away and handed to a government-appointed arbitrator. That is not empowerment. That is Washington deciding it knows better in the end than people actually doing the job.

For decades, employers and unions have negotiated contracts through good faith bargaining. Certainly, it is not always easy, but it works because the people closest to the workplace are the ones making the decisions. This bill replaces that process with Federal intervention and a one-size-fits-all mandate.

Congress is being asked to make these sweeping changes without the scrutiny they deserve--no committee process, no serious examination of the costs, and no opportunity to fully consider the consequences.

Workers deserve a voice. Businesses deserve certainty. The American people deserve better than rushed legislation that puts bureaucrats in charge and leaves everyone else with the bill.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will include a letter at a later time raising concerns about H.R. 5408 from G. Roger King, senior labor and employment counsel at CHRO Association, and Alex McDonald, co-chair of the Workplace Policy Institute at Littler Mendelson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XV, I rise to provide notice of my intent to offer a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further consideration of House Resolution 1140.

I did.

I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a motion to discharge H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the Faster Labor Contracts Act creates a fair and reliable time frame for workers and employers to reach their first contract.

Workers in this country are guaranteed the right to organize and collectively bargain. Together, by passing this bipartisan bill, we can close one of the biggest loopholes undermining their ability to get an actual contract.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I am a union electrician by trade and a proud member of IBEW Local 351. I have spent my entire life fighting for workers to get a fair shake from their employers. I am proud to rise in support of what would be the most impactful protection for workers' rights in nearly 100 years, my Faster Labor Contracts Act.

Whether it is safer working conditions, better pay, or even something as simple as getting the weekend off from work, unions have been making people's lives better for generations. They do so by helping workers get a seat at the table with companies that control the purse strings. One of the most important tools a union has to get that seat is the right to collectively bargain.

Workers' right to negotiate their contracts together has been the law of the land for almost a century. Yet, for that entire time, there has been a glaring loophole in the system that allows employers to prevent unions from ever securing their first contract. Simply put, workers have no real option if their bosses hold out in negotiations indefinitely.

That is exactly what employers have done. They have run out the clock.

It can already take 1 year for workers to win and certify an election and to actually be unionized, and that is when the start of the clock begins. It takes an average of 458 days for an employer to agree with a union to get their first contract. That is just the average. Roughly one-third of all those workers are forced to wait over 3 years before they can sign on the dotted line.

Companies have every incentive to drag out this waiting game. For starters, delaying a new contract ensures that their profits don't have to be shared with their workers. Employers also know that if they can hold up negotiations long enough, there is a chance their employees might get frustrated and decide this process simply is too long. For some of the largest corporations, making collective bargaining as painful as possible might just prevent their other branches from trying to unionize in their workplace.

Let's be clear: Union-busting is illegal and wrong, and it has been for generations. With the dirty tactics of indefinite delays, many employers are working relentlessly to kill their employees' unions.

If you live in America, Mr. Speaker, you have likely crossed paths with many of those workers who were hurt by their employer's waiting games. Let's talk about the father in the Amazon delivery van dropping off home goods in an ice storm. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the young woman at Starbucks who knows your coffee order by heart, or the kind senior bagging your groceries at Trader Joe's, or the hiking expert going that extra mile for you at REI.

Those workers are getting screwed, plain and simple. Many of them are also getting screwed by bosses like Jeff Bezos, who in a short time has accumulated more wealth than any human in the history of the world.

At Amazon, the company Bezos helped found, there are currently over 5,000 warehouse workers in Staten Island who voted to form a union in 2022. For 4 years, they have been waiting. They have been waiting for Amazon to negotiate in good faith, and they are still waiting.

Mr. Speaker, if your partner gave you an engagement ring but didn't show up for 4 years at the altar, you would think there is a problem. Well, folks, we do have a problem.

I believe workers deserve to hold their employers to those same standards. My Faster Labor Contracts Act offers a simple, three-step solution to turn endless negotiation delays into fair contracts for workers.

First, following the certification of a union election, it would require employers to begin contract negotiations with their new union within 10 days.

Second, if a new agreement is not reached after 90 days, my bill would give workers or their employers a choice to refer the negotiations to an independent mediation.

Finally, if mediation takes longer than 1 month, workers or the employer could ask for an arbitration panel to render a decision on a first contract.

This three-step plan would give both parties multiple opportunities to advance stalled contract discussions if they choose to. That is because right

now there are no opportunities if the other stops negotiating in good faith.

My bill's clear timeline for contract negotiations would ensure workers can start benefiting from their new union contract in months, not years. I am also confident that not every negotiation will require outside help because hundreds of employers already do this process the right way each day. Problem employers will be forced to sit down at the table when they know they are not allowed to run out the clock.

Unions fight for American workers of all political stripes. That is why my Faster Labor Contracts Act has attracted bipartisan support. Especially during this nasty era of politics, I am grateful for Members on both sides of the aisle who are willing to stand up with workers together.

Mr. Speaker, I am also grateful to my friends in the broader labor movement for long calling out bad-faith negotiations by employers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record letters by several of these partners in support of the Faster Labor Contracts Act, including the Teamsters, AFL-CIO, IBEW, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, United Steelworkers, and International Association of Machinists.

Mr. Speaker, the coalition we have built behind the Faster Labor Contracts Act bridges political parties, blue-collar and white-collar industries, young and old, and all walks of life. Our bill reaffirms that collective bargaining is a fundamental right

even the richest billionaires must comply with. By advancing this legislation, Congress can send a clear message that workers deserve a level playing field. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act, which ensures that workers can quickly and efficiently reach a first contract between a union and their employer.

It is also one of the many important provisions of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act, which critically bolsters working people's ability to organize and form a union while holding union-busting employers accountable.

This bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to require employers to begin negotiations with a newly certified union within 10 days. This bill further provides that if no agreement is reached after 90 days, either party may request mediation from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. If mediation fails after 30 days, the dispute will be referred to an arbitration panel selected by the union and employer to secure an initial contract.

For too many workers, the hard work doesn't end when they vote to form a union. It just begins. Reaching a first contract to form a union can take months, even years. In some cases, it never happens at all. It is not unusual for workers to sit through endless delays and other dilatory tactics by employers, including shifting proposals and stalled negotiations. Workers endure all of this while trying to balance their jobs, their families, and their livelihoods.

When workers choose to organize, they are choosing a unified voice to negotiate for their rights with management. Without a first contract, that voice can be effectively silenced. Dragging out negotiations gives corporations a long chance to break up a union.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act brings accountability to this process. It sets up reasonable timelines and ensures that both sides engage in serious, good-faith negotiations. It helps prevent delay tactics and keeps the focus where it belongs--on reaching an agreement that works for everyone.

This bill is about making the right to organize real, not theoretical.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Norcross for his leadership on this issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a member of the Committee on Education and Workforce and the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I include in the Record a letter from the American Federation of Teachers.

The letter says, in part: ``For this reason, we call

on all Members of the House to vote for the bipartisan Faster Labor Contracts Act. It is far from being a complete set of labor reforms, but it is an incredibly important step in the right direction.''

The letter goes on to say: ``Under current law, for far too many workers, including many who seek to join the AFT, organizing a union is marked by employer anti-union campaigns that include pressure tactics and a refusal to negotiate a first contract after workers have voted to unionize.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casar), the vice ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, could you advise how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, could you say that again.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, when workers vote to form a union, they don't want their first contract to come in years after endless stalling by an employer negotiating in bad faith. They want a voice in the workplace.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act helps prevent these delay tactics and smooths the transition to an organized workplace. As the saying goes, forming a union should be a right, not a fight.

This legislation is an important first step toward ensuring that workers can more easily form a union and negotiate for higher wages, better benefits, and safer workplaces. Unions are critical to leveling the playing field and addressing rising economic inequality. This bill will help achieve these goals, but we cannot stop here. We must also pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, the PRO Act, to comprehensively advance workers' rights.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Members from both sides of the aisle will head to the field for the annual Congressional Baseball Game. It is a great tradition in Washington, reminding us that no matter how intensely we disagree, we believe in the basic American principle of fair play.

I rise today to talk about a piece of legislation that completely upends the rules of fair play for Americans, the Faster Labor Contracts Act.

To understand why this bill is so dangerous for our workforce, let's stick with the baseball analogy for a second.

Imagine a tie game, the bottom of the ninth, a close play at the plate, and the call is challenged. In Major League Baseball, we know how the replay review works. It goes to a centralized room in New York filled with veteran umpires who have spent decades in the field. Both teams accept the final decision because they trust the expertise of the people making the call.

Now, imagine if the MLB suddenly changed that rule. Imagine replay reviews were handed over to a rushed, three-person panel, with one reviewer picked by the home team and one picked by the away team. A third tie-breaking member is chosen at random from the stadium's front- office staff. They are then given a 2-minute clock to issue a final, unappealable ruling.

None of us would accept it. The fans would protest, and the integrity of the game would be destroyed.

Yet, remarkably, that is exactly the framework this legislation wants to force upon collective bargaining in the American workplace. The Faster Labor Contracts Act invites Federal bureaucrats directly into private negotiations and empowers them to dictate contracts between employers and employees.

Under the text of this bill, once the union is certified, negotiations must begin within 10 days. The parties are then given a rigid window of just 90 days to reach a first contract.

If they cannot reach a deal in that brief window, the bill forces them into mediation, but it only gives the process 30 days. If the mediation doesn't resolve every single issue in those few weeks, a government-imposed, binding arbitration automatically kicks in.

Just like that hypothetical baseball panel, a three-person arbitration board takes over. The employer picks one, the union picks one, and a third so-called neutral arbitrator is selected. If the parties cannot agree on those selections within 14 days, the Federal mediation conciliation panel steps in and chooses all three arbitrators for them.

This panel is given sweeping, unprecedented power to dictate wages, benefits, safety procedures, leave policies, and virtually every term of employment.

Then comes the worst part of all. These three-person panel votes, and that contract becomes legally binding for a full 2 years.

What about the rank-and-file workers, the men and women on the factory floor and on the construction sites? They are completely shut out of the process. Under this bill, the workers are denied the right to vote on the very contract that governs their work lives. There is no ratification vote, and there is no right of appeal.

Think about that. The moral argument for labor unions is to give workers a collective voice, but this bill strips them of that voice and hands it over to a panel of outside lawyers and bureaucrats.

Last spring at a Senate hearing, an International Association of Machinists shop steward testified on this point. He warned that removing the right of workers to ratify their own contract removes democracy from the workplace. He said: Giving the worker a say is the whole point of a union.

If we value the voices of working people, we should not support a bill that silences them.

Our government already furnishes help and protection through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which employers, employees, and unions can voluntarily utilize to resolve disputes. We do not need a heavy-handed law that prioritizes speed over fairness, centralization over consent, and government control over workplace democracy.

Let's keep the Federal Government out of the dugout, and let's let American workers and businesses call the balls and strikes themselves.