On June 9, 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 230–193 to pass the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) (H.R. 5408, S. 844) following a Democrat-led discharge petition that reached 218 signatures in May. The legislation would represent an unprecedented expansion of federal government power in private sector labor relations by imposing a one-size-fits-all collective bargaining timeline on employers and unions and mandating government-imposed binding arbitration for first union contracts, regardless of industry or the particular circumstances.
The FLCA would fundamentally alter negotiations between employers and unions by imposing arbitrary federal deadlines that ignore the complexity of these contract negotiations. Under the bill, employers and unions would be required to begin bargaining within ten days of a union’s demand. If the parties have not reached agreement within ninety days, the bill mandates a thirty-day mediation period via an obscure government agency – the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which the Trump administration has targeted for near elimination and irrelevancy. If an agreement has still not been reached after these 120 days, the bill authorizes a federal government-appointed arbitration panel to impose binding contract terms on both the employer and the union—terms that would remain in effect for two years with no meaningful judicial review, no opportunity for workers to vote to approve or reject the contract, and no means for the employer to raise concerns about the financial viability of the terms.
This governmental overreach creates serious dangers for both the economy and workers themselves.
The FLCA would impose substantial costs on American businesses and ultimately American workers. The arbitration timeline is entirely disconnected from industry realities—whether a manufacturing plant, retail operation, construction company, or service business. These negotiations are complicated and involve the formulation of a new relationship between he employer and the union – a relationship that could end up lasting for decades. They cover every employment term – from wages to workplace safety conditions, leave policies to retirement benefits, and then some. These negotiations cannot be done properly without the time needed to get the parties together and find the terms that both parties can live with.
Concerningly, the bill contains no requirement that the arbitrators have any experience with the industry or business in question, and yet they have the authority to fundamentally alter the business. Nor does it require arbitrators to ensure the imposed contract terms be economically feasible for the employer. This creates a significant risk of unsustainable labor costs that could force businesses to reduce hours, lay off workers, relocate operations, or close entirely.
The threat of government-imposed contracts also destroys the incentive structure for good-faith bargaining. When both parties know that an arbitrator will simply impose terms if negotiations stall, there is little reason for either party to compromise or negotiate in earnest. Unions have no incentive to moderate demands; employers have no ability to explain their business constraints. The result is likely to be government-written contracts that satisfy neither party and harm the workers they purport to help. The Mercatus Institute has conducted a study on what happens when unions have unchecked bargaining power during contract negotiations. It results in lost jobs, less investments, closed businesses, and hollowed out industries.
The FLCA also creates uncertainty that will deter business formation and growth. Small and mid-sized businesses cannot plan capital investments, hiring, or expansion when they face the prospect of having labor costs unilaterally imposed by government decree. This uncertainty will suppress entrepreneurship and stifle job creation.
The FLCA bypasses workers’ right to vote on the terms and conditions of their own employment. While the bill’s proponents claim it helps workers secure contracts, it actually strips workers of meaningful voice by allowing government-appointed arbitrators — not workers themselves — to decide the terms under which they will labor. Workers deserve a vote on their workplace contracts, not a government-mandated outcome that they had no role in shaping.
The bill also raises serious constitutional concerns. Federal government appointment of arbitrators to impose private contract terms raises Due Process and Takings Clause questions, and the unbounded discretion granted to arbitrators — who face no requirement to consider business viability, have no specified criteria for imposing terms, and face no meaningful judicial review — likely violates constitutional principles of due process and delegation.
The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace has launched an extensive campaign to oppose the FLCA and educate lawmakers and the public about its serious dangers. CDW developed several resources to highlight the perils of the bill:
Polling Data on How Voters Really Feel about Unions
National
Alaska
Kansas
Louisiana
Minnesota
Missouri
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
