A group of federal legislators has once again introduced the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act in Congress, drawing opposition from those in the construction industry who argue that the legislation would unfairly tilt the scales in favor of unions.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., resubmitted the PRO Act on March 5, which aims to reshape labor relations in the U.S. The proposed law would change the definitions of "employee" and "employer," make it easier for workers to form unions, and hold employers more accountable for violations related to labor rights, according to its sponsors.

First introduced in 2019, the PRO Act passed the House of Representatives in 2020 but stalled in the Senate. It encountered a similar setback in 2021. Despite its challenges, the bill has garnered some bipartisan backing, with Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., co-sponsoring the bill’s reintroduction in the House.

Key Features of the PRO Act

The PRO Act seeks to amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), redefining the terms "employee" and "employer" to more clearly establish when a worker is considered a full-time employee rather than an independent contractor.

In 2021, the New York City-based Century Foundation, a progressive think tank, estimated that approximately 2.1 million construction workers—roughly 20% of the workforce—were either misclassified or paid off the books. The PRO Act seeks to ensure these workers are treated as full-time employees, entitling them to benefits such as health insurance.

Furthermore, the legislation proposes to modify the NLRA to eliminate several collective bargaining tactics that employers currently use. These changes would include:

• Prohibiting employers from permanently replacing striking employees or discriminating against workers who participate in a strike.
• Removing restrictions that prevent unions from conducting "secondary" strikes or boycotts, where workers at one company strike in solidarity with workers at another company.
• Banning employers from compelling workers to attend "captive audience" meetings aimed at persuading them against unionizing.
• Clarifying employers' bargaining responsibilities and setting deadlines for reaching collective bargaining agreements to prevent companies from stalling the process.

Industry Pushback

Construction industry representatives, including the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) and the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), have voiced strong opposition to the PRO Act. They argue that the law could be detrimental to both the economy and the autonomy of workers who do not wish to join a union.

Brian Turmail, AGC’s vice president of public affairs and workforce, criticized the PRO Act in a statement, arguing that it “strips away many of [workers’] rights and privacies while expanding opportunities to coerce law-abiding employers, thereby hurting the economy and upsetting a delicate balance of rights and restrictions established by the National Labor Relations Board, the courts, and Congress.” He further stated, “If enacted, this measure will harm workers, undermine the economy and end decades of labor stability.”

Kristen Swearingen, vice president of legislative and political affairs for ABC, echoed this sentiment, condemning the PRO Act for disregarding the interests of small business owners, employees, and independent contractors. “The reintroduction of the PRO Act displays continued disregard for the livelihoods of small business owners, employees and independent contractors,” she said. “While Congress has long rejected the PRO Act and its provisions, these legislators continue to pursue failed policies and attack business models and fundamental freedoms that have fueled entrepreneurship, job creation and opportunity for the American worker.”

Union Support and Future Prospects

From the perspective of unions, the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of unions in the U.S., has called the PRO Act “the key to America’s future.” The AFL-CIO argues that the bill would make it easier for workers to form unions and negotiate better working conditions. According to the AFL-CIO, the National Labor Relations Act is currently broken and needs reform.

Despite setbacks in the past, the PRO Act remains a focal point for unions advocating for labor reform. Previous attempts to pass the bill failed, even when Democrats held majorities in both houses of Congress, and when former President Joe Biden, a strong proponent of unions, was in office.

Nevertheless, there remains the potential for some provisions of the PRO Act to be incorporated into law. In addition to the backing from Rep. Fitzpatrick, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced a related bill to the Senate on March 4 that sets deadlines for negotiations once workers have voted to form a union.

Michael Bellaman, CEO of the Associated Builders and Contractors, expressed concern that Hawley’s bill targets “the most egregious provision” of the PRO Act. However, the introduction of this bill signals that labor reform efforts could continue, with ongoing debate around balancing workers' rights and employer freedoms.

Wider Implications

The reintroduction of the PRO Act highlights ongoing tensions within the labor market. On one side, there are calls to strengthen workers' rights and make it easier for them to unionize and secure benefits. On the other hand, employers and industry groups argue that such measures could disrupt business operations and individual freedoms.

As debates continue, both sides are gearing up for what could be a prolonged legislative battle, with both unions and employer representatives closely watching the potential outcomes of the PRO Act’s reintroduction.

Originally reported by Zachary Phillips in Construction Dive.