The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, is a proposed United States law that would amend previous labor laws such as the National Labor Relations Act, for the purpose of expanding "various labor protections related to employees' rights to organize and collectively bargain in the workplace". It would prevent employers from holding mandatory meetings for the purpose of counteracting labor organization, and would strengthen the legal right of employees to join a labor union. The bill would also permit labor unions to encourage secondary strikes. The PRO Act would weaken "right-to-work" laws, which exist in 27 U.S. states. It would allow the National Labor Relations Board to fine employers for violations of labor law, and would provide compensation to employees involved in such cases.
Background
The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, also known as the PRO Act, follows a series of past legislation passed by Congress concerning labor rights. A number of landmark bills were passed during the New Deal period, including the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which President Franklin D. Roosevelt considered one of the most important Acts of Congress at the time.
Following the New Deal, a number of bills were passed which restricted the activities of labor unions. Among these was the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act), which among other things prohibited secondary boycotts and closed shops.
In 2009, the Employee Free Choice Act, another bill which would have amended the National Labor Relations Act, failed to pass.
In the State of California, following the passage of California Assembly Bill 5, Proposition 22 was passed in 2020. Proposition 22 was intended to classify so-called gig workers for app-based companies (such as Lyft, Uber, DoorDash and Postmates) as "independent contractors" rather than full employees.
Content
The PRO Act would amend the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (also known as the Wagner Act), the Taft-Hartley Act, and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (also known as the Landrum–Griffin Act).
According to the summary text of the PRO Act, it revises definitions under labor law, permits labor unions to encourage participation in secondary strikes, and prohibits employers from litigating against unions which conduct such secondary strikes:Among other things, it (1) revises the definitions of employee, supervisor, and employer to broaden the scope of individuals covered by the fair labor standards; (2) permits labor organizations to encourage participation of union members in strikes initiated by employees represented by a different labor organization (i.e., secondary strikes); and (3) prohibits employers from bringing claims against unions that conduct such secondary strikes.The PRO Act would prevent employees seeking to join a labor union from being fired. It would allow unions to override "right-to-work" laws, allowing labor unions to collect dues from all employees in a workplace, regardless of whether or not they are a member of a labor union. Right-to-work laws exist in 27 U.S. states, and the PRO Act would weaken these laws. It would also prohibit company-sponsored captive audience meetings used to counteract and discourage attempts at labor organization as an unfair labor practice. It prevents an employer from holding citizenship status against an employee. The bill would allow the National Labor Relations Board to fine employers up to $50,000 for every violation of labor law. It would also allow the NLRB to fine employers up to $100,000 in the case of repeat offenses by an employer. It would bring monetary compensation to employees involved in such cases. The PRO Act would classify some workers who are classified now as "independent contractors", instead as "employees". The bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to define an employee as follows:"An individual performing any service shall be considered an employee (except as provided in the previous sentence) and not an independent contractor, unless—
"(A) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact;
"(B) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and