Sponsors (18)
The bill federalizes the ability to enforce union-security agreements—likely increasing union bargaining power and some workers' pay—while eliminating state-level right-to-work protections and raising concerns about compelled dues, higher labor costs, and reduced state policy control.
Unionized employees in right-to-work states can be subject to union-security (fair-share/agency) agreements, strengthening unions' revenue and bargaining leverage and increasing the likelihood of higher wages or benefits for workers in affected workplaces.
Gives the National Labor Relations Board clearer federal authority to enforce union-security arrangements nationwide, reducing legal uncertainty and inconsistent state-by-state rules.
Workers in right-to-work states could lose protections against mandatory union membership or fees and some employees may be compelled to pay dues or fees despite objections, raising concerns about freedom of association and compelled speech.
Employers could face higher labor costs where union-security agreements are allowed, which may lead to higher consumer prices, reduced hiring, or pressure on small-business finances.
State governments that enacted right-to-work laws would lose control over labor policy within their borders, reducing state policy autonomy and likely provoking legal and political conflict between states and the federal government.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Removes the federal statutory language that preserved state/territorial bans on union-security agreements, allowing the NLRA to apply without that carve-out.
Introduced September 4, 2025 by Brad Sherman · Last progress September 4, 2025
Repeals the federal provision that has preserved state and territorial bans on requiring union membership as a condition of employment. In practice, the change would remove a statutory protection for "right-to-work" laws, allowing the National Labor Relations Act to be applied without that carve-out and potentially permitting union-security agreements where state law previously prohibited them. The bill is narrowly focused and does not itself create new programs or funding; its main effect is to change the balance between federal labor law and state/territorial prohibitions on union-security clauses, which could prompt changes in collective bargaining practices and litigation over preemption.