The American flag flies at the top of U.S. Capitol building, Monday, Sept. 22, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

You’d think that union officials would support one of the labor movement’s biggest demands. But even they balk when confronted with what it would mean for workers.

This truth was made clear last week in a high-profile Senate hearing. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) asked a shop steward from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers about the union demand for government-imposed arbitration when employers and unions can’t quickly agree on a first contract. This policy is the basis of Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-Mo.) Faster Labor Contracts Act. In the same hearing, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), said that he’s a “strong supporter” of Hawley’s bill because it’s aligned with Democrats’ PRO Act — a wish-list of union leaders’ priorities.

Cassidy explained this policy in real-world terms, saying that it would “take workers out of the process by removing the need to ratify a contract.” He put a finer point on it by saying that if the government mandated arbitration, workers “cannot reject” the resulting agreement, even though it would be binding on them. “What would happen,” he asked, “if workers lost that ability to ratify a contract?”

The union official didn’t mince words: “that would be removing the democracy from the workplace.” Then he doubled down: Such democracy “is the whole point of the union,” he said, because it gives workers “a say.” In a few short words, that union official, a Democratic witness, rejected one of the Democrats’ and labor’s biggest policy priorities.

I was testifying in the same hearing, and I struggled to contain my surprise. True, Cassidy had not mentioned the Faster Labor Contracts Act by name. Nor did he call out the PRO Act. But he didn’t have to. By focusing on the actual policy instead of the bill name, he highlighted how unjust both Hawley’s proposal and that of the Democrats really is. Each hurts workers in the name of helping them. When you strip away the window dressing, even a shop steward won’t accept it.

And this was a shop steward from Hawley’s home state of Missouri, brought in by Democrats to support their agenda, including Hawley’s bill. If he can’t support that anti-democratic reform, who can?

The timing couldn’t have been more awkward. Just a few weeks earlier, the Senate had held another hearing that prominently featured a union president endorsing Hawley’s bill. Yet awkward or not, the shop steward is right on the money. There’s nothing fair or democratic about taking away workers’ right to vote on contracts that dictate their jobs. There is nothing fair or democratic in letting government impose its will regardless of workers’ wishes.

And a union shop steward isn’t the only one who knows it — Americans do, too. New polling from the Chamber of Commerce shows that 90 percent of voters oppose government-mandated union contracts that workers don’t approve. It makes sense: It’s hard to support the gutting of workplace democracy.

That’s not to say that workers don’t need stronger protection of their rights. They most certainly do. But a real reform wouldn’t put government in control at the back end of a union election. The better path is to put workers in control at the front end.

Workers really need the Employee Rights Act, which protects them in numerous ways. To start, it guarantees that unionization elections use the secret ballot, preventing the public “card check” voting system that encourages intimidation and harassment. It also lets workers decide what contact information union organizers receive, protecting their privacy and that of their families.

These are just a few of the pro-worker reforms in the Employee Rights Act, which Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) introduced in the Senate in mid-October. This bill will ensure that workers’ voices are truly heard.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act and the PRO Act would do the opposite, stifling workers’ voices at the hands of the federal government. This isn’t the pro-worker reform it’s chalked up to be. But don’t take it from me. Take it from the union official who admitted the truth — this union demand is anti-worker and undemocratic.

F. Vincent Vernuccio is president of the Institute for the American Worker.

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.