Josh Hawley's Bipartisan Labor Bill Would Hand Washington the Power to Write Private Contracts

A Republican Is Pushing One of the Most Pro-Union Bills in Years

Josh Hawley is not a Democrat. The Missouri Republican clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts, served as Missouri's Attorney General, and objected to certifying the 2020 election. He is not, by most definitions, a labor lefty.

And yet on March 4, 2025, Hawley introduced Senate Bill 844 — the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) — alongside Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Moreno (R-OH), and others. The Teamsters endorsed it on day one. Teamsters General President Sean O'Brien called it "real labor law reform."

What the Bill Actually Does

Once a union is newly recognized, the FLCA requires contract negotiations to begin within 10 days of a bargaining request. The parties get 90 days to negotiate. If they fail, there's 30 days of mediation. If that fails too, the dispute goes to government-mandated arbitration.

That arbitration panel has three members. Each side picks one arbitrator. If they can't agree on a third, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) — a federal government agency — appoints one.

That three-member panel then has the legal authority to impose contract terms on the employer and the union.

According to Reason, this transfers the give-and-take of private labor negotiations from both companies and workers to a government-appointed panel. This isn't just pro-union. It's pro-Washington.

The Spin from Both Sides

Hawley's office frames it as fighting "mega-corporations" who "drag their feet" and "slow-walk" negotiations. Booker's office says "current law stacks the deck in favor of anti-union employers." The Teamsters call it accountability.

None of them mention what happens when the arbitration panel sides with the employer, or imposes terms the union membership never voted for. Arbitration cuts both ways.

The pro-union framing also overlooks a real data point: according to CDF Labor Law, it currently takes over a year on average for new unions to secure first contracts. That's a legitimate problem. The bill proposes handing final authority to a federal panel, rather than improving enforcement of good-faith bargaining requirements or expanding mediation options.

The Constitutional and Policy Problems

Reason raised the constitutional issue directly: forcing parties into binding arbitration with a government-appointed third arbitrator raises serious questions about compelled speech, due process, and the separation of private contract rights from federal authority.

There's also the matter of the FMCS itself. Reason describes it as a "corrupt government agency" being revived with new powers. The FMCS has operated with minimal oversight and accountability for decades. Expanding its authority to appoint arbitrators who can write binding private contracts represents a significant expansion of federal power.

The bill also removes leverage from unions. If negotiations hit a wall, union members don't get to keep pressuring management through strikes, work slowdowns, or public campaigns. Instead, a federal panel decides. Under a Republican administration, that panel might be stacked with management-friendly appointees. The Teamsters are betting on favorable arbitrators today. That bet changes the moment the White House does.

The Political Reality

In the Senate, the bill picked up an original co-sponsor group of five, and has since grown. In the House, companion legislation has 99 cosponsors, 17 of them Republican, according to Reason.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has refused to bring it to the floor. But a discharge petition was filed last month — a procedural move that can force a floor vote if a majority of representatives sign on. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has publicly said the petition will "soon" get the votes it needs.

That means this bill could pass over Johnson's head. In a Republican-controlled House. The bipartisan support has become substantial.

What Mainstream Coverage Is Missing

Most coverage treats this as a heartwarming bipartisan story — Republicans and Democrats agreeing on something, workers winning, corporations losing.

The actual story is: a government agency could soon write your employment contract. Not negotiate it. Not mediate it. Write it. Impose it. With no further appeal from either party.

CDF Labor Law — whose analysis is sympathetic to employers — correctly notes this would "substantially improve the bargaining position of unions" and represents a "landmark shift in labor negotiations."

Hawley's populist pivot is documented, but populism from the right carries the same risks as populism from the left: government grows, individual choice shrinks.

What This Means

If you own a small business that gets unionized, a federal panel could dictate your wages, benefits, and working conditions — regardless of what you can actually afford to pay. If you're a union worker, you might get a contract faster, but it might not be the contract you wanted. Either way, Washington gains authority.

Faster isn't always better. And "bipartisan" doesn't mean correct.