2021: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Require Arbitration Panels To Settle Disputes For Initial Collective Bargaining Negotiations. In March 2021, Schweikert voted against en bloc amendments no.1 to the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require arbitration panels settling disputes in initial collective bargaining agreements under the bill's provisions to render a decision 'as soon as practicable' and within 120 days, absent 'extraordinary circumstances' or agreement of the parties." The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 227-196. [House Vote 67, 3/9/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring Employers To Be Certified And Ordered By The National Labor Relations Board To Engage In Collective Bargaining Negotiations With An Elected Labor Union. In March 2021, Schweikert voted against the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require the NLRB to certify and order the employer to engage in collective bargaining with an elected labor organization." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 225-206. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 70, 3/9/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842]
The Bill Would Have Created A Guideline For Initial Collective Bargaining Between Employers And Labor Unions, Including Providing Federal Mediation Services If Settlement Cannot Be Reached Within The First 90 Days And Followed By An Arbitration Panel For 30 Extra Days If Agreement Is Not Reached. According to Congressional Quarterly, "outline procedures for initial collective bargaining between an employer and a union, including to provide for federal mediation services if an agreement is not reached 90 days after the bargaining begins and referral to an arbitration panel if an agreement is not reached in an additional 30 days." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21]
The Bill Would Remedy The Inability To Reach A First Contract Between Unions And Employers By Permitting New Unions To Seek Arbitration And Mediation To Reach An Agreement. According to NPR, "Often, even successful union organizing drives fail to result in an agreement on a first contract between labor and management. The PRO Act would remedy that by allowing newly certified unions to seek arbitration and mediation to settle such impasses in negotiations." [NPR, 3/9/21]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Altering Procedures By Which Workers May Organize Unions And Elect Representation Under Federal Labor Law. In March 2021, Schweikert voted against the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "modify procedures by which employees may unionize and elect representation under federal labor law." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 225-206. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 70, 3/9/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842]
According To Union Leaders, The Measure Would Level The Playing Field That Favored Big Businesses And Management That Make Labor Union Organization And Elections Difficult. According to NPR, "Union leaders say the Protecting the Right to Organize Act --- PRO Act --- would finally begin to level a playing field they say is unfairly tilted toward big business and management, making union organizing drives and elections unreasonably difficult." [NPR, 3/9/21]
The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Opposed The Measure And Claimed The Bill Would Hinder Workers' Rights, Ambush Employers In Irrelevant Labor Disputes, Harm The Economy, And Coerce Americans To Pay Union Dues. According to NPR, "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says the act would 'undermine worker rights, ensnare employers in unrelated labor disputes, disrupt the economy, and force individual Americans to pay union dues regardless of their wishes.'" [NPR, 3/9/21]
The National Retail Federation Opposed The Bill. According to NPR, "The National Retail Federation has called it 'the worst bill in Congress.'" [NPR, 3/9/21]
The Bill Would Prohibit An Employers From Using A Worker's Immigration Status When Establishing The Terms Of Their Work. According to NPR, "The law would prevent an employer from using its employee's immigration status against them when determining the terms of their employment." [NPR, 3/9/21]
The Bill Would Have Created A Guideline On How Employees May Petition For And Elect Representation For Collective Bargaining Through An Election Conducted By The National Labor Relations Board. According to Congressional Quarterly, "outline a number of procedures by which employees may petition for and elect representation for collective bargaining through an election directed by the NLRB." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21]
Workers Would Be Allowed To Cast Their Votes For Union Elections At A Location That Is Not The Company Property. According to NPR, "Additionally, employees would be able to cast a ballot in union organizing elections at a location away from company property." [NPR, 3/9/21]
The Bill Would Have Required The National Labor Relations Board To Organize Pre-Election Hearings Within Eight Days Of The Filed Petitions. According to Congressional Quarterly, "require the NLRB to schedule pre-election hearings within eight days of a petition being filed." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21]
The Bill Would Have Barred Employers From Interfering Or Participating In Collective Bargaining Elections. According to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit employers from certain interference or participation in such elections." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21]
Employers Would Be Barred From Interfering And Influencing Union Elections, Thus Effectively Ending The Practice Of Company-Sponsored Companies Where The Employers Lobby Against Labor Organization. According to NPR, "Employer interference and influence in union elections would be forbidden. Company-sponsored meetings --- with mandatory attendance --- are often used to lobby against a union organizing drive. Such meetings would be illegal." [NPR, 3/9/21]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Protecting The Right To Organize Act. In March 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "motion to recommit the bill to the House Education and Labor Committee." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 206-218. [House Vote 69, 3/9/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Implement A Remote System To Conduct Labor Union Elections Through An Electronic Voting System. In March 2021, Schweikert voted against en bloc amendments no.1 to the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require the National Labor Relations Board to implement a system and procedures to conduct union representation elections remotely using an electronic voting system." The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 227-196. [House Vote 67, 3/9/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Protecting The Right To Organize Act. In March 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "adoption of the rule (H Res 188) that would provide for House floor consideration of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (HR 842), the Bipartisan Background Checks Act (HR 8), and the Enhanced Background Checks Act (HR 1446). The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on each of the three bills; provide for automatic adoption of a Scott, D-Va., manager's amendment to HR 842; and make in order floor consideration of 19 amendments to HR 842, eight amendments to HR 8, and four amendments to HR 1446." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 218-197. [House Vote 64, 3/8/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/8/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 188]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Protecting The Right To Organize Act. In March 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 188) that would provide for House floor consideration of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (HR 842), the Bipartisan Background Checks Act (HR 8), and the Enhanced Background Checks Act (HR 1446). The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on each of the three bills; provide for automatic adoption of a Scott, D-Va., manager's amendment to HR 842; and make in order floor consideration of 19 amendments to HR 842, eight amendments to HR 8, and four amendments to HR 1446." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 213-195. [House Vote 63, 3/8/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/8/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 188]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against A $68 Billion Aid Package For Failing Union Pension Plans. In July 2019, Schweikert voted against a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "establish the Pension Rehabilitation Administration within the Treasury Department to provide 30-year loans to multiemployer defined benefit pension plans in critical or declining financial status, to allow such plans to meet pension obligations to current retirees. It would also authorize the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to provide financial assistance to qualifying pension plans and would appropriate such sums as may be necessary for such assistance. It would establish a dedicated Treasury trust fund for expenses of the new administration, with funding generated through Treasury Department bond sales. It would require the administration to establish the loan program by Sept. 30, 2019 and issue rules regarding the program, in consultation with the PBGC and the Treasury and Labor departments, by Dec. 31, 2019. It would require loans issued under the program to have "as low an interest rate as is feasible" and would require loan recipients to provide annual status reports to the Treasury Department. Among other provisions, it would increase a number of penalties related to failure to file tax returns and retirement plan returns. It would modify certain distribution rules for funds distributed upon an employee's death to designated beneficiaries under multiemployer defined contribution pension plans." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 264-169. [House Vote 505, 7/24/19; Congressional Quarterly, 7/24/19; Congressional Actions, H.R. 397]
An Estimated 130 Union Pension Plans Covering 1.3 Million Workers Were Expected To Become Insolvent Over The Next 20 Years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "An estimated 130 of these plans, covering 1.3 million workers, are estimated to become insolvent over the next 20 years [...] the measure would provide an estimated $39.7 billion in loans to an estimated 149 insolvent or troubled pensions, which under federal scoring rules taking into account expected plan investment returns and loan repayments during the 10-year budget window would end up costing a lower amount of $31.8 billion." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/24/19]
Republicans Opposed The Bill, Calling It A Bailout. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Most Republicans insist that the bill is a bailout and already doomed in the GOP-controlled Senate, but agree that something must be done to prevent a wave of pension fund failures. Some also object to a special $3 billion grant the bill would provide next year to the most troubled of all the funds, the giant Teamsters' Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/24/19]
Democrats Argued That The Economic Effects Of The Insolvent Pensions Would Cause More Damage Than The Estimated Cost Of The Legislation. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Democrats say the bill reinforces the responsibilities of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a government backstop that has been collecting premiums from these funds for decades. That would prevent more than 1 million recipients from losing the lion's share of their pension benefits, an event Democrats say would ripple through the economy and cause more damage than the estimated cost of the legislation." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/24/19]
2016: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment Which Prevented Funds Being Used To Implement Or Enforce A 2009 Executive Order That Strongly Encouraged The Use Or Project Labor Agreements For Federal Construction Projects. In May 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] use of funds to implement an executive order related to project labor agreements and federal construction projects." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 209 to 216. [House Vote 225, 5/19/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/19/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1076; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4974]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Forbidding Employers From Retaliating Against Workers Who Go On Strike, Including Replacing Or Discriminating Such Workers. In March 2021, Schweikert voted against the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit employers from taking certain retaliatory actions against employees who participate in a strike, including permanently replacing or discriminating against such employees." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 225-206. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 70, 3/9/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842]
2021: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Remove A Provision That Prohibits Employers To Replace Workers On Strike. In March 2021, Schweikert voted for en bloc amendments no.2 to the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike a provision that would make it illegal for employers to permanently replace workers participating in a strike." The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House rejected the amendments by a vote of 185-243. [House Vote 68, 3/9/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 26; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Authorizing The Usage Of Collective Bargaining Agreements That Require Labor Union Dues As A Condition Of Employment. In March 2021, Schweikert voted against the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "authorize the use of collective bargaining agreements that require employees to pay fees to a labor organization as a condition of employment." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 225-206. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 70, 3/9/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842]
H.R. 842 Would Supersede State "Right To Work" Laws, Which Allow Workers To Opt Out Of Paying Dues To Labor Unions, And Would Establish A Clear Difference Between Employees And Independent Contractors. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would also override state 'right to work' laws that allow workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement to opt out of paying union dues and establish a stricter definition for employees and independent contractors." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/18/21]
The Bill Would Permit Unions To Supersede The Right-To-Work Laws And Gather Union Dues From Those Who Wish To Opt Out To Fully Cover Collective Bargaining And Contract Administration Costs. According to NPR, "So-called right-to-work laws in more than two dozen states allow workers in union-represented workplaces to opt out of the union, and not pay union dues. At the same time, such workers are still covered under the wage and benefits provisions of the union contract. The PRO Act would allow unions to override such laws and collect dues from those who opt out, in order to cover the cost of collective bargaining and administration of the contract." [NPR, 3/9/21]
2021: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Require Labor Unions To Receive Consent For The Usage Of Dues For Things Other Than Collective Bargaining. In March 2021, Schweikert voted for en bloc amendments no.2 to the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require unions to receive annual written consent from an employee before using his or her union dues for purposes other than collective bargaining." The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House rejected the amendments by a vote of 185-243. [House Vote 68, 3/9/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 26; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842]
2021: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Remove A Provision That Would Require Employees To Pay Fees To Their Labor Union Enforced By Collective Bargaining Agreements. In March 2021, Schweikert voted for en bloc amendments no.2 to the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike a provision providing for the enforcement of collective bargaining agreements that require all employees to contribute fees to a labor organization notwithstanding any state or territorial laws to the contrary." The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House rejected the amendments by a vote of 185-243. [House Vote 68, 3/9/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 26; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Provide Whistleblower Protections, Including Labor Union Employees. In March 2021, Schweikert voted against en bloc amendments no.1 to the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide whistleblower protections to employees, including those employed by labor unions, who report violations of the 1959 federal labor law related to employer relations with labor organizations." The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 227-196. [House Vote 67, 3/9/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Require Employers To Provide New Employees A Notice Of Their Rights In Their Preferred Language. In March 2021, Schweikert voted against en bloc amendments no.1 to the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "direct the National Labor Relations Board to promulgate regulations requiring employers to provide notices informing each new employee of their employee rights and protections in a language spoken by the employee." The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 227-196. [House Vote 67, 3/9/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842]