Earlier this year, Massachusetts certified the first rideshare drivers union in the country following similar legislation in California. If you guessed that Big Labor would keep that momentum going, you’d be correct.
Now Harvard University’s Center for Labor and a Just Economy (CLJE) has released a pair of Model State Sectoral Bargaining Laws. These are ready-made templates, one “Expansive” and one “Limited,” which according to the authors, can be used as “a framework for legislating groundbreaking sectoral bargaining systems that would allow multiple employers and workers to create sector-specific agreements.” There’s a lot happening behind the scenes of these laws, which of course don’t provide a path for cancelling any sectoral bargaining system that would go wrong.
Who wrote these model laws?
That’s a telling detail. The authors include current Communications Workers of America (CWA) senior advisor Jennifer Abruzzo, whose tenure as NLRB General Counsel produced famously aggressive guidance and decisions, chilling effects on employer free speech, and a lasting ULP backlog. Abruzzo is joined by former CWA president Larry Cohen, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 668 President Steve Catanese, former Biden DOL Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda, and former Biden DOL Assistant Secretary for Policy Raj Nayak, among others.
What’s really going on here
These model laws are a way for Big Labor to strongly encourage state lawmakers to force sectoral bargaining upon one industry at a time. That would happen by establishing a “State Labor Standards Board,” which would certify unions to bargain against “covered employers.” This Board would also be empowered to “implement, administer, and actively supervise” union contracts.
Once these basic requirements for unionizing a sector are checked off, every employer within the industry will be bound by the union’s contract, regardless of whether their workers wanted to unionize in the first place.
Unsurprisingly, the threshold for certification is a low bar to meet, with any union able to petition as soon as they can card check either 1,000 workers or 25% of the sector, “whichever is less.” That’s a threshold that we can surely expect to be further manipulated by unions. With Massachusetts’ App Drivers Union, the card-check process to reach “25% active drivers” only counted drivers according to a median ride count. In the end, only 12.5% of statewide gig drivers chose to unionize, but all of the state’s app drivers–and the companies–were stuck with that decision.
How do the Expansive and Limited versions differ?
The model’s Expansive version outlines “Employer Associations” that businesses can join for collective bargaining. However, these associations will be policed by a State Labor Standards Board, ostensibly for antitrust purposes, and must file articles of association including the following:
- A stated competition-compliance policy, within which employers must acknowledge that their employer association is not shielded under antitrust law.
- Recordkeeping requirements that include all meetings, agenda items, and minutes, which are preserved for four years.
- A transparent governance structure with no single employer holding more than 49% control.
- Finances must also be transparent, as further detailed in the model.
The Expansive version also allows the State Labor Standards Board to step in and fix contract terms after parties reach an impasse, and the Board won’t approve a final contract unless it meets a sectoral “wage floor” first. Meanwhile, the Limited version omits these powers and leaves the employer association section out altogether.
A broken record that employers can’t ignore
We’ve seen unions pull this stunt multiple times. Although it’s still too early to see how Massachusetts’ App Drivers Union will fare, sectoral bargaining hasn’t been a rousing success in California. There, the SEIU-lobbied creation of the Fast Food Workers Union meant to take the industry by storm but only led to a Fast Food Council, which was meant to undertake sectoral bargaining but hasn’t met since September 2024.
So, it’s tempting to not take Harvard’s model laws seriously, but don’t count out the possibility of union-friendly state lawmakers deciding to introduce one of these versions. Employers should be prepared to lobby accordingly to avoid falling under the scrutiny of these model laws, which painstakingly build processes for tying industries to sectoral bargaining, with no exit path other than contract expiration.
C’mon, do you think these authors would really include a way to decertify or oust any union that ties an industry into sectoral bargaining? Not a chance.
