If your employer fires you for participating in protected union activity, the PRO Act would provide additional protections and remedies beyond those available under current federal labor law. It would add fines for labor violations, strengthen the right to strike, protect fairer union elections, and create a clearer path to a first contract. It would also give workers a better chance of returning to work sooner after an illegal firing.
If enacted, PRO Act union workers would have stronger tools to respond when an employer interferes with their rights. So, what does the PRO Act do that current law does not?
It would give workers more ways to enforce their rights when an employer violates federal labor law. Under current law, labor cases can take months or even years to resolve, and those delays can leave workers and their families without steady income. Because the PRO Act is not yet law, its proposed protections would not apply to claims made under current law.
These proposed changes would affect workers across a broad union workforce. In 2025, 14.7 million wage and salary workers belonged to a union. The union membership rate was 10.0%, while the private-sector rate was 5.9%. Those figures come from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The PRO Act , formerly known as the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2025, would amend the National Labor Relations Act and other federal labor laws. The legislation would make changes to how workers organize, how employers are held accountable for certain labor-law violations, and how unions and employers negotiate.
Here’s where the PRO Act currently stands:
That House vote did not make the full PRO Act law. Instead, the House advanced a separate bill that deals with the first-contract process. The House-passed bill outlines the measure and its progress.
When an employer fires a worker during a union drive, the fear can spread through the whole crew. Workers may stop asking questions, attending meetings, or supporting the right to organize because they worry the same thing could happen to them. The PRO Act would give workers stronger protection against that pressure.
Today, the National Labor Relations Board can order reinstatement and back pay after an unfair labor practice. However, it cannot impose civil penalties on an employer for breaking those rules.
The bill would add civil penalties alongside back pay and other relief:
Under the proposed changes, an employer found responsible for an unfair labor practice could face financial penalties in addition to reinstatement, back pay, and other remedies.
If the NLRB finds grounds for a covered charge, the bill would require it to seek short-term court relief. If a court grants that relief, it could help you return to work while the full case continues. The court would still make the final decision.
The bill would also create a private right of action for certain claims. In simple terms, this would allow a worker to bring a case in federal court after first filing a charge with the NLRB. If the agency had not sought the required court relief within 60 days, the worker could sue, subject to the bill's filing deadlines.
For now, it still helps to know the signs of retaliation for union activity. If you spot a problem early, you can document what happened and speak with your union representative or a qualified adviser.
The bill would also stop employers from forcing workers to attend anti-union captive-audience meetings. It would let workers vote away from company property and require more disclosure of contracts with anti-union consultants.
That matters because union elections should reflect what workers want, not who feels the most pressure at work. If your crew faces a hard campaign, these changes could give workers greater opportunity to make an informed choice.
Winning a union election is an important step, but it does not put a contract in your hands. The union and employer still need to agree on pay, benefits, safety, scheduling, and other work rules. That process is called collective bargaining.
Just over 1 in 3 newly formed unions reach a first contract within 1 year of their election. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce Democrats highlights this statistic in its fact sheet. When negotiations are prolonged, workers can lose momentum even after they voted for representation.
|
Issue |
Current Federal Law |
Under the PRO Act |
|
Fines for unfair labor practices |
No NLRB civil fines |
Up to $50,000 per violation; more for some repeat offenses |
|
Permanent replacements in economic strikes |
Employers may hire them |
Employers could not permanently replace strikers |
|
First-contract disputes |
No fixed deadline to reach a deal |
Mediation, followed by binding arbitration if talks fail |
If the union and employer do not reach an agreement, the bill would establish a timeline for the first-contract bargaining process:
Both sides could agree to extend the early deadlines if they believe progress is still possible. However, a contract would not appear automatically on day 30. Under the proposed legislation, the arbitration panel would generally have up to 120 days to issue its decision. The bill text outlines the proposed outline.
If you take part in an economic strike over pay, benefits, or working conditions, current law allows your employer to hire permanent replacements. That can delay your return even after you offer to go back to work. The NLRB explains this distinction in its right to strike guidance.
The bill would change several rules that affect striking workers and union funding:
Fair share fees would cover costs associated with union representation, collective bargaining, contract enforcement, and related expenditures. Under the bill, a collective bargaining agreement could require all employees in the bargaining unit to contribute these fees, even if they are not union members.
If a company calls you an independent contractor, that label alone does not decide your rights. Under the National Labor Relations Act, independent contractors are excluded from the definition of “employee” and therefore do not have the same rights under the NLRA to organize and bargain collectively.
The PRO Act would change the standard used to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor under the NLRA. It would use the ABC test, under which a worker would need to meet all three requirements:
For construction workers, gig workers, and others whose classification affects their coverage under the NLRA, this proposed change could affect whether they are considered employees covered by federal labor law. The change would apply specifically to the NLRA; it would not, by itself, determine a worker's eligibility for overtime, benefits, or tax treatment under other laws.
At ULA Network, we’re committed to keeping the union workforce informed about developments in labor law. While lawmakers debate the bill, your local can take practical steps:
The Senate version remains in committee in the records reviewed. It has 45 listed cosponsors, while the Senate's filibuster rules usually require 60 votes to end debate. The bill would need broader support before it could clear that hurdle.
Many workers ask, would the PRO Act end right-to-work laws? The PRO Act right to work provision would override state bans on fair share fee agreements for covered private-sector workers. States could keep those laws on the books, but they could not use them to block those agreements. Workers would not have to join the union.
Some gig workers could gain employee status under the NLRA if they did not meet the ABC test. That change would affect their right to organize and bargain. Tax and wage laws would remain separate.
No. The National Labor Relations Act generally covers private-sector workers. Most state and local employees follow state and local labor laws, while federal employees follow separate federal rules.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act focuses on the process for reaching a first contract. The broader PRO Act also covers penalties, union elections, strike protections, fair share fees, and worker classification.