Frequently Asked Questions About the Faster Labor Contracts Act

Glenn Spencer
Senior Vice President, Employment Policy Division, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Published

September 02, 2026

The Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) is proposed legislation that would impose a new process for reaching a first contract after a union wins an election to represent employees in a workplace. Under current law, the union and the employer negotiate with each other until they can mutually agree on a contract that is acceptable to both parties. This can sometimes take a while because the two sides usually have not negotiated with each other before, and there can be substantial economic costs associated with a unionized workplace. Striking a balance is key.

What would change under the FLCA?

The FLCA would replace the current consensual process with a mandated timeline for reaching a first contract. The parties would have 10 days to start collective bargaining. After that, they would have 90 days to reach a first contract. If they were unable to do so, either side could call for mediation from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). The FMCS would have 30 days to try to reach a deal. If it is unable to do so, an arbitration panel would draft a first contract that would be imposed on both sides for two years, even if one or both sides disagreed with it.

How would arbitration work?

Under the bill, the union and employer would each choose one arbitrator, and a third would be selected by mutual consent. If the two parties could not agree on a third arbitrator, the FMCS would select one for them. Neither side could appeal that choice. The decision of the arbitration panel also could not be appealed by either party — nor could the agreement be revised for two years. The result is that workers could be stuck with a contract they don’t like, and the employer could be stuck with an unaffordable contract that threatens the business's viability. The reality is that a contract imposed by an arbitration panel is not a contract. It is a government mandate.

Can workers vote on their new contract?

No. If an arbitration panel imposes a contract, workers lose the opportunity to vote on the terms and conditions of that contract. There are no appeals, and the contract is binding for two years.

Doesn’t the current process take too long?

Supporters of the bill say it takes an average of 465 days to reach a first contract. However, that claim is misleading. It is based on the mean average, which a few outliers can dramatically skew. A more accurate way to average large data sets like first union contracts is to look at the median. Using this more accurate measure, the median time to reach a first contract is around 374 days, or just over a year. This is not surprising since negotiating a first contract can be a difficult process. The parties have likely not negotiated before, so they are unfamiliar with one another. It also takes time to determine the top priorities for each side and potential red lines. A union may need to analyze the financial health of the company, and the employer needs to determine if a union’s demands are financially feasible. This process is exactly what current law allows for and has allowed since 1935. The law guarantees a process for negotiating, not the outcome of a specific negotiation.

Don’t employers just drag out bargaining as a stall tactic?

There are examples of employers delaying bargaining, just as unions sometimes insist on conditions that delay bargaining. But there are remedies under current law to force both sides back to the bargaining table. Some might argue that those remedies are not strong enough. But this legislation goes much too far by going beyond ensuring that good-faith bargaining occurs in a timely manner to actually mandating contracts.

Would the new process be effective?

The FLCA is unlikely to lead to efficient negotiations that result in a first contract. Because of the unrealistically short timeline to reach an agreement, it is likely that arbitration will be required in most cases. Moreover, unions are unlikely to engage in good faith bargaining. Instead, the incentive would be to put the most extreme demands on the table and hope that an arbitrator will include some of that in a final mandated contract.

Are there limits to what arbitrators can include in a contract?

No. While the legislation does include some factors for arbitrators to consider, there would no longer be any guardrails around what could go into a contract. Some unions have tried to include unrelated controversial provisions in contracts. Arbitrators could now impose these policies, and many others, directly.

What would the bill mean for my workplace?

If your workplace elects a union to represent workers, there could be significant implications. First, workers may be required to pay union dues. Second, because the first contract is likely to be imposed by an arbitrator, workers would lose the opportunity to vote on the terms and conditions of their employment. Third, the mandated agreement could impact the viability of the employer’s business. And finally, workers could see all political agendas unrelated to traditional collective bargaining imposed in their contract.

Bottom Line: Collective bargaining has always been a consensual process where the two parties mutually agree on a contract that works for them both. It was never intended that government would get involved and mandate an agreement, but the FLCA puts Washington at the center of negotiations.