Democrats Push Coercive Socialist Agenda with PRO Act

Democrats Push Coercive
Socialist Agenda with PRO Act

© David Burton 2021


     With the return to power of the Democrats in 2020, the Marxist-socialist leftist element of the Party is once again pushing for the enactment of a Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PROAct) that would force workers to join a union even if they were opposed to the union.

     “House Democrats passed a massive labor law reform bill this week {w/o 7 March 2021} that has the support of President Biden and top labor groups: the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act.
     “The bill previously passed the House in 2020, but the then-Republican-controlled Senate did not take up the bill. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is a supporter of the bill, but unless Senate filibuster rules are changed, at least 10 Republicans would have to support the bill in order to send the legislation to Biden’s desk — {thank God,} a highly unlikely scenario. [Emphasis mine]
     “If enacted, the bill would drastically change the employment landscape and relationships between workers and employers. Here are major provisions in the sweeping legislation:
     “The PRO Act would massively adjust which kinds of workers can be classified as 1099 independent contractors, who provide services to a company but do not receive full labor protections or legally mandated employer benefits like healthcare.
     “It adopts California’s ‘ABC’ test for independent contractors. {Take note of the disaster currently befalling the state of California because of the ongoing socialist policies of the ultra-liberal Democratic regime that has controlled the state for the past several years.[1]} The sticking point is the ‘B’ section, which says that a company can only hire independent contractors whose ‘service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer.’ Many independent contractors directly contribute to the ‘usual course of business’ for the employer.
     “Drivers for Uber and Lyft, delivery service drivers, freelance journalists and photographers, truckers, artists and graphic designers, freelance event workers, and more would be affected, with companies being required to add those individuals to their payroll rather than cutting them a check for services rendered.
     “Laws in 27 states {already rightly} prevent requiring employees from paying union dues or fees as a condition of employment, called ‘right-to-work’ laws [Emphasis mine] . . . the PRO Act essentially nullifies {these state} laws.
     “If an employee benefits from a collective bargaining agreement, the PRO Act says that he or she can be required to contribute fees to a union as a cost of the union's representation, bargaining, and contract enforcement, ‘notwithstanding any State or Territorial law.’ Employees who decline to pay can be fired.
     “A Supreme Court decision from 2002 ruled that the National Labor Relations Board did not have the ability to award back pay to a laid-off worker later found to be an illegal immigrant. {Thus, another adverse consequence of passage of the PRO Act} would be the reversal of this standard, preventing denial of relief on the basis of being an unauthorized alien. [Emphasis mine] {One more incentive for illegal aliens to breach America’s borders!}
     “Several provisions in the PRO Act are beneficial to union organizers and hamper employers' ability to counter union organizing. It would prohibit employers from holding mandatory meetings to lobby against creating a union — or, as employers may say, meetings to share facts about what union representation would mean. Critics call this a ‘gag rule’ that prevents employers from using their First Amendment rights.” [Emphasis mine] (Ref. 2) The PRO Act contains additional pro-union, anti-management provisions.

     One opponent of the PRO Act legislation wrote that in 1978, when he was 17 years old, working as an usher at concerts and sporting events, he was earning $2.25 an hour, the minimum wage at the time. Out of that $2.25, he had to surrender about 15 cents of his hourly wage to a union he was forced to join. He never understood what a union was doing to help him since the company already had the legal requirement to pay him $2.25 an hour.
     This writer wanted out of the union, he had to pay his union dues to keep the job. He wondered why there wasn’t a law against this type of coercion.
     There is, actually. It is called the First Amendment. The courts established this “fundamental right” in 1958 in the landmark Supreme Court case NAACP v. Alabama. Crucially, the courts declared that “the First Amendment protects a right to associate and a right not to associate together.
     If enacted, The Protecting the Right to Organize Act would force tens of millions to join a union.
     The PRO Act doesn’t allow people to associate with a union - it forces them to join the union! In other words, it violates millions of workers’ First Amendment right not to associate with a union.
     In 27 states, voters have adopted right-to-work laws that prohibit forced union participation. Those laws are popular with voters and workers. That’s why the union bosses are running to Congress.
     There are good reasons why blue-collar workers may not want to join a union. Big Labor corruption has been rampant, with union bosses taking high six-figure salaries, wasting union members’ dues on extravagant parties, and spending union dues on junkets to Hawaii and the Caribbean. Workers have said they want out.
     High-performing workers also don’t want to be under the umbrella of “collective” bargaining agreements because they want to get pay raises above what low-performers and shirkers earn. Union laws often prevent productive workers from getting more, just as teachers unions all but prevent poor-performing teachers from getting fired.
     Don’t forget the convenient reason why workers of right-to-work states don’t want to be told by Washington they must rush into the union bosses’ arms. Right-to-work states are where the jobs are. Right to- work states create about twice as many new jobs as forced-union states. Right-to-work states have created triple the number of manufacturing jobs as forced-union states. America hasn’t lost auto jobs. The jobs have left states such as Michigan, Ohio and New York in favor of free states such as Texas, Tennessee, Florida and Alabama.
     Workers should think about this: If all 50 states become forced union states, as required by the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, where will the jobs go next? Probably China and Mexico. (Ref. 3)

     As I’ve pointed out in the past, an unholy alliance exists between the Democratic Party and labor unions, particularly public labor unions. Here in my Highly Democratic (Blue) state of Massachusetts, this alliance is exceptionally strong. The results are not beneficial to the majority of the state’s residents. “One factor contributing to the high cost of living in Massachusetts is the stranglehold on state and local government by Massachusetts Democrats. In this state, Democratic means liberal and liberal means government largesse at the expense of all state residents. Another reason is the fact that Unions and the Democratic Party in Massachusetts are joined at the hip. Democratic politicians in the state make sure that their union supporters are taken care of legislatively, while the unions funnel their financial support back to the Democratic politicians, campaign for them, and get out the vote for them. Everyone makes out, everyone, that is except the poor slobs who end up paying the bills - the citizens of Massachusetts who pay higher taxes, higher than necessary public transportation costs, and higher insurance and health care costs.
      - - -
     “Are the Democratic politicians who run the state really beholden to unions here in Massachusetts? The answer to this question lies in the influence money has over politics and who wields that influence. In 2010, among the top 20 Political Action Committee (PAC) donors in Massachusetts, 16 of the top-contributing 20 PACs were labor-related. From these 16 labor-related PACs, came more than 80% of the dollars contributed. In any election, money counts. On top of that, financial contributions do not reflect the thousands of hours of free campaign labor provided by unions. This includes both public-sector unions and private-sector unions. In the case of Massachusetts’ public-sector unions, they ‘are some of the . . . most powerful special interest groups. They generally favor increases in government spending because they personally benefit from expanded programs.’ Here in Massachusetts the union share of state and local government employment amounted to 61% in 2010, a very much larger percentage of workers than in the private sector, where, nationally, private sector unionization as of 2007 was only 8% among men and 6% among women. With their large war chests, public-sector unions are very active in political campaigns. They have spent millions of dollars on various ballot measures, nearly always favoring the side of higher taxes and spending. Public-sector unions fight against school choice, privatization, and many other policies that can improve government efficiency.”
     “So all of this helps explain why Boston ranks as the 7th most expensive city in which to live in the United States with a cost of living 40% above the national average and why Massachusetts also ranked as the 10th most expensive state in which to live in 2012.
     “Clearly, Massachusetts is very Democratic, very unionized and a very expensive state in which to live. Coincidence???” (Ref. 4)

     The Protecting the Right to Organize Act would have the same result – benefits for the union bosses and Democratic politicians and with negative consequences for everyone else! Will President Biden do the right thing and veto or refuse to sign the PRO Act legislation? Or will he, like Communist dictators throughout history and around the world, tell the workers of America: "Join the Union or else! - that "else" being the loss of one's job.

     Sitting in his White House office, President Biden recently cheered for a union to be formed at an Amazon warehouse in Alabama. By a two-to-one vote, workers there said no thanks, that they weren’t all that unhappy working without a union for this company and would rather work out any differences without having to put up with the interference of a union.

     Despite this clear statement by the Amazon workers, Biden still embraces the Democratic Party hopes of obtaining union campaign contributions while depriving workers of their right to choose. He hopes to do this with the PROAct legislation which outlaws right to-work laws in those 27 states that have them.

     What union dues actually do “in some instances is provide an embezzlement fund for such people as a former president of the United Auto Workers and other criminally convicted union comrades who stuck $1 million in their pockets a while back. They’re not alone, seeing as how millions more have been swiped by union executives over the years.
     “{As we’ve already noted, union dues} have other advantages . . . For one thing, unions then get money to support the campaigns of politicians making laws employees want. Along with the possibility of genuine sympathy, that could be a reason we have a Biden plan for an extreme, national $15 minimum wage that a lot of companies would not be able to pay. One million workers could lose their jobs. Innovative Jeff Bezos, the primary owner of Amazon, already pays that minimum wage and is for such a law that would weaken his competition.” (Ref. 5)

     President Biden and his fellow Democrats may give the appearance of being staunch labor supporters, but, in reality, both are looking mainly to benefit themselves. With respect to labor, one way to achieve this objective is to keep workers in subjugation to labor unions and the labor union bosses. Whether or not belonging to a union is in the best interest of the worker is of secondary importance. What is of primary importance is the money and the support that Biden and the Democrats derive from the unions.


  1. The Consequences of Democratic-Socialism Are Becoming Apparent in California, David Burton,
    Son of Eliyahu: Article 410, 23 April 2020.
  2. PRO Act: What's in Democrats' massive labor union bill, Emily Brooks,, 13 March 2021.
  3. No one should be forced to join a union, Stephen Moore, Boston Herald: Page 12, 18 March 2021.
  4. Massachusetts: Democratic, Unionized and Very Expensive, David Burton, Son of Eliyahu: Article 168,
    2 July 2013.
  5. The threat unions pose to workers’ rights, Jay Ambrose, Boston Herald, Page 13, 26 April 2021.

  6 May 2021 {Article 473; Politics_67}    
Go back to the top of the page