March 12, 2021 10:42AM # The PRO Act: An Intended Revolution In Labor Law By [Walter Olson](https://www.cato.org/people/walter-olson) --- SHARE The right direction for labor law reform is to move toward more respect for freedom of contract and a federal government retrenchment from a role in regulating union-management relations that is nowhere contemplated for it in the Constitution. Instead, the PRO Act, passed this week by the House on a near-party-line vote, would put the private workplace on a forced march in precisely the wrong direction. (Details on the bill’s provisions [here](https://www.employmentlawwatch.com/2021/03/articles/employment-us/labor-law-under-the-biden-administration-a-preview-of-the-pro-act/), [here](https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/pro-act-would-upend-us-labor-laws-non-union-and-unionized-employers), [here](https://www.fisherphillips.com/resources-alerts-pro-act-could-pay-dividends), and [here](https://www.natlawreview.com/article/labor-law-reform-horizon-ten-things-to-watch-under-pro-act).) - It would trash voluntary contractual relations, including the legitimate role of independent contracting, where it would follow the disastrous path of [California’s AB5](https://www.overlawyered.com/?s=%22ab5%22) in putting a wide array of [freelance jobs at risk](https://theweek.com/articles/970098/federal-labor-legislation-that-kill-livelihood). It would also invalidate many [pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate](https://www.cato.org/blog/epic-systems-v-lewis-its-ok-calm-down-about-arbitration), and bar many employees from being given the legal status of supervisors even if they welcome that role. - It would thrust the federal government even further into private workplace regulation through [“joint employer” rules](https://www.overlawyered.com/?s=%22joint+employer%22) that [blur and misattribute](https://www.cato.org/blog/obama-administration-declares-war-franchisors-subcontractors) responsibility among multiple employers, a new federal power to [impose a first contract](https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/pro-act-would-upend-us-labor-laws-non-union-and-unionized-employers#mature) when union negotiations do not result in one, and highly punitive new [penalties and legal exposures](https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/pro-act-would-upend-us-labor-laws-non-union-and-unionized-employers#mature), including personal liability for officers and directors. - It even has dubious First Amendment implications, as with provisions seeking to regulate (and deter) management’s [resort to legal counsel](https://www.overlawyered.com/?s=%22persuader+rule%22) in unionization drives, and a requirement that in-house employee forums established by a company be required to carry anti-management messaging. The PRO Act is regressive, looking back to a vision of labor relations that was [mistaken even in its Thirties heyday](https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/62-labor-employment-law). And it is a menace to liberty. [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).