Subject: Massive Labor Reform Proposed, Home Depot Win, Hidden Union Costs: LRI INK

November 13, 2025

To visit the blog post, click on the link below the article.

Labor Reform Bills Could Reshape How Workplaces Organize and Bargain

by Michael VanDervort


A new package of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate proposes the most significant update to federal labor law in nearly a century. The legislation, released by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, focuses on how union elections are conducted, how unfair labor practice cases are filed, and how the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) interprets precedent.


The stated goal is to improve consistency and predictability for both workers and employers. The proposals emphasize procedural reform rather than ideology; however, if enacted, they would alter many long-standing practices that shape labor relations.


The Six Bills at a Glance


Worker RESULTS Act (Reforming Elections for Speedy and Unimpeded Labor Talks)

  • Requires secret-ballot elections for union certification and participation by at least two-thirds of eligible employees.

  • Expands the decertification window from 30 to 90 days, occurring every two years.

  • Aligns decertification opportunities with completion of a first collective bargaining agreement.

  • Codifies the 2020 “blocking charge” rule, which prevents delays caused by pending unfair labor practice charges.

Purpose: To strengthen the integrity of elections and tie representation choices more closely to contract outcomes.


NLRB Stability Act

  • Requires the NLRB to follow binding federal appellate-court precedent.

Purpose: To promote consistent interpretation of labor law and reduce policy reversals when the political makeup of the Board changes.


Fairness in Filing Act

  • Requires evidence to be submitted with all unfair labor practice filings.

  • Establish penalties for frivolous or bad-faith charges.

  • Ensures that evidence is shared with all parties.

Purpose: To reduce the Board’s case backlog by discouraging unsupported filings and prioritizing cases with merit.


Union Members’ Right to Know Act

  • Requires unions to notify members of their rights to object to political spending.

  • Requires members to opt in before any dues are used for non-representational purposes.

Purpose: To improve transparency and ensure that members control how their dues are allocated.


Protection on the Picket Line Act (Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala.)

  • Clarifies when employers may discipline employees for misconduct during picketing or protests.

Purpose: To define what qualifies as protected versus unprotected activity on the picket line.


Worker Privacy Act (Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.)

  • Limits how unions can collect, store, or use employee personal data during organizing drives.

Purpose: To protect employee information and require consent for data use beyond organizing activities.


Why it matters

If enacted, the six-bill package would reshape how workplaces approach organizing, bargaining, and dispute resolution. Employers would see more straightforward rules and possibly fewer elections, but the higher thresholds and documentation standards could also make it more difficult for workers to organize.


The proposal also aims to create more predictability in Board decisions by anchoring them to established court precedent. That change could reduce uncertainty for companies and unions that currently face shifting legal interpretations from one administration to the next.


The Hidden Costs of Unionization: Why Gen Z Workers Might End Up Paying The Biggest Price

by Kimberly Ricci

We’ve talked plenty about how Gen Z workers are likely to be “union curious,” making them ideal targets for Big Labor. These workers are also less likely to have parents who have been union members and could speak to the downsides of living under a union constitution.


That cyclical development surely influenced an infamous 2021 Gallup poll, which stated that 77 percent of workers under 34 have a favorable view of unions. This sentiment hit while Starbucks Workers United launched its four-year nationwide drive that still hasn’t yielded a contract. Even worse, the so-called “Union Generation,” as referred to by the Center for American Progress, could experience adverse, far-reaching effects from this union fever.


The Wage Premium Illusion

The Mercatus Center recently analyzed 147 studies and concluded that unions harm workers, not only through a monopolistic structure but also by stagnating long-term wages after short-term gains “won” during contract negotiations. That is to say, the “labor union wage premium” has declined to where it’s negligible or zero. Multi-year union contracts also cause inflexibility that prohibits employers from giving raises unless they have union permission to do so.


The Mercatus Center did further leg work on how aggressive union tactics can force companies to relocate to more business-friendly states or regions, as was the case with many Rust Belt manufacturers. Gen Z workers can lack the historical context to realize this danger, and they could learn this the hard way after unions again don’t create prosperity but instead push opportunities away.


When Wins Become Big Losses

Union bosses are always quick to claim “wins” without concerning themselves with the fallout of layoffs. That was the case with the Teamsters’ most recent UPS contract, which included significant wage increases without regard to market conditions, a combination that led to buyout offers and facility closures. Unions then overwhelmingly claim “corporate greed” when contracts push labor costs to such a degree that layoffs are inevitable.


Sure enough, Teamsters chief Sean O’Brien has repeatedly pointed the finger at UPS for the layoffs. In response to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial board piece that criticized the “Bad Teamsters Bargain With UPS,” O’Brien penned his own fiery op-ed denying that his union could possibly have any responsibility for job losses.


As much as unions love to project blame, companies do have to stay in business and must contain costs to remain financially viable. It’s a sadly predictable pattern that tends to follow bargaining table “victories,” which later backfire on union members.


Union Seniority Systems Backfire On Younger Workers

Union pay structures and “job security” frequently prioritize seniority over skill development and job performance. This can harm younger workers in obvious ways, like “last in, first out” union contract clauses.


This also means that union pay structures and seniority clauses can artificially inflate wages for senior workers, encouraging them to stay put and making it more difficult for younger workers to advance. Union-negotiated “job protections” also complicate procedures for employers to remove workers who don’t perform well, further putting high-performing Gen-Z-ers at a disadvantage for career development.


Gen Z Workers Deserve a Better Path Forward

Clearly, unions prioritize short-term gains to the detriment of members’ long-term opportunities. The current historical cycle has also left Gen Z workers without the life experience and reference points that help them avoid the union trap that historically devastated industries.


It’s further unfair to these workers, who will someday be tasked with supporting an economy, to be supporting union bureaucrats who raid the cookie jar to fund their lavish lifestyles. Gen Z has enough to worry about–a volatile economy, rising inflation, and a challenging job market–without unions worsening conditions for them in the long run.


Home Depot Wins in BLM Case, But It’s Not a Free Pass for Employers

by Michael VanDervort

What happened:
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has provided employers with a more straightforward path for addressing social-justice messaging at work and reminded the NLRB that context is crucial.


In Home Depot U.S.A. v. NLRB (Nov. 6, 2025), the court vacated an NLRB order that said Home Depot violated federal labor law when it disciplined a Minnesota employee who refused to remove “BLM” from their orange apron. The Board, under the leadership of former General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, had ruled that the worker’s display was protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.


The Eighth Circuit disagreed. Judge James Loken wrote that the NLRB “improperly evaluated” the facts and failed to consider special circumstances surrounding the company’s actions.


The store was located minutes from where George Floyd was murdered. The timing coincided with protests, vandalism, and temporary store closures. Home Depot also had a long-standing, content-neutral rule banning all political or cause-related messages on company uniforms.


The company offered workplace-approved ways to express inclusion, such as DEI pins and “respect-for-all” badges. The court found that those options, combined with consistent enforcement, struck a reasonable balance between employees’ rights and the company’s duty to maintain safety and neutrality.

“This was a business decision made to preserve the store’s apolitical face to customers and safeguard employee safety in a risk-filled environment,” Loken wrote.


Why it matters:
The decision marks a setback for the NLRB’s broader effort to extend Section 7 protections to political or social activism at work. It also reinforces that courts will continue to distinguish between workplace advocacy and broader social movements, particularly where safety, customer experience, or brand image are legitimate concerns.


But this is not a blank check for employers. Employment attorneys Jon Hyman and Eric Meyer both emphasize that union insignia remain highly protected and that context still drives legal outcomes. Hyman summarized the ruling this way: employers can limit social-justice and political messages on branded uniforms in customer-facing roles when they have a neutral policy, apply it consistently, offer reasonable alternatives, and can show real, context-specific business reasons. Meyer cautioned employers to document those reasons carefully and avoid any enforcement language that inflames the issue, such as comparisons made in this case.


Employer Takeaways

Smart employers are using this ruling to clean up policies and stay consistent:

Clarify the rules. Keep uniform and appearance policies clear, neutral, and cause-free.

Apply evenly. If one message is out, all similar ones are out. Consistency is your defense.
Document the “why.” Record legitimate business reasons like safety or customer impact.
Train managers. Teach leaders how to enforce neutrally and avoid political framing.
Check your map. The Eighth Circuit’s “special circumstances” analysis supports neutral bans tied to safety or customer image, but other circuits may interpret similar facts differently. Multi-state employers should not assume blanket protection.


Union insignia carve-out:
Under Republic Aviation and reaffirmed in Tesla (2022), employers must show specific, demonstrable business reasons for restricting union insignia. While social messaging like “BLM” may be limited under neutral uniform policies, union symbols still receive heightened statutory protection.


The takeaway:
The Eighth Circuit did not give employers a free pass. It provided a blueprint for managing workplace expression within the boundaries of labor law. Policies must be neutral, consistent, and supported by legitimate business reasons. Context matters, and so does culture.


Stories You May Have Missed:


Starbucks, NLRB to Clash Again in Court With No End in Sight

Link


Constitutional ‘Battle Erupts Over’ New York State’s ‘Attempt To Bypass’ The NLRB

Link


Delta Air Lines Flight Attendants Picket In Atlanta For Union Representation

Link


Henry Ford Genesys announces pay raises for nurses as Teamsters remain on strike

Link


UChicago Medicine Resident Physicians Pass First-Ever Union Contract

Link


About Labor Relations INK

Labor Relations INK is published weekly and is edited by LRI Consulting Services, Inc. Feel free to pass this newsletter on to anyone you think might enjoy it. New subscribers can sign up by visiting here.


If you use content from this newsletter, please attribute it to LRI Consulting Services, Inc. and include our website: http://www.LRIonline.com 


Contributing editors for this issue: Greg Kittinger, Michael VanDervort, and Kimberly Ricci.


You are receiving this email because you subscribed to receive our labor relations newsletters and updates. You can manage your email preferences by clicking the link at the bottom of any of our email communications.


About LRI Consulting Services, Inc.

LRI Consulting Services, Inc. exists to help our clients thrive and become extraordinary workplaces. We improve the lives of working people by strengthening relationships with their leaders and each other. For over 40 years, LRI Consulting Services, Inc. has led the labor and employee relations industry, driven by our core values and our proven process, the LRI Way.

 

Share