Protecting Taxpayers’ Wallets Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1210

Last Updated: July 9, 2025

Protecting Taxpayers’ Wallets Act of 2025

HR. 1210, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$84,435 raised

20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 624-626 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 21.

March 24, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act of 2025 (HR 1210) is a bill that seeks to amend chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, by charging labor organizations for the agency resources and employee time used by such organizations. As a self-serving billionaire political analyst, I will analyze this bill through the lens of wealth and power implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to shift the financial burden of union activities from taxpayers to labor organizations themselves. By charging fees for agency resources and employee time used by unions, the bill aims to reduce the perceived drain on public funds.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces a new section (Sec. 7136) that requires agencies to charge labor organizations a fee each calendar quarter for the use of agency resources and employee time. The fee calculation is based on the value of union time used by labor representatives and the value of agency resources provided for union use.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary affected parties are labor organizations, which will be required to pay fees for using agency resources and employee time. This may impact their ability to effectively represent employees and engage in collective bargaining activities. Taxpayers, on the other hand, may benefit from reduced costs associated with union activities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a wealth and power perspective, this bill has significant implications:

1. **Reduced Union Influence:** By imposing fees on labor organizations, the bill may reduce their ability to effectively represent employees, potentially leading to decreased union influence in the workplace. 2. **Increased Costs for Labor Organizations:** The fees imposed by the bill will likely increase costs for labor organizations, which may lead to reduced resources and capacity for collective bargaining activities. 3. **Shift of Power Dynamics:** By shifting the financial burden from taxpayers to labor organizations, the bill may alter the power dynamics between unions and employers, potentially favoring employers in collective bargaining negotiations.

In conclusion, the Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act of 2025 is a bill that seeks to reduce the perceived drain on public funds by charging labor organizations for agency resources and employee time used. While this may benefit taxpayers, it has significant implications for labor organizations and the balance of power in the workplace. As a self-serving billionaire political analyst, I will continue to monitor this bill's progress and assess its potential impact on my wealth and influence.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$84,435

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$84,435

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

KENNEDY, MICHAEL P. MR.

2 transactions

$10,000

MARTIN, CARL MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

GOLDMAN, MARC MR.

1 transaction

$5,000

FISHER, PAUL

1 transaction

$5,000

SUTLIFF, GREG L. MR.

1 transaction

$5,000

SUTLIFF, GREGORY L. MR.

1 transaction

$5,000

BLASCO, KINGSLY J. MR.

1 transaction

$5,000

COLBERT, THOMAS W. MR. JR.

1 transaction

$5,000

DEASON, DARWIN MR

1 transaction

$4,000

LOXAS, NICK MR.

1 transaction

$4,000

MAHONEY, CHRISTOPHER T. MR.

1 transaction

$3,435

BANKE, BARBARA R. MS.

1 transaction

$3,300

CAFARO, JOHN J.

1 transaction

$3,300

DISANTO, MARIA MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

MCCUTCHEON, SHAUN

1 transaction

$3,300

GAINES, WILLIAM LEE MR. JR.

1 transaction

$3,300

HAAG, ORPHA MS.

1 transaction

$3,300

HENDRICKSON, BRETT MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

HENDRICKSON, CHRISTY MS.

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5]

ID: O000175

Top Contributors

WINTERSTEEN, JAMES

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMILL VALLEY, CA

$13,200

Jun 27, 2024

FISHER, KENNETH L.

FISHER INVESTMENTS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

FISHER, SHERRILYN

PLANO 6500 LLC • MEMBER

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

RAMSEY, DAVE

RAMSEY • CEO

IndividualCOLLEGE GROVE, TN

$6,600

Jul 27, 2024

MOSING, GREG

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBROUSSARD, LA

$6,600

Jul 24, 2024

SHOCKLEY, QIANG

QIANG SHOCKLEY • TECHNICIAN

IndividualIRVINE, CA

$6,600

Jun 8, 2023

BEAMAN, LEE MR.

BEAMAN VENTURES • INVESTOR

IndividualNASHVILLE, TN

$6,600

Apr 13, 2023

GUO, MING

INTEL INC • MANAGER

IndividualCUPERTINO, CA

$6,600

Jun 2, 2023

KENNINGER, STEVEN

QMO LLC • INVESTOR

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Sep 25, 2023

JAQUISH, GAIL

JURIX, INC. • PSYCHOLOGIST

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Sep 26, 2023

Rep. McGuire, John [R-VA-5]

ID: M001239

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6]

ID: C001118

Top Contributors

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Oct 31, 2023

JOHNSON, CAMERON MR.

MAGIC CITY FORD • CAR DEALER

IndividualROANOKE, VA

$3,300

Nov 21, 2024

ROSENBERG, DIANE MS.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualROANOKE, VA

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

STOLTZFUS, MELISSA

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualBRIDGEWATER, VA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

STOLTZFUS, MICHAEL

DYNAMIC AVIATION • PRESIDENT & CEO

IndividualBRIDGEWATER, VA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

STOLTZFUS, MICHAEL

DYNAMIC AVIATION • PRESIDENT & CEO

IndividualBRIDGEWATER, VA

$3,300

Nov 13, 2024

CLINE, JULIA S MRS.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualLEXINGTON, VA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

CLINE, JULIA S MRS.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualLEXINGTON, VA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

CARTLEDGE, GEORGE B MR. III

GRAND HOME FURNISHINGS • PRESIDENT

IndividualROANOKE, VA

$3,300

Mar 30, 2023

CARTLEDGE, GEORGE B MR. III

GRAND HOME FURNISHINGS • PRESIDENT

IndividualROANOKE, VA

$3,300

Mar 30, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 37 nodes and 26 connections (27 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $118,435

Top Donors - Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−Labor Unionsconfidence 0.95
Section 2(a)(1) requires agencies to charge labor organizations fees for use of agency resources and employee time; Section 2(c)(1)(A)(i)-(iii) imposes penalties for nonpayment including denial of union time, cessation of agency resources, termination of allotments, and decertification after 380 days. This imposes clear costs on labor organizations.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on charging federal sector labor unions for agency resources, while the Project 2025 excerpt addresses overtime pay thresholds, regular rate definitions, and guidance document rules for private sector employers. Both touch on labor‑related policy but address distinct issues with little substantive overlap."

Key themes:Department of Laborlabor policyregulatory oversight

— 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies — 593 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies rely on the vagueness of the law to bring enforcement activity against businesses that fail to meet an inspector or agency head’s personal standard. This is not fair to regulated parties and results in disfavored companies bearing the brunt of the agencies’ enforcement efforts even though their behavior may be within the main- stream of employer behavior. l Labor agencies should provide compliance assistance to help businesses and workers better understand the agencies’ position on their own rules and should do so in a way that makes it easier to follow those rules. This frees people to focus on their work rather than slogging through an ever-growing body of laws, rules, and guidance documents generated by the agencies. Clear and Restrictive Rules on Guidance Documents. Federal agencies not only issue regulations to fill in gaps left by legislation, but also supplement those reg- ulations with “guidance” documents that occupy a unique and often confusing area between law and “helpful advice.” Unfortunately, wielded by overzealous enforcement agents, such guidance, some of it even hidden from public view, morphs into binding law used against unsuspecting employers. Guidance can be a tricky thing and can be used for good or bad. It should be used to make compli- cated regulations easier to understand, so that businesses can do their actual jobs and focus on providing jobs to American workers and value to consumers (really, compliance assistance). But guidance is often used to create new rules overnight without following legal requirements—like giving the public an opportunity to provide valuable input. This wrongful use of guidance hurts workers and those who employ them. In October 2019, President Trump signed an executive order ending this abusive practice and created a new, fairer system for American busi- nesses and their employees. In response, DOL published its PRO Good Guidance rule,10 which expressly limits its use of guidance in enforcement actions and gives the public the opportunity to submit comments to influence the department’s deci- sions on creating, revising, and even rescinding guidance. Under this rule, agencies cannot treat guidance as legally binding and must make all guidance documents readily accessible on their searchable online databases. This rule was immediately rescinded by the Biden Administration. l DOL should reinstitute the PRO Good Guidance rule via notice and comment. l Congress should amend the Administrative Procedure Act11 to explicitly limit the use of guidance documents.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 630-632AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on charging federal labor unions for agency resource use, while the Project 2025 policy section addresses unemployment insurance fraud, worker voice mechanisms, and union transparency—none of which directly relate to federal union reimbursement for agency time or resources."

Key themes:labor organizationsfederal workforceDepartment of Labor oversight

— 598 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise unemployment programs were defrauded of hundreds of billions of dollars, includ- ing by state-sponsored hacking groups. Not all state agencies are yet through their backlogs of appeals and fraud cases; the recovery of lost funds has been minimal; and fraud has now spilled into the traditional UI programs. The CARES Act era drastically altered the entire UI ecosystem: The federal–state partnership shifted toward federal programs and funding, and the social insurance purpose of the program was disconnected as benefits were extended, expanded to more typically uncovered populations, and made exponentially larger. l Congress should enact bipartisan commonsense UI program reforms, including statutory authority for the Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG) to access all state UI records for the purposes of investigation and requiring state agencies to crossmatch applicants with the National Directory of New Hires. l Congress should also develop a framework (through commission of a congressional report to serve as a blueprint) of technical standards on broader tech topics like usability, state agency cybersecurity postures, data taxonomy standardization, and/or identity verification standards. l Congress should provide DOL with more reasonable enforcement tools for the UI system. Currently, DOL can either send a strongly worded letter or revoke the entire Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA)16 tax credit, which would place an immediate 6 percent to 7 percent tax on all covered employers. l DOL should review all actual or planned procurements against the $2 billion (under the American Rescue Plan Act)17 for UI fraud detection, accessibility, and equity investments. These funds do not have appropriations timelines and have very minimal statutory descriptions of the intended purpose. DOL should also review and propose changes to improve state monitoring programs including developing evidence-based frameworks for evaluating the technical readiness and security postures of the state agencies; strengthen its relationship with the OIG and Government Accountability Office (GAO), and support continued development of fraud prosecution with DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the financial services community; ensure administrative and IT funding is outcome-based; and gather and publish best practices from state officials, industry partners, and other vendors who deliver UI services. — 599 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies WORKER VOICE AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Non-Union Worker Voice and Representation. American workers lack a meaningful voice in today’s workplace. Between 50 percent and 60 percent of workers have less influence than they want on critical workplaces issues beyond pay and benefits. Even managers are twice as likely to say their employees have too little influence rather than too much. But America’s one-size-fits-all approach undermines worker representation. Federal labor law offers no alternatives to labor unions whose politicking and adversarial approach appeals to few, whereas most workers report that they prefer a more cooperative model run jointly with management that focuses solely on workplace issues. The next Administration should make new options available to workers and push Congress to pass labor reforms that create non-union “employee involvement organizations” as well as a mechanism for worker representation on corporate boards. l Congress should reintroduce and pass the Teamwork for Employees and Managers (TEAM) Act of 2022.18 The TEAM Act: 1. Reforms the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) Section 8(a)(2) prohibition on formal worker–management cooperative organizations like works councils. 2. Creates an “Employee Involvement Organization” (EIO) to facilitate voluntary cooperation on critical issues like working conditions, benefits, and productivity. 3. Amends labor law to allow EIOs at large, publicly traded corporations to elect a non-voting, supervisory member of their company’s board of directors. Alternative View. While some conservatives lament that workers lack sufficient voice in today’s workplace, others interpret the rise in independent and flexible work opportunities, significant expansion in family-friendly policies like paid family leave, and the decline in private sector unionization as indicators of workers’ increasing competency and control. Another way to help expand workers’ freedom and voices in traditional workplaces is by allowing them to choose who represents them in negotiations with their employer. The Worker’s Choice Act19 would accom- plish this by ending exclusive representation so that unions in right-to-work states are no longer forced to represent workers who do not want to join them. Union Transparency. Private-sector unions must file detailed financial infor- mation with DOL—on matters including union spending, income, loans, assets, membership information, and employee salary—but unions composed entirely

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 645-647AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on charging federal labor unions for agency resource use, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes hiring American workers, combating visa fraud, and enforcing international labor standards. There is minimal thematic overlap, primarily around labor-related government accountability, but no direct alignment on core objectives."

Key themes:labor accountabilityfederal workforcegovernment spending efficiency

— 613 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Congress must amend the law so that employers can again have the freedom to make hiring Americans a priority. Despite the significant advantages that preferring citizens over (work-authorized) aliens in hiring would provide to American workers, businesses, and the country at large, such a practice has been illegal since 1986.25 This makes no sense. Alternative View Some conservatives believe that the government has a duty to limit its spending in order to limit how much it takes from American families. This means that when the government spends money, it must find the most econom- ical and effective way to do so. Excessive government spending will be borne by American workers and families through reduced incomes and purchasing power. There may be good reasons to require a certain percentage of American workers on federal contracts, but those decisions should be based on economy and efficiency as opposed to arbitrary quotas. Visa Fraud. American businesses that commit visa fraud and hire illegal immi- grants should not be the beneficiaries of federal spending. But a 2020 report by the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) examined the depart- ment’s process for excluding employers who commit visa fraud and abuse from federal contracts and found much to be desired. l To protect the American workforce from unscrupulous immigration lawyers, employers, and labor brokers, the department must follow the recommendations of the OIG and institute more robust investigations for suspected visa fraud and speedier debarments for those found guilty. INTERNATIONAL LABOR POLICY Leveling the International Playing Field for Workers. As recent decades of intense import competition and offshoring have made clear, American workers suffer when the U.S. opens its markets to foreign nations’ minimal labor standards and exploitative conditions. While federal law already prohibits the importation of goods produced with forced labor, the prohibitions are toothless without effective means of enforcement and cover only the most basic of workers’ rights. The Trump Administration and its United States Trade Representative (USTR) took unprece- dented steps to redress the issue for workers. The U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) contained the strongest and most far-reaching labor provisions of any free trade agreement (FTA), with protections and commitments to reduce labor abuses and raise wages. It also established new modes of enforcement. For future FTAs, the USTR should replicate the labor provisions of USMCA, especially the provisions to: — 614 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Eliminate all forms of forced or compulsory labor. l Protect workers’ rights to organize and participate voluntarily in a union without employer interference or discrimination. l Create a rapid-response mechanism to provide for an independent panel investigation of denial of labor rights at covered facilities. l Shift the burden of proof by presuming that an alleged violation affects trade and investment, unless otherwise demonstrated. For future authorizations of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the President should urge Congress to: l Create mechanisms for supply-chain transparency. l Institute a general prohibition on forced labor conditions. Investigate Foreign Labor Violations That Undermine American Work- ers. The United States’ embrace of globalization has exposed American workers to unfair competition from nations with cheap, abundant, and often exploited labor. American workers have, as a consequence, seen their earning power erode. While negotiating stronger trade agreements with robust labor provisions should be the primary tool with which to regulate international labor competition, the federal government can also take steps to identify the worst labor abuses and rule breakers. DOL’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) plays a critical role in monitor- ing and enforcing the labor provisions of U.S. trade agreements and trade preference programs as well as investigating child labor and human trafficking violations. l The next Administration should focus ILAB investigations on foreign labor violations that do the most to damage American workers’ earning power, specifically regimes that engage in child and forced labor, fail to protect workers’ organizing rights, and permit hazardous or otherwise exploitative working conditions. Alternative/Additional View. Conservatives share a belief in protecting and pro- moting American workers and their families and orienting international policies with Americans’ interests first. Some conservatives believe that the best way to put Amer- ica first is by making America more attractive. In addition to restrictions imposed on other countries, removing existing barriers to American manufacturing, employ- ment, and commerce can help American workers, entrepreneurs, and families.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 633-635AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on charging unions for federal agency resources, which touches on union accountability but does not directly address the Project 2025 policy's emphasis on financial disclosure rules, OLMS funding, duty of fair representation, NLRB interpretations, or worker center oversight."

Key themes:union accountabilitytaxpayer protectionfinancial oversight

— 600 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise of state or local employees are exempt from this filing requirement. These dis- closure requirements help workers and the public understand how union leaders are raising and spending union dues; they also can serve as a vital source of infor- mation that helps workers decide if the unions they are asked to join are good stewards of the funds they collect. DOL, under both George W. Bush and Donald Trump, tried rulemakings (known as the Intermediate Bodies Rule) that would require some government unions to file the same information that is required of private-sector unions. Under President Trump, OLMS required unions to disclose involvement in trusts that they either own a majority stake in or control. In the past, union trust spending has been hidden, and it appears that trust assets have occasionally been corruptly spent for the benefit of private interests in union leadership— such as $30,000 spent on a private party, $37,500 spent on a Montblanc pen, condominiums for those in power, golf outings, and a Ferrari.20 But the Biden DOL eliminated a transparency rule requiring the filing of the T-1 Trust Annual Report. More generally, OLMS, which is charged with enforcing the law of union dis- closure, has historically been underfunded when compared to other DOL agencies. This relative lack of funding has made ensuring disclosure more difficult. l Enact transparency rules. The substance of the Intermediate Bodies Rule should pass into law, either through rulemaking or through legislation. The T-1 Trust Annual Report annual filing requirement should be restored. l Increase funding levels. Congress should expand the funding of the Office of Labor-Management Standards. Duty of Fair Representation. Unions have a duty of fair representation to their members, yet they too often abuse that duty to use their members’ resources on left-wing culture-war issues that are unrelated, and in fact often harmful, to union members’ own interests. l The NLRB should take enforcement or amicus action advancing the position that political conflicts of interest by union leadership can support claims for breach of the duty of fair representation in a manner analogous to financial conflicts of interest and analogous to breaches of the fiduciary duty of loyalty in other areas of law. Interpreting “Protected Concerted Activity.” In an effort to prevent employers from retaliating against workers who express a desire to unionize, cer- tain activities are deemed “protected concerted activity” (under §7 of the NLRA). — 601 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies The NLRB has issued extreme interpretations of these activities, such as deter- mining that a business’s requiring its employees to be courteous to customers and one another is an unlawful infringement on the free speech rights implicit in the protected concerted activity protections in the NLRA. l Reverse unreasonable interpretations of “protected concerted activity.” The NLRB should return to the 2019 Alstate Maintenance interpretation of what does and does not constitute protected concerted activity, including listing eight instances of lawful actions by employers. Injunctive Relief and Worker Organizing Activities. Within the confines of the more reasonable definition of protected concerted activity described above, the NLRB should increase its pursuit of reinstatement injunctions. Firing work- ers engaged in concerted activity has an immediate chilling effect on organizing, but remedies under the NLRA typically come only much later and amount only to backpay. In NLRA section 10(j), Congress empowered the NLRB to obtain temporary injunctions that immediately reinstate workers to their jobs in these circumstances. This provides a more meaningful remedy to the worker and creates a significant deterrent to unfair labor practices, because prompt reinstatement will tend to reinforce the legitimacy of the organizing effort. The NLRB overwhelmingly prevails when pursuing an injunction, succeeding 100 percent of the time in 2020 and 91 percent of the time in 2021. l Increase the use of 10(j) injunctive relief. The NLRB should increase its use of 10(j) and should articulate guidelines for situations in which it intends to seek injunctive relief; the board should delegate authority to pursue such injunctions to the general counsel and the general counsel should establish a policy of considering them expeditiously in all retaliation cases identified by regional offices. Dues-Funded Worker Centers. Under current law, both labor unions and unionized employers must file financial disclosures with DOL on an annual basis to ward off potential fraud and corruption of the sort that has been seen recently within the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). However, worker centers, which have grown in number and influ- ence enormously over the past decade, are not required to file these disclosures. l Investigate worker centers and require financial disclosures. DOL should investigate worker centers that look and act like unions and bring enforcement actions to require them to file the same financial disclosures.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on charging federal sector unions for official time and agency resources, while the Project 2025 excerpt addresses independent contractor/joint employer definitions, overtime thresholds, and compliance assistance in the private sector. Both touch on labor‑policy cost‑shifting themes, but their substantive areas differ significantly."

Key themes:labor relationscost burden on taxpayers/employersunion activityfederal labor policyregulatory reform

— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules. — 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Perry, Scott

Strengthening Oversight in Public Buildings Act

119/hr/10305

DC ROADS Act

119/hr/8801

Republic of Georgia Sovereignty Act

119/hr/7630

Back to All Bills