H.R. 5408House bill · 119th CongressIn the Senatedonors lobbied itLabor and Employment

Faster Labor Contracts Act

Sponsored byDonald NorcrossD-NJ-1Introduced Sep 16, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jun 10, 2026) Received in the Senate.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jun 9, 2026

This bill establishes mandatory deadlines for parties negotiating an initial collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and provides for mediation and arbitration to finalize CBAs.

Under the bill, CBA negotiations must begin within 10 days after an employer receives a written request from a newly recognized or certified bargaining representative. The bill provides that parties must make every reasonable effort to conclude and sign a CBA. Further, the bill provides that, if the parties have not reached an agreement after 90 days, either party may request mediation by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). The bill directs FMCS to use its best efforts to secure an agreement.

If mediation does not result in an agreement within 30 days (or an additional period agreed to by both parties), FMSC must refer the parties to an arbitration panel to render a decision settling the dispute. The panel must consider specified factors, including the employer's financial prospects and employees' cost of living. The resulting CBA is binding on the parties for two years. (Parties may agree to amend the terms during the two-year period.)

The bill specifies that (1) an employer must maintain current wages, hours, terms, and conditions of employment during negotiations; and (2) an employer's duty to collectively bargain continues even if a representative has been decertified.

The Government Accountability Office must report to Congress regarding the average number of days between the certification or recognition of a bargaining representative and the date the initial CBA was executed.

Face Value

as passed the House
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • decisive vote

    House · Jun 9, 2026

    Whether the bill passes the House. This is the vote most people mean.

    230193

    Passed

    Every vote →

Who lobbied on this

22 organizations

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

  • …Support for H.R. 5408 / S.844, Faster Labor Contracts… filing ↗
  • …Protecting America's Workforce Act H.R. 2550, S. 2837 Support Empowering Striking Workers Act H.R. 5206, S. 2731 Support Faster Labor Contracts Act H.R. 5408, S. 844 Support Reinstatement of Gwynne Wilcox to the NLRB (No Bill Number) Oppose Whirlpool Layoffs in Amana Iowa (No Bill Number) Support… filing ↗
  • …Lobbied in support of HR 5408/S. 844, the Faster Labor Contracts Act, legislation to expedite initial collective bargaining agreements. Lobbied in opposition to federal… filing ↗
  • Argentumno position stated
    …H.R. 5408, Faster Labor Contracts Actto promote voluntary agreements, worker choice, and free enterprise, and prevent mandatory arbitration in the… filing ↗
  • …H.R.5408, S.844, Faster Labor Contracts… filing ↗
  • …the Raise the Wage Act would gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $17 per hour by 2030 and then index the minimum wage to inflation after that H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act would stop companies from using delay tactics during first-union contract negotiations H.R.8612, the Reward… filing ↗
  • Conocophillipsno position stated
    Discussions about bargaining timeframes in H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act. filing ↗
  • Food Marketplace Inc.no position stated
    …Businesses Act H.R. 4896/S. 2613 - Warehouse Worker Protection Act H.R. 4393 - Dignity Act H.R. 5494 - Essential Workers for Economic Advancement Act H.R. 5408/S. 844 - Faster Labor Contracts Act filing ↗
  • …for Injured Federal Workers Act H.R. 3791, EMS Counts Act H.R. 4453, Parkinsons Protection for Fire Fighters Act of 2025 H.R. 4763, PTO Act H.R. 5408/S. 844, Faster Labor Contracts Act S. 1006, Federal Workforce Freedom Act S. 2278, A bill to amend 18 USC to punish criminal offenses… filing ↗
  • …The IBEW lobbied on several bills that would impact IBEW members' rights in the workplace, including but not limited to: Faster Labor Contracts Act (H.R. 5408), Modern Worker Empowerment Act (S. 2228, Unlocking Benefits for Independent Workers Act (S.… filing ↗
  • H.R. 5408/S. 844, Faster Labor Contracts Act, all… filing ↗
  • H.R. 5267/S. 3525, American Franchise Act. H.R. 5408/S. 844, Faster Labor Contracts Act Opposition Letter. Nominations of David Prouty and James Macy to serve as members of the National Labor… filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

10 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
22
publiclandsfanDemoNC-11voted Nay20d ago
No. Unfunded mandates are still mandates, and this pushes the cost down to states and localities without saying so out loud.
2
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Yea25d ago
Sure, but 'the states are doing it' cuts the other way for me. If it's working there, why federalise it?
0
PragmaticPeteDemoAL-3voted Yea22d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it now means starting over in the next Congress.
16
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Yea27d ago
Support. The reporting requirements alone would be worth it. You can't fix what nobody is required to measure.
-1
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Yea21d ago
Fair, but the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
10
aviva_sternDemoMO-2voted Nay20d ago
Honest question, not a gotcha: what would change your mind on this?
7
PragmaticPeteDemoAL-3voted Yea17d ago
This is my worry too — the cost estimate always assumes full compliance and full compliance never happens.
8
aviva_sternDemoMO-2voted Nay26d ago
Opposed, mainly on process — this hasn't had a hearing that I can find, and it's moving fast for something with this much reach.
7
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Yea22d ago
Same conclusion, different reasoning. I'm less worried about scope and more about who administers it.
3
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Yea25d ago
In favour, with a caveat: the effective date is doing a lot of work here. If it slips, everything else in this bill is theoretical.
Your position on H.R. 540860% Yea · 5 VoteWire users