New Labor Bill Forces Binding Contracts After 90 Days: Mandatory Arbitration Kicks In to Speed Up Union Deals

The Faster Labor Contracts Act is designed to slash the time it takes for newly unionized workplaces to get their first collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Currently, securing that first contract can drag on for well over a year—the bill cites an average of 465 days. This new legislation sets up a tight, mandatory clock to force a resolution, aiming to ensure that employees who vote to unionize actually see the benefits of that vote quickly.

The 90-Day Clock and the Hard Deadline

Under this bill (Sec. 3), once a union is certified, the employer has to start negotiating within 10 days of a written request. That’s the starting gun. The parties then have 90 days to hammer out an agreement. If they hit day 91 without a signed contract, either side can call in the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). If the FMCS can’t broker a deal within 30 days of stepping in, the entire dispute is automatically sent to mandatory binding arbitration. This is the biggest change and the part that matters most to both workers and employers.

Who Controls the Contract Now?

Mandatory binding arbitration means a three-person panel—one rep chosen by the union, one by the employer, and a neutral third party—gets to decide the terms of the contract. The panel’s decision is final and legally binding on both sides for two years. Think about that: after only four months of failed negotiation and mediation, a third party gets to write your company’s labor contract. For a newly unionized warehouse worker, this means they could see negotiated raises and benefits kick in much faster than the current system allows. For the employer, this means losing the ability to have the final say on things like wages, benefits, and work rules (Sec. 3).

The Arbitrator’s Shopping List

When the arbitration panel writes the contract, they aren't just guessing. The bill lays out specific factors they must consider. These include the employer’s financial health, the size and type of the business, and the employees’ cost of living. Crucially, the panel must also consider whether the proposed wages and benefits allow employees to support themselves and their families, and what other similar employers in the industry are paying. This suggests the resulting contracts are intended to be strong, market-competitive agreements based on living wage standards and industry norms.

The Real-World Friction

While the goal of speeding up contracts is great for newly organized workers—it closes a loophole that employers often use to stall and wear down the union—the binding arbitration provision introduces significant risk for both parties. For a small business owner, having an external panel dictate terms for two years could be a major financial disruption, especially if the panel overestimates the company’s ability to pay. Conversely, if the union fails to pick its representative for the panel, the FMCS appoints one for them, which could lead to a less favorable outcome than they hoped for. This bill trades the certainty of negotiation control for the speed of guaranteed resolution. It’s a major shift in how the government intervenes in private labor disputes, focusing heavily on getting a deal done quickly, even if it means taking the pen out of the hands of the people who actually run the business or work there.