From “the desk of Tim Scott”:
Thank you for contacting me to express your view on the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. I value your input on this subject and the opportunity to share my thoughts with you.
The PRO Act, which passed the House last Congress with almost exclusively party-line Democratic support, represents the most radical and economically destructive piece of labor legislation in decades. Among dozens of other anti-worker provisions, the bill would abolish right-to-work protections across at least 27 states, including South Carolina, forcing many employees to either financially support a labor union or risk losing their jobs. It would also forcibly reclassify as many as half of all independent contractors by nationalizing California’s failed “ABC test,” which has wrecked opportunities across hundreds of sectors. The vast majority of Americans who engage in independent work, from freelance journalism to app-based driving, appreciate the flexibility and autonomy of their roles, which the PRO Act would eliminate.
Beyond independent work, the bill would also diminish franchise small business ownership opportunities, gut the secret ballot for union elections, and force employers to hand over employees’ personal information–from home addresses and personal phone numbers to hours and shifts–to union organizers, with no opportunity for workers to opt out. These policies, along with dozens of others, would result in fewer jobs, slower growth, and a weaker economy.
While some of the bill’s supporters claim that the PRO Act is pro-union, that argument misses the mark. South Carolina became a right-to-work state in 1954, and tens of thousands of South Carolinians are union members. That is their right. That said, the rigid union boss priorities included in the PRO Act could substantially harm our state’s economy. Our state saw 27% job growth from 2001-2016, with a 10-point increase in personal income. We saw countless high-tech manufacturing job creators make South Carolina their home. However, my Democratic colleagues and President Biden want to punish those who do not want to unionize while harming our state’s economy and squashing the dreams of millions of people living in right-to-work states like ours. The people, with the hundreds of thousands of jobs that will be lost, are the ones who will suffer. That is not what I call helping or protecting employees.
Rest assured, I will do everything I can as your US Senator to stop this pro-union bosses, anti-economic development and anti-employee piece of legislation until we have an actual conversation with both parties on this issue.
Again, thank you for sharing your perspective with me; I hope that you will continue to do so in the future. If I can ever be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of my staff.
Also, it was sent from a no reply address, so I can’t reply and continue communicating on the matter.
Among dozens of other anti-worker provisions, the bill would abolish right-to-work protections across at least 27 states
coughBULLSHITcough
Unions were never given power in this country. They have always had to fight for it and take it. Today is no different. And one of the first fights that has to be won, one upon which most of the others rest, is to crush once and for all the pernicious belief in this country that what is good for business owners is good for workers.
No, what is good for workers is good for workers.
theres no debating this. this guy isnt here for you, and you mean nothing to him. he only represents one kind of person and you are not it.
represents the most radical and economically destructive piece of labor legislation in decades
What a load of bullshit. The word radical is already extreme. You know they are full of shit when they have to embellish it with “most”
California’s failed “ABC test,” which has wrecked opportunities across hundreds of sectors.
This is California’s ABC test that this guy doesn’t like:
- The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the work’s performance, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
- The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
- The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Keep in mind this test is setup like this so that companies aren’t hiring shadow employees and not having to give them benefits. This is clearly a worker protection, and it’s stupid that this guy is against it.
