Choice Over Coercion: The Congressional Push for Worker Empowerment

North Dakota’s union membership rate sits among the lowest in the country, a backdrop to a renewed national fight over how much say workers have in organizing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ annual report on union membership BLS. In Washington, Republicans have revived national “right-to-work” bills while Democrats are again pushing the PRO Act to expand organizing rights and override state right‑to‑work statutes, based on current and recent bill filings on Congress.gov and sponsors’ statements.

At the core is whether Congress should prioritize what sponsors call worker “choice”—the ability to opt out of union membership and dues—or reinforce collective bargaining through stronger organizing rules and union-security agreements. The GOP-led National Right-to-Work Act would bar contracts that require union fees nationwide, per the bill text and summaries for the 118th Congress (S.532; H.R.1200). The Democratic-backed PRO Act would make it easier to organize and permit “fair share” agreements in private-sector workplaces even in right‑to‑work states (H.R.20; S.567).

Here in Bismarck—where state government, health care, energy, and construction drive employment—the debate is not abstract. North Dakota already has a right‑to‑work law on the books, which means workers cannot be required to join a union or pay dues as a condition of employment, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures’ summary of state statutes (NCSL). Local business groups such as the Bismarck-Mandan Chamber EDC have historically favored policies framed as flexibility and workforce attraction, while labor organizations including the North Dakota AFL‑CIO and building trades locals based in the Bismarck-Mandan area generally support the PRO Act’s union-strengthening provisions.

Context Snapshot: The Legislative Landscape

Modern U.S. labor law traces to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which established collective bargaining rights in the private sector and created the NLRB, according to the agency’s historical overview (NLRB). A 1947 overhaul, the Taft‑Hartley Act, permitted states to pass right‑to‑work laws that ban union-security agreements, as summarized by the Congressional Research Service and legal histories cited by NLRB.

More recently, the Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus decision barred mandatory agency fees for public‑sector unions, holding that “compelling individuals to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern violates the First Amendment,” per the opinion summary (Oyez). In Congress, the pendulum has swung with control of committees: Democrats advanced the PRO Act in the House in 2021 but it stalled in the Senate; Republicans have countered with national right‑to‑work measures and the broader “Employee Rights Act” concepts, all documented in prior bill dockets on Congress.gov.

The latest round follows the same contours. The PRO Act would tighten penalties for labor law violations, narrow employer classifications for independent contractors, and limit captive‑audience meetings—changes supporters say protect worker organizing, per bill summaries (H.R.20). Right‑to‑work sponsors argue their bill simply extends to all states what places like North Dakota already practice: prohibiting compulsory dues as a condition of employment (S.532).

Empowerment Through Choice: Local and National Impacts

Nationally, a right‑to‑work mandate would standardize rules for states that still allow union-security agreements, reducing union resources but expanding individual opt‑out rights, according to analyses summarized in prior CRS-backed debates on Congress.gov. The PRO Act would move in the opposite direction, increasing union leverage in organizing campaigns and permitting fee arrangements in private‑sector contracts where they are currently barred, per the House bill text (H.R.20).

Local impact: In Bismarck, a nationwide right‑to‑work law would largely preserve the status quo because North Dakota has been a right‑to‑work state for decades (NCSL). By contrast, the PRO Act could change the rules at private employers in health care, construction, retail, and energy—sectors with visible footprints here, from Sanford Health and CHI St. Alexius to contractors serving state projects and the USW‑represented refinery in neighboring Mandan, according to public union and company profiles (Marathon Mandan Refinery; USW).

For employees, “choice” framed as dues opt‑outs may be most immediately felt in workplaces with active bargaining units, where financial support affects contract and grievance capacity; for employers, the bigger swing would be in compliance and HR practices around organizing drives, independent‑contractor tests, and joint‑employer exposure, all areas the PRO Act touches (H.R.20). Bismarck’s public employees at the State Capitol already operate under Janus rules on agency fees, while private‑sector changes would depend on which bill advances and how the NLRB implements new directives (Oyez; NLRB).

Voices & Evidence: Diverse Perspectives

North Dakota’s congressional delegation has generally aligned with right‑to‑work principles and skepticism of the PRO Act, consistent with past Republican caucus positions recorded in committee filings and floor statements (Congress.gov). Labor organizations based in Bismarck, including the North Dakota AFL‑CIO, have endorsed the PRO Act as a tool to “level the playing field” in organizing and bargaining, according to their public issue pages and national labor coalition summaries (ND AFL‑CIO).

Sponsors and opponents frame the choice/coercion trade‑off differently. Backers of the National Right‑to‑Work Act say the goal is to protect an employee’s freedom not to pay dues as a condition of employment, pointing to states like North Dakota as proof that recruitment and growth can coexist with unions under voluntary support (S.532). PRO Act supporters counter that current law lets employers delay or deter organizing and that allowing fair‑share agreements would prevent “free rider” problems that undermine bargaining units’ ability to represent all workers, per committee summaries and labor groups’ analyses (H.R.20; ND AFL‑CIO).

One legal constant shaping local public workplaces is Janus. The Supreme Court held that forcing public employees to fund union speech violates the First Amendment—“compelling individuals to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern,” as the majority put it—cementing opt‑out rights in government agencies statewide (Oyez). Any new congressional action would not disturb that public‑sector precedent but could adjust organizing rules and dues arrangements in private settings.

The Road Ahead: What’s Next for Workers and Legislators

If a national right‑to‑work bill were to pass, Bismarck employers and workers would see minimal immediate change because state law already bars compulsory dues; the main effect would be uniform rules when hiring across state lines or managing multi‑state worksites, according to comparative summaries on NCSL. If the PRO Act advances, local private‑sector unions could pursue contract language requiring fair‑share fees, and employers would need to update organizing, classification, and labor‑relations policies to comply with new standards set by the NLRB and Department of Labor (H.R.20).

For readers tracking the process, watch the House Education and the Workforce Committee and the Senate HELP Committee, where these bills typically begin, as listed in prior dockets on Congress.gov. Locally, look to agendas posted by the Bismarck-Mandan Chamber EDC and updates from the ND AFL‑CIO for forums or listening sessions; these groups frequently share calendars and policy alerts when federal labor changes are on the table.

What to Watch

• Committee referrals and markup schedules in the new Congress will signal which package—right‑to‑work or the PRO Act—has momentum, according to public tracking on Congress.gov.

• In Bismarck, monitor employer bulletins and union communications in health care, construction, and energy, where any rule changes would be felt first. Expect updated guidance from the NLRB and the U.S. Department of Labor if either side’s bill clears a chamber.