Labor unions urge committee to pass 'Protect Labor Act' to shore up private-sector rights

Lawmakers and union leaders told the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development that Massachusetts should adopt the Protect Labor Act (House 2086 / Senate 13 27) to preserve private-sector organizing rights if federal protections are rolled back.

At a hybrid hearing with dozens of testifiers, Christy Lynch, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, described the bill as a “trigger” that would come into force if the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) were repealed or if the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) declined jurisdiction. “We want to inoculate ourselves from the attacks we know are coming,” Lynch said.

The bill would direct the state Department of Labor Relations to certify previously NLRB-recognized unions, expand unfair-labor-practice protections, bar captive-audience meetings, permit virtual union elections and create presumptions to limit misclassification of employees as independent contractors. Supporters said the measure also would permit the state to take jurisdiction over workers the NLRB declines to cover, including some rideshare and gig workers.

“We see Project 20/25 as a national strategy to dismantle union protections,” Katie Murphy, president of the Massachusetts Nurses Association, told the committee. “This bill would secure a number of existing labor rights that are in jeopardy at the federal level.”

Labor leaders, including Dave Foley of SEIU Local 509, John Drinkwater of the Painters and Allied Trades District Council, and Frank Callahan of the Massachusetts Building Trades, said the bill would preserve sector-specific organizing tools — such as construction’s prehire agreements under Section 8(f) of the NLRA — if federal protections are gutted.

Supporters described specific gaps the bill is intended to fill. Several testifiers noted that the NLRB’s jurisdictional rulings have left some worker categories without a clear forum; they cited previous rulings affecting rideshare and graduate-student workers. “If the NLRB is left without a quorum or declines jurisdiction, workers can be left with no statutory protections,” said a union advocate.

Several speakers urged additional technical features. SEIU and other unions asked that the Department of Labor Relations be given flexibility in applying fines and remedies so penalties deter violations without discouraging voluntary recognition of unions. Others urged creation of pre-complaint alternative dispute-resolution options modeled on federal practice to encourage bargaining rather than litigation.

Senator Paul Feeney and Representative Madre Decker, sponsors of companion bills, told the committee the measure is urgent because of federal actions that they described as removing collective-bargaining protections for federal workers and a broader campaign to limit organizing rights. “We must act to fill these gaps,” Feeney said.

Committee chairs and members did not take a vote at the hearing. Testimony for the Protect Labor Act came from labor unions across multiple industries, labor-backed nonprofit coalitions, and elected legislators. Opponents from municipal leadership were not testifying on this bill specifically; their earlier remarks focused on a parallel bill to restore strike rights for public employees.

If the committee advances the bill, supporters said, it would position Massachusetts to certify and protect unions that had been recognized federally and to expand protections for workers currently excluded by federal interpretations.

Proponents asked for a favorable report to the full Legislature and promised to provide additional technical language and implementation details to committee staff.

Ending: The committee hearing produced extensive proponent testimony but no formal action. Sponsors and labor leaders asked the committee to advance the bill quickly so Massachusetts would have standing state-level protections should federal law be changed.