Listen Live

WASHINGTON — The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, more popularly known as the PRO Act, is now up for discussion in the Senate after being passed by the House earlier this year.

It’s a bill being pushed by congressional Democrats that they say would bolster the rights if workers in the United States by rewriting, rewording, and revising certain rules for both employers and workers alike that they say will make it easier for workers to form a union.

The bill was discussed by members of the Senate HELP Committee on Thursday, a hearing in which Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana was asked by ranking member Sen. Raymond Burr (R-NC) to fill in for him.

Braun stated the cases for Republicans who are against the PRO Act saying that it actually does more harm than good for the rights of workers.

“I’m for unions because you need them in places where you are up against a monolith of big business,” Braun said. “But, whatever we do for workers’ rights, which I believe in 100-percent to be able to have them organize and express those, don’t kill the golden goose that’s made jobs for union workers possible.”

Among some of the things under the PRO Act: it would make it illegal for businesses to permanently replace workers who strike. It would also make it illegal for businesses to force workers to sit and listen to their reasons why form a union would be a bad idea.

Braun believes that stipulations such as these are a “one size fits all approach” and would be detrimental to small businesses.

“If you don’t have small businesses that are healthy, you’re not going to have big businesses and you’re not going to have employment bases that are large enough to need unions in the first place,” Braun added.

The PRO Act also redefines independent contractors as “employees” which means that if an independent worker is contracted to for another company, that worker could be considered to be the hiring company’s employee. Opponents, such as Braun, say this would severely hinder an independent contractor’s ability to find work.

If the bill advances to the full Senate it would need 60 votes to advance to debate under the Senate filibuster. It’s unlikely to garner enough support to clear that procedural hurdle.