The Faster Labor Contracts Act – What Employers Need to Know

Introduction to the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA)

Phil Wilson: [00:00]

Dave Sapenoff, welcome to the Left of Boom Show.

Dave Sapenoff: [00:03]

Thank you, Phil. It’s good to see you again.

Phil Wilson: [00:05]

Good to see you. So today’s episode is kind of like an emergency episode. This is we’re gonna talk today about the Faster Labor Contracts Act, which proves that there’s, you know, they can find any bad idea in Washington and e and make it even worse. So, today’s episode we’re gonna cover what is the Faster Labor Contracts Act. We’ll talk a little bit about just mechanics. Like let’s pretend that it becomes law, like what

Phil Wilson: [00:30]

what mechanically is gonna change about bargaining. and then we’ll finish with a little bit more like, let’s pretend that we actually have to get a contract negotiated in 90 days.  what would be tactically the things that you would want to do and what would be the potential downsides of trying to rush to an agreement. So that’s roughly how we’re gonna do the episode today. So why don’t we just start with the Faster Labor Contracts Act, the proposal

Provisions of FLCA and Mechanical Changes in Labor Negotiations 

Phil Wilson: [01:00]

The House is imminently gonna vote on it and it looks like it will pass the House. it then will go to the Senate. Obviously, things are very fluid right now or heading into the midterm, so it may or may not get voted on by the Senate. The president’s position on this is still not clear. but there is a possibility that this becomes law. So why don’t we just start with what are the provisions of the Faster Labor Contracts Act?

Dave Sapenoff: [01:31]

I mean basically the basic provisions of this is that first time labor agreements really have no time limits on it. The law doesn’t say that there’s a contract has to be achieved in any period of time.

Dave Sapenoff: [01:48]

it only really basically states if an agreement is achieved that it must be reduced to writing. you know, that either party, in effect, is not obligated to make a concession or agree to a proposal from the other side. and as a result, the un the underpinning of this is that first-time agreements and I think the thing that people need to understand is a first-time agreement, you are writing literally every line, every sentence of language. There are no pre-written agreements, there’s no

Dave Sapenoff: [02:10]

Fill in the blanks. Every agreement is unique to that organization. And as a result, it takes time to craft language.

Dave Sapenoff: [02:20]

It takes time to clarify positions. It takes time. As a result, first-time agreements generally take a fairly long period of time. The unions have grieved this over the years. I mean, the average right now is in the neighborhood of about 450, 65 days for a first-time labor agreement. The unions grieve this from the perspective that employees have lost interest in that period of time, that the bargaining unit may have changed, things of that nature.

Dave Sapenoff: [02:50]

I think overwhelmingly there is a presumption that the time it takes to negotiate a labor agreement is in management’s favor when in fact very often it favors the union as well.

Dave Sapenoff: [03:05]

So, I again going into this, I think from the union’s perspective, this will drive management to an agreement faster. The unions will have to invest less time, money and effort into the negotiation of a first agreement. And this is fairer for the employees. And I think from management’s perspective, it’s anything but.

Implications for First-Time Agreements and Arbitration 

Dave Sapenoff: [03:30]

The basic provisions of this are that ten days following certification of the union, following an NLRB election, the parties are required to meet and begin good faith negotiations. they’re given a hundred days to negotiate that agreement. And if an agreement is not achieved within that hundred days, then it goes to mandatory mediation. Following

Phil Wilson: [03:54]

I think it’s ninety.

Phil Wilson: [03:58]

I think it’s ninety days in the current iteration, but I think it goes ninety-thirty in mediation, and then after that you can ask for our arbitration. The hundred the hundred days, I think the hundred days is adding the that first ten days. Yeah. Okay.

Dave Sapenoff: [04:00]

Yeah.

Dave Sapenoff: [04:05]

arbitration.

Dave Sapenoff: [04:08]

Yes. Yes.

Dave Sapenoff: [04:12]

So, and then barring success in in mediation, which I’ve been through I can’t count how many times. mediators let’s put it this way, a mediator may help settle one or two thorny issues and get the parties to agree on something. Using mediators to in effect negotiate an entire agreement.

Dave Sapenoff: [04:45]

Where there may be multitudes of differences of opinion is generally not within their realm to accomplish within the time frame the law would set up. So more than likely it will end up in front of arbitrators. And this is a binding scenario where the arbitrators will look at the position of the union, look at the position of management, and likewise King Solomon will split the baby.

Phil Wilson: [05:07]

Hopefully this is

Dave Sapenoff: [05:07]

like the grieving widows in front of King Solomon, you know. huh.

Dave Sapenoff: [05:15]

you know, and again, and that’s what arbitrators do. you know, so again, but one of the outcomes of this that I think is not generally well understood is that employees vote a union in in expectation of getting something for that vote, whether it be improved wages, benefits, terms and conditions of employment, a voice or a seat at the table, as they may call it.

Phil Wilson: [05:16]

Yeah.

Phil Wilson: [05:58]

Mm-hmm.

Dave Sapenoff: [05:37]

In effect, what this law does, however, would take the entire negotiations process literally out of the hands of the employees. The union would have its agenda to drive towards an agreement, put its best face forward in terms of negotiating, and then it goes in front of an arbitrator. And once the arbitrators rule in terms of one way or another as to language and what ultimately goes into the agreement, it’s not even subject to a ratification vote by the employees.

Phil Wilson: [06:06]

Yeah. So

Dave Sapenoff: [06:07]

And they are in effect

Dave Sapenoff: [06:10]

X’d out of the system and that contract would be good for two years. So for two years, the employees basically now have to live with an agreement they virtually had nothing to say about.

Phil Wilson: [06:13]

Mm-hmm.

Potential Risks and Unintended Consequences 

Phil Wilson: [06:20]

Yeah, yeah. j just so we have like the specifics correct. So there’s like so and to be fair, the these time limits are adjustable as long as the two parties agree. So, for example, if a union didn’t want to start negotiations until day thirty, that ten days could extend to thirty days. The ninety days are a minimum.

Phil Wilson: [06:50]

But the union could agree to extend the 90 days. and then same thing with mediation, same thing with arbitration. but a union that really wanted to sort of hold an employer’s feet to the fire, which I think would be a common practice if this were the law, is gonna go negotiations start on day 11. You know, we’re gonna we’re gonna request negotiations to start immediately. We’re gonna have a 90-day negotiating window.

Phil Wilson: [07:20]

If we don’t get what we want by the end of 90 days, we’re gonna ask for mediation immediately. That’s gonna have a 30-day window. which by the way, I don’t know how many times you’ve requested a mediator and had them show up the next day, right? Like that’s not you know, all of these procedural things seem simple if you’re you know sitting in a you know in a Senate office.

Phil Wilson: [07:40]

and don’t have any exposure to how bargaining actually works, but none of this is realistic. and

Dave Sapenoff: [07:47]

I mean if.

Dave Sapenoff: [07:50]

If you look at the current political environment, what happened with FMCS? I mean the simple fact of the matter is FMCS has they’ve just been told, you know what, hey, don’t get involved if it’s anything less than two hundred employees.

Phil Wilson: [07:51]

Yeah. Right. That but yeah, this is all put yeah.

Phil Wilson: [08:00]

They doged the entire FMCS. There’s like 10 people left. So, like the people, the people that are supposedly going and by the way, the proposal is FMCS is gonna do all these arbitrations. All right. So those people aren’t even around anymore. And I mean those the humans are still around and they could theoretically be hired back, but like that department doesn’t even exist, and you are then

Dave Sapenoff: [08:05]

Exactly.

Phil Wilson: [08:30]

Going to assign so at this moment is like 10 people. So you’re gonna pick three of those 10 people and they are going to be an arbitration panel and then they are going to decide everyone’s terms and conditions of employment. So that’s the mechanics of it. and it’s if it sounds outrageous, it is outrageous. so you know, unions though are heavily in support of it. I and I think partially, I

Phil Wilson: [09:00]

I I’ll be honest. I don’t I haven’t talked to tons of union people about this proposal, honestly, because I never thought it was gonna, you know, go anywhere. Now that it is gonna go somewhere, I will talk to more people about it. But it’s like you don’t really want to try to get a contract done in 90 days. And then, you know, you’re putting the whole thing into the hands of arbitrators, and sitting here right now, you might be like,

Phil Wilson: [09:30]

Yeah, that’d be great. Like they’re not gonna they’re not gonna decide anything, you know, worse than what we would have agreed to. But like they might they might agree to something that puts the company out of business. They might award something that is that your members hate. Like there’s it’s you it’s a very risky proposition that like jamming these contracts down the throats of newly organized sites is a good idea.

Impact on Arbitration and Management Strategies 

Dave Sapenoff: [09:57]

Yeah. And like everything else, we say, look, you know, there are economic and non-economic items. I think generally speaking, everybody who’s done labor relations says, you know what, even non-economics have a price tag.

Phil Wilson: [10:10]

Of course, yeah.

Dave Sapenoff: [10:11]

And as a result, you know, I mean, granting certain things, you know, how quickly a grievance gets heard, overtime, you know, what rolls up into an overtime calculation, things of that nature, a change here or a change there, carry a massive price tag for the organization.

Phil Wilson: [10:23]

Mm-hmm.

Dave Sapenoff: [10:32]

you know, put that all together on a first time agreement with maybe some change in benefits in terms of potentially reducing an employee contribution to their premium payments, yeah reducing deductibles, co pays, things of that nature, all carry massive price tags with them. You know, upping a four hundred one K contribution. Or I mean in worst case scenarios,

Dave Sapenoff: [11:00]

possibly agreeing with the union that an employer that wasn’t formally under a defined benefit pension plan now has to start contributing to one. And

Phil Wilson: [11:06]

Mm-hmm.

Phil Wilson: [11:10]

Which might be massively

Phil Wilson: [11:15]

underfunded and have a huge impact on the books because of unfunded pension liability. Like there’s yes, all of the all of those things. And then when you look at the factors that the arbitrators can use to evaluate, you know, the proposals, there they include stuff like a living wage, right? Like what is what is it what’s the what does it cost to live?

Phil Wilson: [11:40]

in a particular community. All right. Now, you know, if you work at a ski resort in Aspen, you know, nobody can afford to live in Aspen. and if you think that you’re going to, you know, award employees, you know, a the ability to afford property and to, you know, afford to live in communities like that. I mean,

Phil Wilson: [12:05]

You are going, you will put anybody that’s in those communities out of business if you are going to, you know, not allow the market to define, you know, what is a decent wage, a wage that will attract workers to work for you. You know, if arbitrators get to decide, well, I know that’s what, you know, that’s kind of the market wage, but that’s not enough to live here. So we’re gonna make the employer pay like this other.

Phil Wilson: [12:30]

wage rate or we’re gonna make the employer pay, you know, there’s this thing called prevailing wage. Okay. So prevailing wage is kind of a joke. So what happens is prevailing wage is actually the wages that you know construction companies that are working on public works projects that don’t have to like be profitable because you know you just tax people if it costs too much. That becomes the prevailing wage. By the way,

Dave Sapenoff: [12:43]

Yeah.

Phil Wilson: [13:06]

those workers are often not working because you know that prevailing wage you can only really afford if you’re on these certain types of projects. And so you know construction workers are laid off like often for months at a time. Okay. So then if you were to map that to a full time worker working, you know, you know, working a full year, that is a massive, massive

Phil Wilson: [13:30]

change to a company’s economics. Like that is a go out of business. Yes.

Dave Sapenoff: [13:38]

I mean, I have a I have a first hand example of that. I mean,

Dave Sapenoff: [13:45]

I’m negotiating right now an employer that in employs skilled tradespeople in the sprinkler install industry. there is a national union, sprinkler installers and they’re affiliated with the plumbers and pipe fitters. but they have a national agreement and it’s prevailing wage rate for them.

Phil Wilson: [13:49]

Mm-hmm.

Dave Sapenoff: [14:03]

They operate in the prevailing wage rate environment. They do a lot of federal, state, local, municipal work where there is prevailing wage rate language. and you look at their contract and generally speaking, their wages

Phil Wilson: [14:09]

Mm-hmm.

Dave Sapenoff: [14:20]

are going to be probably in a neighborhood of about 40% higher than non-prevailing wage rate. Their benefit roll up, if you include all of the contributions into their pension plan, their health and welfare, their industry development funds, their training funds, have an additional roll-up cost of probably in a neighborhood of about 70% of just on the benefit side, just on the additional contribution side.

Case Studies and Real-World Examples 

Dave Sapenoff: [15:00]

I’m negotiating on behalf of a company that has sprinklers. They do not operate in that environment. They basically deal with smaller individual companies that have sprinkler systems. That’s the work they chase. They are in a competitive environment. What they bid for the job determines whether or not they get it or not, depending on their labor costs. In this environment, we’re negotiating a full slate of first-time labor agreement.

Phil Wilson: [15:00]

Mm-hmm.

Dave Sapenoff: [15:16]

The union initially walked in and said, Well, here’s our agreement. And I said, Well, no, sorry, but no, we’re not doing your massive association level agreement. We will negotiate a shop agreement. Under this scenario, with this act, I could simply see a union like that. First day negotiations, they slapped their association, their prevailing wage rate agreement down and said, Here it is. And then just run out the clock.

Phil Wilson: [15:41]

Mm-hmm.

Dave Sapenoff: [15:44]

And allow an arbitrator to decide between what the employer is currently paying and a contract that would increase labor cost by eighty percent. So

Phil Wilson: [15:54]

Right. Which means

Phil Wilson: [16:00]

that company will never win another project and it will be shut down in, you know, weeks after the agreement is in place. And that is that is a very foreseeable consequence to this law.

Dave Sapenoff: [16:11]

It is. It is an absolute consequence. One other consequence, and just in terms of personal experiences, I have negotiated agreements. I I’ve negotiated some transit authority agreements for a c for a large Midwestern city that had in that contract, because it is a an authority, that had mandatory arbitration as part of the negotiations process.

Dave Sapenoff: [16:50]

And the simple fact of the matter is that when I got involved in the previous two agreements, it had gone to arbitration. The union walked in, in effect, with absolutely no intention of negotiating any sort of compromise positions on any current contract language. And there were some significant efficiency issues that the authority was facing. In effect, the position they put forward was they knew.

Phil Wilson: [17:02]

Mm-hmm.

Dave Sapenoff: [17:06]

That was going to be their position that was going to be advanced to arbitration. Negotiations were a sham from their perspective or on their on their side. not interested in talking about anything, it would just wind up in front of an arbitrator. The most interesting aspect of that, among all of the work rule changes and things that needed to be negotiated, of which it was a list of about 15 fairly major items, all the benefit issues, changes in cost of.

Dave Sapenoff: [17:45]

Health and welfare plans, contributions to pensions and things of that nature, was there was a wage proposal. And I saw, you know, because I was as I was preparing for these negotiations, that the previous in the previous negotiation, there was a six-inch ring binder of data that the company had gathered, and another six-inch ring binder of information and data on just wages alone that the union had gathered.

Dave Sapenoff: [18:15]

That were put in front of the arbitrator just in support of a wage proposal. And expecting an arbitrator, in effect, to wade through all of that and render a decision that was fair to both sides. Notwithstanding all the other issues. Here you’re handing off to an arbitrator literally everything with regards to scheduling, hours, overtime.

Phil Wilson: [18:11]

Mm-hmm.

Phil Wilson: [18:36]

Yeah.

Dave Sapenoff: [18:35]

benefits, wages the entire gamut of the contract is now in front of arbitrators to make a decision.

Phil Wilson: [18:36]

Yeah.

Phil Wilson: [18:45]

First contracts take a long time because, like you said, every single letter of that agreement is negotiated and it’s complicated. And you know, the idea, this is called the Faster Labor Contracts Act. Let me you know, here’s what happens on day one after this law passes. You are very quickly gonna have hundreds, and then you know, there there’s thousands of locations that become unionized every year. Okay. So

Phil Wilson: [19:10]

Every one of those is going to end up in an arbitration. So those arbitrations, like you just said, your arbitration was basically dealing with a handful of issues. Every one of these arbitrations is going to deal with the entire contract, binder after binder after binder of proof as to why, like, our provisions are better than the other. They will take months, if not years, to resolve each one of these agreements.

Political Landscape and How to Respond [19:40]

Phil Wilson: [19:40]

And now you’re going to have a backlog. Again, there’s no one working at FMCS right now. Like maybe they’ll fix that, but like a thousand, let’s just say it’s a thousand, a thousand arbitration cases you are creating, you know, from whole cloth that are going to be incredibly difficult to resolve. And then those awards could very well put companies out of business. It’s like it is.

Phil Wilson: [20:10]

the stupidest idea, not to mention it’s completely unconstitutional. So like there’s a whole bunch of other problems with this other than just like the mechanics of it. But like that’s what’s g could be in place. All right. So

Dave Sapenoff: [20:30]

No, the

Dave Sapenoff: [20:35]

devil is always in the details as well on these things. For argument’s sake, the panel of arbitrators. Who selects them? you know, do I get a bunch of ex union officials who are now arbitrators? Do I, you know, is it just a panel of management? Who who’s selecting this panel? What’s their history?

Phil Wilson: [20:37]

Mm.

Phil Wilson: [20:45]

right well right now i mean

Phil Wilson: [20:55]

the current the current version says that that it’s kind of like any other you know like my common fmcs where you have a three member panel there is a the union gets to pick one the comp the man management gets to pick one and then there is a like third neutral so and normally the way that works is like each you know you get a list and you’re sort of picking names off the list so

Phil Wilson: [21:15]

I think that’s the process that would happen. As you say, like that, you know, there probably be there’s y usually what happens is you know, there’s people on the list you don’t like, so you strike them and then you pick the person that you like most and then you whittle your way down to like that to that final third person. But like that’s the panel.

Dave Sapenoff: [21:36]

And absolutely understood,

Dave Sapenoff: [21:45]

you know, where in effect, all right, the union gets to pick one, management gets to pick one. Obviously, there’s an arm wrestle then on number three. And does it then start down that entire list of ten names, strike, strike, strike, strike, who’s who draws first, all of it. I mean, you know, the there’s a lot at stake here. And quite frankly, you know, I would say you end up with two arbitrators out of the panel.

Phil Wilson: [21:46]

Yeah. Right.

Phil Wilson: [22:04]

Mm-hmm.

Dave Sapenoff: [22:02]

that you don’t like, you know, abandon all hope who enter here, you know. you know, now somebody’s gonna dictate economic terms and conditions to an organization, to a company, that they have no say over. and that’s also not to say that some arbitrators, I mean, you know, let’s put it, you know, a lot of reasons why sometimes people, you know, companies and unions avoid arbitrators, you never know what’s gonna happen.

Phil Wilson: [22:06]

Yeah.

Phil Wilson: [22:15]

Right. That’s true. Right. I mean, it could absolutely bite unions in the ass too, right? Like it’s not, yeah, the idea that the arbitrators are always gonna give you what you want. and then more importantly, when you are like in a rush to try to get an agreement done. So let’s go to that scenario. Like you got a union and a company that both actually want to reach an agreement in 90 days. Like you are going to

Dave Sapenoff: [22:33]

Never know what the outcome of arbitration is.

Dave Sapenoff: [22:47]

Yeah.

Phil Wilson: [23:00]

Try to do everything that you can to get to the finish line and maybe, maybe it extends a little bit further, but like everyone wants to get an agreement done fast. Getting the agreement done fast does not mean that you have a good agreement. And that agreement can create a lot of problems that that you don’t anticipate because you haven’t really thought through how the provisions, you know, impact each other. You haven’t really fully costed out.

Phil Wilson: [23:10]

The way that that this is going to impact the business. The union maybe hasn’t fully thought through how they’re gonna administer that. And you can end up with a lot of disappointed people, even in the best of circumstances where everyone is really in good faith trying to reach an agreement. These agreements take a long time, not because people are intentionally stalling. Look, sometimes that does happen. And by the way, I’m you know.

Phil Wilson: [23:40]

I think there’s constitutional problems with mandating arbitration even as a penalty for bad faith. But like I agree, if an employer is intentionally stalling and intentionally avoiding trying to reach an agreement, like there should be a penalty for that behavior. And that could include some sort of arbitration or like s you know, some and like look, if it has to be done by a by a judge because it is damages or whatever, like okay. But

Phil Wilson: [24:15]

If it is two parties that are attempting to reach an agreement, it takes a long time. And that is good. Like it is it is good that the parties have to eventually negotiate something that they both can live with. that’s what the process is supposed to do, and that just takes a long time.

Dave Sapenoff: [24:48]

think from an organizing perspective it also carries, you know, for the unions that sort of finality

Phil Wilson: [24:55]

Mm-hmm.

Dave Sapenoff: [24:55]

You know, in terms of I’m an ex-union organizer. I mean, I organized for the Teamsters Union for seven years. And when I look at this law and I think about what I would have done as an organizer with this, you know, number one, I mean, when I organized, I always used to walk around with what I call a gold-plated agreement in my back pocket. You know, we represented I worked for the Teamsters Union in New York City. We represented a lot of metal fabrication shops.

Phil Wilson: [25:11]

Mm-hmm.

Dave Sapenoff: [25:19]

So bottom line, I had our best agreement. And if I went to a machine shop and showed them the agreement, they were seeing top-tier wages, benefits, and everything else.

Phil Wilson: [25:21]

Mm-hmm.

Dave Sapenoff: [25:28]

Regardless of the fact that we had 30, 60, you know, other agreements that were not as good, in fact, may have been worse what the employees had to begin with. But bottom line, that’s what they saw. You go into negotiations, that’s the agreement that gets slapped down on the table is, okay, Mr. Employer, that’s the one we need you to sign. And then you start negotiating over those terms and conditions of employment where the union just takes a firm position, and that’s what ends up the arbitrators end up looking at. That’s their reference point.

Phil Wilson: [25:54]

Yeah.

Phil Wilson: [26:00]

Mm-hmm.

Dave Sapenoff: [25:58]

So,

Dave Sapenoff: [26:05]

you know, for you know, again, then what it takes out of it for the employees is like, you know, well, one way or the other, I’m gonna wind up with an agreement and you know, the unions will say, start quoting their statistics of you have a ninety percent chance, a ninety-five percent chance of ending up with more than what you have now. It’s risk free. And which for employers, non-union employers, that’s that I’m telling you, I think.

Phil Wilson: [26:14]

Mm. Yeah. Which might actually turn out to be yeah. Might

Dave Sapenoff: [26:25]

More than anything, this’ll drive organizing because it takes an element of risk out of voting for a union. Now you have virtually nothing to lose other than potentially getting in locked into a two-year agreement that maybe wasn’t quite what you were expecting.

What Employers Can Do Now [26:55]

Phil Wilson: [26:45]

I mean, I think you have a lot more to lose than that. You have what you have to lose, you might lose your job because the agreement that gets imposed, the employer can’t survive. You definitely are going like you t want to talk about inflation. You know, like if l even you know, assuming that all these employers survive, if all if everyone’s labor costs are going up in all of these companies.

Dave Sapenoff: [26:55]

Mm-hmm.

Phil Wilson: [27:10]

You know, that gets passed on to the people who buy the those products and services. And as we, you know, in the world we live in right now, yeah, we’re already, you know, choking on inflation. It like that becomes even more of an issue. Like there’s you know, it’s just it’s turtles all the way down. Like it’s a it’s a terrible idea. so I think we got that part established. I think the last part is just what can you do? Okay. So if you’re an employer and you’re listening

Phil Wilson: [27:45]

To this podcast. And so a lot of people, this has been kind of out there as like an idea for a long time, actually. So this was part of EFCA, the Employee Free Choice Act. It then was part of the PRO Act. So they’ve tried this a couple times and it didn’t get anywhere. this time there is a certainly better than zero chance that this becomes law. And what can you do?

Phil Wilson: [28:10]

So the first thing that you can do is just educate yourself on it. So you now have at least heard what Dave and I have to say about it. you need to talk to if you happen to know you know if you’re not a company owner, then you need to talk to the owner of your business about this is a real and present danger that this becomes law. and then you need to be active, you know, politically. There’s a number of Republicans.

Phil Wilson: [28:40]

Who are the reason why this has a chance of becoming law is there are a number of Republicans that are that signed on to the discharge petition that will vote for this in the House, that co sponsored it in the Senate, that are that are pushing this as kind of their populist, you know, working class representative bona fides. All right. And they

Phil Wilson: [29:05]

They’re doing it for a political reason, which I understand, but they have not, they don’t understand the implications of this becoming an actual law. And if that does become law, it will be too late. So you should look at your own, you know, House and Senate representatives, anybody that you have influence over, and let them know this is a terrible idea.

Phil Wilson: [29:25]

if you are a chamber member, you should get involved. They have a they have a project called a Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. you should get involved with them. yeah, anything that you can do to sort of let people know, first of all, that this is even a thing, and that it’s a bad idea and that it needs to either be, you know, wildly amended or ideally just not be a thing, that’s what’s important to do now.

Phil Wilson: [29:55]

Anything else you would add, Dave?

Final Thoughts and Call to Action [30:04]

Dave Sapenoff: [30:04]

Absolutely.

Dave Sapenoff: [30:10]

I couldn’t have said it better. if as an employer you’ve never been active politically, this is the time to pick up a phone, send an email, send something to your elected representatives and just voice your opinion on this. you know, bad facts make bad law. This is this is a fact based situation that you know, is just resulting in some really bad law. And

Dave Sapenoff: [30:35]

So anyway, you know, I couldn’t agree more. the time for action is now.

Phil Wilson: [30:39]

Right. Well, Dave, thanks for joining me. I really appreciate it. As always, great insights and even personal experiences dealing with sort of, you know, what the public sector version of this looks like. It’s like I said, terrible idea. anything that you can do to try to like stop it, you should. And we will, I’m sure, see you again sometime soon. So thanks, Dave. Yeah, take care.

Dave Sapenoff: [31:04]

Thanks, Phil. Thanks for having me again.

Dave Sapenoff: [31:08]

Take care.

END OF TRANSCRIPT [31:08].