Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
This bill amends the National Labor Relations Act to prohibit employers from terminating or altering an employee’s group health plan coverage while the employer is conducting a lock-out or while the employee is engaged in a lawful strike. It adopts the ERISA definition of “group health plan,” creates new civil penalties for violations (higher fines for lockout-related violations and lower fines for strike-related violations), allows director or officer liability in some cases, and directs the NLRB to consider employer size, gravity, and prior history when setting penalties.
Labor protection versus employer bargaining leverage
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear statutory intervention that creates new substantive prohibitions and enforcement mechanisms by amending the NLRA and referencing ERISA, with concrete penalty amounts and director/officer liability.
This bill amends the National Labor Relations Act to prohibit employers from terminating or altering an employee’s group health plan coverage while the employer is conducting a lock-out or while the employee is engaged in a lawful strike.
It adopts the ERISA definition of “group health plan,” creates new civil penalties for violations (higher fines for lockout-related violations and lower fines for strike-related violations), allows director or officer liability in some cases, and directs the NLRB to consider employer size, gravity, and prior history when setting penalties.
Penalties generally range up to $75,000 per lock-out violation (doubling to $150,000 in aggravated repeat cases) and up to $50,000 per strike violation (doubling to $100,000 in aggravated repeat cases).
Technically clear and limited, but labor policy changes face partisan and business opposition and Senate filibuster risk; legal challenges possible.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear statutory intervention that creates new substantive prohibitions and enforcement mechanisms by amending the NLRA and referencing ERISA, with concrete penalty amounts and director/officer liability.
Labor protection versus employer bargaining leverage
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Labor protection versus employer bargaining leverage
Likely broadly supportive; views the bill as protecting workers’ access to health care during labor disputes and preventing employer coercion.
Sees penalties and officer liability as necessary deterrents against punitive employer tactics.
Cautious support: appreciates worker health protections but worries about costs and bargaining impacts.
Wants clearer scoping, implementation details, and fiscal/legal analysis before wholehearted backing.
Likely opposed: sees the bill as federal overreach that interferes with employer bargaining strategies and imposes heavy fines and potential personal liability.
Views it as tilting leverage toward unions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically clear and limited, but labor policy changes face partisan and business opposition and Senate filibuster risk; legal challenges possible.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Labor protection versus employer bargaining leverage
Technically clear and limited, but labor policy changes face partisan and business opposition and Senate filibuster risk; legal challenges…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear statutory intervention that creates new substantive prohibitions and enforcement mechanisms by amending the NLRA and referencing ERISA, with concrete penal…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.