The PRO Act Explained: State Impacts & Employer Guide

What is the PRO Act?

The PRO Act is a proposed federal law (building on prior versions such as H.R. 842) that would significantly amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and related labor statutes.
Its stated purpose is to strengthen workers’ rights to organize, to bargain collectively, and to participate in strikes — and to modernize labor relations in a changing economy.
For employers (especially in the private sector) this legislation would bring material changes.

Current Status

• The PRO Act was re-introduced in both the House and Senate (H.R. 20/S. 852) on March 7, 2025.
• It has strong backing from labor unions and Democratic lawmakers. For example, one poll found that 59% of likely voters support the PRO Act.
• Many business and employer-groups remain strongly opposed.

Key Legislative Challenges

To become law, the PRO Act must pass both the House and Senate and be signed by the President.

• In the Senate, it faces a high barrier: many analysts expect that the PRO Act would require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster (the cloture threshold) rather than just a simple majority.
• Even though the House may be more friendly, the Senate’s procedural rules and the need for bipartisan support make passage uncertain.
• Given the large economic and regulatory impact of the bill (independent-contractor reclassification, joint-employer liability, repeal of right-to-work laws), there is strong opposition from business sectors, which further complicates prospects.

Main Provisions of the PRO Act

Here are the main features of the PRO Act, framed in employer-and-policy terms:

Expansion of Covered Workers & Narrowing of “Supervisor” / “Independent Contractor” Definitions

• The Act would apply a broader “employee” definition (for instance adopting tests like California’s “ABC” test) so that more workers (currently classified as independent contractors) may be covered by NLRA rights.
• It would narrow the definition of “supervisor,” meaning fewer front-line workers would be excluded from union protections.
• It would expand “joint employer” liability: entities that control material aspects of a worker’s conditions may be treated as employers under the NLRA.

Strengthening Union Organizing, Elections & First Contracts

• The bill seeks to accelerate union representation and first-contract processes: for example, limiting employer delays in bargaining, introducing mediation/arbitration to reach first-contracts.
• It would tighten or restrict employer anti-union tactics: e.g., ban mandatory “captive audience” meetings (employer-forced anti-union gatherings) and limit employer interference in elections.
• It would require employers to provide unions with employee contact information (name, home address, phone, email) before elections.
• It allows union elections to be conducted by mail, electronically, or at locations more favorable to workers.

Strengthening Remedies & Penalties

• Employers found to violate the NLRA under the Act may face civil penalties (for each violation) and personal liability for directors/officers who knew of or directed violations.
• Workers would get stronger remedies: e.g., full back pay without deduction for interim earnings, and in some cases double damages.

Additional Key Features

• The Act would prohibit “right to work” laws from limiting union-security clauses (i.e., requiring non-members who benefit from union bargaining to pay their share).
• It would protect secondary boycotts and strike actions (including “intermittent strikes”) and prohibit replacement of striking workers (for economic strikes).
• It would ban employer requirements for employees to waive collective/class action rights as a condition of employment (i.e., mandatory arbitration that prohibits class actions).

Implications for Employers

If the PRO Act becomes law, employers should anticipate several material implications:

• Increased risk and liability: Expanded definitions of “employee,” “joint employer,” and stricter penalties mean employers may face more liability, especially if they use contractors, outsource, or have complex staffing models.
• Organizing campaigns may speed up: Union organizing drives may become more efficient (via easier contact, faster elections, less employer delay), meaning employers must be prepared for union campaigns with less lead time.
• First-contract pressure: Under the Act, employers may be required to enter binding arbitration if they cannot reach a first contract with a newly recognized union — limiting their leverage in negotiations.
• Reduced employer control: The ban on certain anti-union tactics (captured audience meetings, limiting employee access to email for organizing) means employers have fewer tools to shape union campaigning.
• Operational model impacts: Employers relying on independent contractor models, or layered subcontracting/outsourcing, may need to reassess business models if more workers become classified as employees under the law.
• Increased administrative burdens: Compliance obligations may increase (reporting union-busting expenditures, providing employee contact lists, maintaining new notices, possible mediation/arbitration processes).
• Cost and strategic implications: Employers may face higher labor costs (if union bargaining becomes more prevalent), more complex supply-chain risks (due to secondary boycotts), and loss of scheduling/worker classification flexibility.

In short: Employers should review their labor relations strategies, staffing/contracting models, union readiness plans and compliance infrastructure.

Key PRO Act Provisions with State-Level Impacts

1. Repeal of State “Right-to-Work” Laws

• If enacted, the PRO Act would override state RTW statutes that currently prevent unions from requiring non-members to pay fees.
  States affected most: Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia, Nebraska, and Wyoming.
  These states could see major shifts in union participation and collective bargaining costs.

2. Reclassification of Independent Contractors (“ABC Test”)

• The bill would redefine who qualifies as an “employee” under the NLRA, using a stricter ABC test. This could reclassify many freelancers and gig workers — expanding union rights to new sectors.

3. Broadened “Joint-Employer” Standard

• Companies that indirectly control working conditions (such as franchisors or staffing clients) could be considered employers under federal labor law.
  This means potential shared liability for labor violations or bargaining duties.

4. Stronger Penalties and Private Lawsuits

• Employers could face fines of up to $50,000 per violation, personal liability for company officers, and new private rights of action for workers.

Which States Would Feel It Most?

According to multiple analyses, the PRO Act would hit right-to-work and contractor-heavy states hardest.

• Highest risk states: Florida, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Nebraska, Wyoming.
• Why: These states rely heavily on flexible contractor models and RTW laws that would be nullified by the Act.
• Lower impact states: Those without RTW laws (mainly in the Northeast and West) may face fewer disruptions but would still see changes to joint-employer and contractor rules.

What This Means for Employers

In Right-to-Work States

• Prepare for potential union fee requirements and expanded bargaining obligations. Review how your labor strategy depends on current RTW protections. 
  

In Contractor-Heavy States

• Audit your independent contractor classifications — many workers may be reclassified as “employees” eligible for unionization.

For Multistate or Franchise Operations

• Map out all franchising, staffing, and outsourcing arrangements to assess “joint-employer” exposure. Federal preemption means you’ll need consistent compliance across all states. 

In Non-RTW States

• Even if you’re not affected by the RTW repeal, anticipate higher penalties, faster union elections, and binding first-contract arbitration under the PRO Act.

Bottom Line: Preparing for Possible Changes

• The PRO Act’s impact won’t be uniform. Employers in right-to-work and contractor-dependent states face the greatest disruption, while others must still adapt to expanded federal oversight. Proactive audits and region-specific compliance strategies are the best way to stay ahead of potential reforms.

Related Reading and Resources

• As the debate around the PRO Act continues, it’s important to keep an eye on other legislative and regulatory changes shaping the workplace. For a complete overview of these shifts, visit Navigating Labor Law Changes: Key Updates and What They Mean for You.
• Once you’ve explored the PRO Act’s national impact, dive into the day-to-day pay and termination regulations in our post, Tip Pools, Paychecks, and Terminations: What Employers Must Know.
• States with “right-to-work” laws may face significant shifts under the PRO Act. Understanding how these federal changes interact with state labor protections is easier when you consult Federal vs. State Labor Laws in 2026.

 

 

Common Questions About the PRO Act

Q1. Would the PRO Act apply to independent contractors (e.g., gig workers)?

Yes. One key provision of the PRO Act is adopting a broader definition of “employee,” which makes it more difficult to classify workers as independent contractors under the NLRA. This means some gig workers, subcontractors, and staffing-agency employees could gain union rights and protections. 

Q2. Does the PRO Act eliminate right-to-work laws?

In effect, yes. The PRO Act would override state right-to-work laws by allowing union-security clauses — meaning all employees covered by a union contract could be required to pay their share of bargaining costs, even in states that currently prohibit such fees. 

Q3. How would the PRO Act change union elections?

The Act would streamline and speed up union elections. Employers would need to provide unions with employee contact information, and elections could occur by mail or electronically. It would also limit employer-led “captive audience” meetings and allow automatic union certification in some cases if employer interference occurs. 

Q4. What penalties would employers face under the PRO Act?

Employers could face civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation, as well as personal liability for directors and officers who knowingly commit unfair labor practices. The Act would also allow employees to file lawsuits directly in federal court, expanding remedies beyond current NLRB enforcement. 

Q5. How will the PRO Act affect first-contract bargaining?

The Act would impose specific timelines for bargaining between newly certified unions and employers. If negotiations fail, mediation and then binding arbitration could follow — reducing an employer’s ability to delay or avoid a first collective bargaining agreement. 

Q6. When might the PRO Act take effect?

As of now, the PRO Act has been introduced and passed in some form in the House but has not become federal law. The timeline for implementation depends on future congressional action and any amendments made before passage. Employers should monitor legislative developments closely.