Striking and Locked Out Workers Healthcare Protection Act
Summary
HB3532, titled the Striking and Locked Out Workers Healthcare Protection Act, would amend the National Labor Relations Act to prohibit employers from terminating or altering an employee’s group health plan coverage during a lockout or while the employee is engaged in a lawful strike. The bill defines group health plan by reference to ERISA and applies both to employer lockouts used in collective bargaining and to lawful strikes by workers.
The bill also creates new civil penalty provisions for these unfair labor practices. Employers could be fined up to $75,000 per violation for cutting off coverage during a lockout and up to $50,000 per violation for doing so during a lawful strike, with higher doubled penalties in cases involving discharge or serious economic harm and repeat violations. The bill further allows the National Labor Relations Board to assess penalties against directors or officers in certain circumstances and directs the Board to consider the gravity of the conduct, employer size, prior violations, and the public interest when setting penalties.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would expand federal labor protections by making health coverage continuation during strikes and lockouts an express statutory obligation under the NLRA. It would add new unfair labor practices to Section 8(a), incorporate ERISA’s definition of group health plan, and authorize significant civil penalties under Section 12, including possible personal liability for corporate officers or directors. The practical effect would be to limit employers’ ability to use health benefits as leverage in labor disputes and to strengthen remedies available to workers and the NLRB.
Sentiment
Based on the bill’s title, structure, and lack of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a worker-protection bill aimed at preserving health coverage during labor disputes. The introduced text suggests a pro-labor policy approach, and the absence of opposition statements or vote history means there is no documented controversy in the supplied record. Overall, the bill’s presentation indicates support for collective bargaining rights and continuity of health benefits for workers.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s impact on employer leverage in labor negotiations and the size of the proposed penalties. Employers and management-side advocates may object that the measure restricts their ability to respond to strikes or lockouts and exposes them to substantial fines and possible officer liability. Labor advocates, by contrast, would likely support the bill as a safeguard against workers losing health insurance during disputes. No specific objections or supporters are recorded in the provided committee materials, so these are inferred policy fault lines rather than documented debate points.