The story of union organizing at Breads Bakery in New York should have been an ordinary labor story. But that was not the organizers’ mission. Instead, they demanded that the Israeli-owned company end its alleged support for “the genocide happening in Palestine.”
Suddenly, a union drive at a bakery known for babka and rugelach was about whether a workplace could be used to pressure a Jewish- and Israeli-owned business over Middle East politics.
Situations like this are increasingly common, which is why the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) deserves scrutiny.
The House recently passed the FLCA, a bill that would fast-track politicized union bargaining. Supporters describe it as a way to prevent employers from slow-walking newly certified unions. In reality, the legislation would create a process that would weaken democratic accountability inside workplaces and expose employees to ideological battles they never asked to join.
The bill passed the House with support from Democrats and 20 Republicans. It has now moved to the Senate, where it has attracted support from select Republicans eager to reshape the GOP in the image of pro-labor conservative thinker Oren Cass.
Under current law, when private-sector employees vote to unionize, there is no deadline for reaching a first contract. Those contracts can take several months, sometimes more than a year, to negotiate. This isn’t surprising, as union contracts can govern wages, raises, health benefits, vacations, grievance procedures, job classifications and more—issues that affect every worker.
Under the FLCA, bargaining would have to begin within ten days of a union’s request. If no agreement is reached within 90 days, either side can request federal mediation. If mediation fails after another 30 days, the dispute can move to an arbitration panel empowered to impose a binding first contract for two years.
Unions like to describe themselves as democratic institutions. But there is nothing democratic about pushing an entire workplace into a contract under threat of binding federal arbitration.
The FLCA’s cure is worse than the disease, and in today’s union environment, the disease is increasingly political. According to a recent study by the Gevura Fund, “Combined [National Education Association] spending on political activities, lobbying and contributions to outside organizations totals approximately $175 million in FY2025, nearly four times the $45 million spent on direct member representation.” The National Education Association is a public-sector teachers’ union, but its conduct represents a broader pattern, considering how politicized unions have become. The FLCA would essentially fast-track union contracts built on ideological activism rather than workers’ rights.
The Breads Bakery case is a perfect example.
Earlier this year, Breads employees announced a union campaign under the name Breaking Breads. They cited ordinary workplace concerns regarding pay, scheduling and working conditions, but one of their demands was also “an end to this company’s support of the genocide happening in Palestine.” The workers cited the participation of Breads in Jewish and Israel-related communal events and objected to such ties.
When a Jewish or Israeli business is pressured through union organizing because of its supposed ties to Israel or the Jewish people, it is an issue of antisemitism, not workers’ rights.
Under federal law, unions are supposed to represent workers on workplace issues. They are not supposed to become vehicles for pressuring businesses to disavow Israel or submit to any ideological purity test. A union should not be a conduit for importing Middle East politics into a rugelach bakery, especially when the result is to treat Jewish and Israeli communal ties as a bargaining problem.
The Breads Bakery case also illustrates why the FLCA is so dangerous. Under the act, the pathway to unionization would become faster and more coercive. A company such as Breads would have a mere ten days to begin bargaining after a newly elected union’s request; 90 days to reach a deal before mediation could be invoked; and only another 30 days before the matter could be sent to binding arbitration. I have friends who took longer to close on a newly purchased home.
The FLCA would also hurt employees.
Imagine being any employee, Jewish or non-Jewish, who does not want foreign-policy activism injected into their workplace or to be represented by a union that treats their employer’s Jewish or Israeli identity as a bargaining issue. Now imagine that the federal government shortens the bargaining process and makes it easier for that union to rush towards a binding contract.
Workers may end up bound by terms shaped by activists, lawyers and arbitrators whose priorities do not reflect the actual interests of the full workforce.
The FLCA undermines what is supposed to be an open, democratic process by shortening the timeline and handing over employee contracts to binding federal arbitration at the hands of bureaucrats.
Workers deserve better than that. They deserve the right to organize and disagree, and not to have their workplace descend into antisemitism and ideological culture wars under the guise of workers’ rights.
