PRO-Tip: Only Some Labor Reforms Are Pro-Worker

Executive Summary

In the past five years, conservatives have reconsidered their relationship with the American labor movement, culminating in the address by Teamsters president Sean O’Brien at the 2024 Republican National Convention and subsequent efforts by the Trump administration and members of Congress to advance labor priorities in early 2025. In conjunction, working-class voters have continued their shift toward the Republican Party and its policy positions. The result has been substantial confusion over the definition of “pro-worker” or “pro-labor” policy, with the media often presenting support for the Democratic Party’s Protecting the Right to Organize Act (“PRO Act”) as the litmus test over the objection of Republicans.

In March 2025, American Compass partnered with YouGov to survey 1,000 Americans regarding their opinions about organized labor and reforms to American labor law. The survey asked respondents how favorably they viewed seven discrete labor reforms that are key components of the PRO Act. These reforms would make it easier for workers to join a union and collectively bargain with their employer. We found:

Americans have a generally favorable attitude toward labor unions.

• Overall net favorability for labor unions is +36, with even Republicans at +8.
• Among Republicans, age represents a major divide, with those born before 1980 holding generally negative views while the views of those born in 1980 mirror those of the overall population.
• Democrats (+73), not frontline workers without supervisory responsibilities (+33), are the particularly enthusiastic group.

PRO Act reforms are not broadly popular; some generate strongly favorable ratings, but others are much less popular, and “card check” receives negative scores.

• Favorability ratings are highest for reforms that would increase worker awareness of labor rights (+58), expedite the initial collective bargaining agreement process (+40), and penalize employers who violate labor rights (+39).
• Other reforms are much less popular, including those that would provide unions with workers’ personal contact information during organizing campaigns (+6), eliminate state right-to-work laws (+5), and allow unions to be authorized if a majority of workers sign union authorization cards, commonly known as “card check” (-6).
• These views hold even among Republicans, where the more popular reforms are all viewed quite favorably (+19 or higher) while the less popular ones all receive negative scores.

Working-class Americans—respondents without a four-year degree and household income of $30,000 to $80,000—hold views similar to the broader population.

• Working-class respondents perceive the same reforms more and less favorably, but tend to have less favorable views in general and particularly negative views of reforms that would eliminate state right-to-work laws and allow unions to be certified via card check.

Americans Hold Positive View of Labor Unions

The survey posed the basic question: What is your view of labor unions? Respondents generally hold a net favorable view, which is calculated as the share with very or somewhat favorable views minus the share with very or somewhat unfavorable views.

The favorable view of labor unions includes Republican respondents, who hold a net favorable view of +8%. However, a stark contrast emerges between Old Republicans (born before 1980) and Young Republicans (born in 1980 or later), indicating a generational shift in sentiment. The former have a net unfavorable view of labor unions, while the latter’s view is overwhelmingly favorable.

Americans Show Strong Support for Some Labor Reforms But Not Others

The survey asked respondents how favorably they viewed seven discrete labor reforms that are key components of the PRO Act. These reforms would make it easier for workers to join a union and collectively bargain with their employer. The appendix provides, for each reform, the specific question wording and favorability scores across demographic groups.

Labor reforms presented to respondents include those that would increase worker awareness of labor rights, provide unions with workers’ personal contact information during organizing campaigns, penalize employers who violate labor rights, prevent employers from holding mandatory meetings to express anti-union views, allow unions to be authorized if a majority of workers sign union authorization cards, expedite the initial collective bargaining agreement process, and eliminate state right-to-work laws.

Of the seven labor reforms addressed in the survey, three receive strongly favorable responses, three earn very weak support, and one lands in between. The proposal that would allow unions to be authorized if a majority of workers sign union authorization cards, commonly known as “card check,” is viewed outright unfavorably.

Support for Some But Not All Labor Reforms Persists Across Parties

Democrats are more supportive of the proposed labor reforms than Republicans and Independents, holding solidly favorable views of all the proposals except “card check.” Republicans and Independents hold generally negative views of not only “card check” but also nullification of right-to-work laws and disclosure of personal information during organizing campaigns.

This leaves four reforms with potentially solid bipartisan appeal. Republicans and Independents have strongly favorable views of reforms that would increase worker awareness of labor rights, penalize employers who violate labor rights, and expedite the initial collective bargaining agreement process after workers vote to join a union. Preventing employers from holding mandatory meetings to express anti-union views may have potential as well.

Young Republicans’ Appetite for Labor Reforms is Far Greater than Old Republicans’

In assessing potential for bipartisan support, it may also be helpful to distinguish between the attitudes of younger (born 1980 or later) and older (born before 1980) Republicans. Young Republicans hold substantially more favorable views—in some cases by nearly 50 points—than their Old counterparts. Even then, though, it is the same three reforms that earn the strongest support from Young Republicans, along with net positive support from Old ones.

Working-Class Americans Have Mixed Views on Labor Reforms 

Working-class respondents—those without a four-year degree and household income of $30,000 to $80,000—have mixed views about the reforms contemplated in the survey. They hold clearly favorable views of reforms that would increase worker awareness of labor rights, penalize employers who violate labor rights, prevent employers from holding mandatory meetings to express anti-union views, and expedite the initial collective bargaining agreement process after workers vote to join a union.

But they indicate very little support for reforms that would provide unions with workers’ personal contact information during organizing campaigns, allow unions to be authorized if a majority of workers sign union authorization cards, and eliminate state right-to-work laws. In general, rather than being most supportive of putatively “pro-labor” reforms, the views of working-class voters differ little from views of the population as a whole.

APPENDIX

Posting Requirements of Labor Rights

Many workers are unaware of their rights under federal labor law, including their right to join a union, engage in collective bargaining, or advocate for better workplace conditions. 

A proposed law would require employers to display visible notices in the workplace explaining their employees’ rights under federal labor law, including the right to unionize and bargain collectively. 

Supporters say this requirement would ensure workers know their rights, while opponents say it creates unnecessary burdens for employers, especially small businesses.

How favorably would you view a requirement to display notices of organizing rights?

• Very favorable
• Somewhat favorable
• Somewhat unfavorable
• Very unfavorable
• Don’t know

Net favorability equals share responding “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” less share responding “very unfavorable” or “somewhat unfavorable.”

Disclose Personal Contact Information to Unions

During union organizing campaigns, unions often lack direct access to workers, while employers have constant access to them in the workplace. 

A proposed law would require employers to provide unions with employees’ personal contact information—including home addresses, personal phone numbers, and email addresses—during union organizing campaigns. 

Supporters say this would ensure fairness by allowing unions to communicate with employees directly, providing balanced information, and countering employer-controlled messaging. Opponents say sharing personal contact information without employee consent raises privacy concerns and could result in unwanted communication or undue pressure.

How favorably would you view a requirement that employers provide employee contact information to unions? 

• Very favorable
• Somewhat favorable
• Somewhat unfavorable
• Very unfavorable
• Don’t know

Net favorability equals share responding “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” less share responding “very unfavorable” or “somewhat unfavorable.”

Penalties for Labor Law Violations

Under current labor law, companies face relatively modest financial penalties when they violate workers’ rights, for instance, firing workers who are attempting to organize a union. Typically, the penalty is that the employer must compensate the worker for lost wages. 

A proposed law would impose more substantial financial penalties, such as fines of up to $50,000 per violation and up to $100,000 for repeat or severe offenses. 

Supporters say these penalties would prevent companies from unlawfully interfering with workers’ rights to unionize and collectively bargain. Opponents say the penalties could unfairly burden employers, especially small businesses, and discourage job creation and investment.

How favorably would you view increased financial penalties for unfair labor practices?

• Very favorable
• Somewhat favorable
• Somewhat unfavorable
• Very unfavorable
• Don’t know

Net favorability equals share responding “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” less share responding “very unfavorable” or “somewhat unfavorable.”

Prohibit Captive Audience Meetings

During union organizing campaigns, employers often hold mandatory meetings to communicate messages against unionization to their employees. 

A proposed law would prohibit employers from requiring workers to attend meetings designed to discourage unionization, while still allowing workers to participate if they choose. 

Supporters say employers should not be allowed to force workers to hear anti-union messages, which may unfairly influence them. Opponents say that limiting mandatory meetings infringes on employer speech rights and prevents workers from fully hearing both sides of the debate.

How favorably would you view a prohibition on mandatory employee attendance at anti-union meetings?

• Very favorable
• Somewhat favorable
• Somewhat unfavorable
• Very unfavorable
• Don’t know

Net favorability equals share responding “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” less share responding “very unfavorable” or “somewhat unfavorable.”

Union Authorization via Card Check

Under current labor law, workers wishing to form a union must typically participate in a formal secret ballot election process administered by the federal government. 

Under a proposed law, if an employer breaks the law to interfere with an election and the union loses, then the election result can be reversed if a majority the workers sign authorization cards indicating their desire to join a union.

Supporters say this would discourage employer interference or intimidation. Opponents say it removes the privacy protections of a secret ballot election and may lead to the formation of unions where workers were pressured by the union or coworkers into signing cards. 

How favorably would you view forming new unions without workers voting by secret ballot?

• Very favorable
• Somewhat favorable
• Somewhat unfavorable
• Very unfavorable
• Don’t know

Net favorability equals share responding “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” less share responding “very unfavorable” or “somewhat unfavorable.”

Expedite Initial Collective Bargaining Agreements

After workers vote to form a union, they must negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with their employer. Under current labor law, an employer must bargain with the union, but they are not obligated to agree to a contract. Oftentimes, negotiations will drag on, frustrating workers and defeating the point of having a union. 

A proposed law would require that if a union and employer fail to agree on a first contract after four months, they must enter mandatory mediation, and if mediation fails they must enter binding arbitration, where an arbitrator would determine the terms of the first contract. 

Supporters say this would prevent employers from deliberately delaying negotiations to weaken new unions. Opponents say it would force employers into binding agreements against their will that might not reflect business conditions or financial realities.

How favorably would you view mandatory steps to ensure that an employer and union reach a first contract? 

• Very favorable
• Somewhat favorable
• Somewhat unfavorable
• Very unfavorable
• Don’t know

Net favorability equals share responding “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” less share responding “very unfavorable” or “somewhat unfavorable.”

Nullify State Right-to-Work Laws

Currently, 27 states have “right-to-work” laws, which prohibit arrangements where a worker must pay union dues as a condition of working at a unionized company. 

A proposed law would eliminate state right-to-work laws, allowing unions and employers nationwide to negotiate contracts that require all workers benefiting from union representation to pay dues that would help support the union financially. 

Supporters say requiring all workers to pay union dues prevents “free-riders,” who would benefit from union representation but not contribute to it. Opponents say workers should not have to support a union or give it money as a condition of employment.

How favorably would you view an end to right-to-work laws?

• Very favorable
• Somewhat favorable
• Somewhat unfavorable
• Very unfavorable
• Don’t know

Net favorability equals share responding “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” less share responding “very unfavorable” or “somewhat unfavorable.”

ABOUT THE DATA

The American Compass Family Survey was conducted by YouGov between March 20 and 24, 2025, with a representative sample of 1,000 Americans. YouGov interviewed 1,097 respondents who were then matched down to a sample of 1,000 to produce the final dataset. The sampling frame is a politically representative “modeled frame” of U.S. adults, based upon the American Community Survey (ACS) public use microdata file, public voter file records, the 2020 Current Population Survey (CPS) Voting and Registration supplements, the 2020 National Election Pool (NEP) exit poll, and the 2020 CES surveys, including demographics and 2020 presidential vote.

The matched cases were weighted to the sampling frame using propensity scores. The matched cases and the frame were combined, and a logistic regression was estimated for inclusion in the frame. The propensity score function included age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of education, home ownership, and region. The propensity scores were grouped into deciles of the estimated propensity score in the frame and post-stratified according to these deciles.

The weights were then post-stratified on 2020 presidential election choice as well as a four-way stratification of gender, age (4-categories), race (4-categories), and education (4-categories), to produce the final weight.

In analysis of the results, “Class” is defined by education and income:

• “Lower” (N= 223): less than a four-year degree and household income below $30K; or did not report household income and do not have a high school diploma.
• “Working” (N= 301): less than a four-year degree and household income $30K–$80K; or did not report household income and have either a high school diploma or some college but no degree.
• “Middle” (N= 337): four-year degree or more and household income $30K–$80K; or household income $80K-$150K; or did not report household income and have a two-year or four-year college degree.
• “Upper” (N= 103): household income above $150K; or did not report household income and have a post-graduate degree.
  

Respondents with a four-year college degree or more but household income below $30K are excluded from analyses using the “Class” variable (N= 36).