Republicans Can Help Workers without Helping Unions

What America’s working class actually wants is for political leaders to pursue a pro-worker rather than a pro-union agenda.

After Donald Trump in the 2024 election won a higher a share of the unionized vote than any Republican presidential nominee since at least Ronald Reagan, and after arguably prioritizing the working class more than any Republican candidate in modern history, his selection for labor secretary was always going to be one of the most telling of his second administration. Either Trump’s pro-union campaign trail messaging would turn out to be more rhetoric than reality, or he would buck the GOP’s century-plus tradition of being America’s pro-business political party.

With the nomination of Representative Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R., Ore.) to become his labor secretary, we finally have our answer: The rhetoric was real. But President-elect Trump — and, if the Senate confirms the nomination, the GOP writ large — are misreading the moment. What America’s working class wants is for political leaders to pursue a pro-worker rather than a pro-union agenda.

During her time in office, Chavez-DeRemer has voted more like a Democrat than a Republican on labor policy. She co-sponsored the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, which would override rules in many states that limit collective bargaining by government employees. Even more prominently, she threw her support behind the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act), a longtime priority of the Democratic Party. A wish list for labor unions, the PRO Act would, among other things, enhance the powers of the National Labor Relations Board, weaken state-level right-to-work laws, and reclassify broad swaths of independent contractors — from real estate agents to gig economy workers — into full-scale employees.

It therefore comes as little surprise that union leaders such as Teamsters president Sean O’Brien and Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, are both eagerly supporting Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination. But the historic political realignment of the unionized workforce in the 2024 election did not take place because blue-collar workers wanted Republicans to suddenly pursue the ideological agenda of their union bosses. Instead, these workers explicitly rejected the union brass and its unswerving allegiance to the Democratic Party. Now, as a reward for turning on Democrats, the Republicans are nonsensically giving them the labor policy of Democrats.

What America’s working class is really rebelling against is the increasingly rigid and outdated labor-policy priorities of the political Left. Liberal government officials have attempted to one-size America’s economy, seeking, for example, to repeal the so-called tipped wage credit and thereby erode tipping in the restaurant industry, and to replace it with a higher minimum wage. Liberal government officials have also pursued rules that would force gig workers, barbers, and even freelance writers to give up their independent contracting status to become traditional employees.

This is not what workers want. More than anything else, survey after survey shows that American workers want flexibility, not rigidity. Whether it’s work-from-home arrangements or more control over their schedule, workers seek autonomy and variety in the work arrangements they pursue. Over 60 percent of workers report that workplace flexibility is more important than salary or benefits and that they want more control over when and where they work. This is not simply the preference of the white-collar remote-work crowd either, as more than 80 percent of hourly and shift workers report that they are more satisfied in their jobs when they have at least some ability to influence their work schedule.

Rather than a monolithic labor market of nine-to-five traditional employment, coerced union dues, and the elimination of alternative and independent work arrangements such as contracting or tipped positions, American workers want a diverse, flexible, and dynamic set of employment options. It is here that Republicans should focus, demonstrating that they are responsive to the real wishes and desires of workers.

Republicans should pursue a flexibility agenda for the American worker. For instance, given the popularity of independent and tipped work arrangements, Republicans should legally protect these roles while also establishing a portable benefit system — popular with both employers and workers — that allows these workers access to paid sick leave, unemployment insurance, and other benefits on worker-controlled benefit exchanges. In a similar vein, rather than simply muddling along with America’s current inflexible employer-based retirement system, which makes it difficult for workers to roll over old retirement accounts to new jobs, a system of automatic portability for retirement accounts could empower workers to better save for the future.

The GOP could also provide more options for businesses and workers alike by creating an opt-in structure for willing workers to agree to two-week overtime averaging — which businesses desire to reduce labor costs — in return for greater scheduling clarity and autonomy for this pool of workers. Other ideas include combating the creeping credentialism in the American economy, reforming onerous occupational licensing laws, and expanding the scope of practice for roles like those of dental hygienists and paralegals. Such reforms would help more Americans join the middle class while also allowing Republicans to stay true to their traditional pro-market and deregulatory instincts.

It is clear that America’s working class is giving the GOP a fresh look after decades of disappointment with progressive politicians. But a Department of Labor led by Chavez-DeRemer would show that Republicans, just like Democrats, are more interested in supporting unions than in helping workers.