It’s a tough time for unions in the age of Trump — cities and states can help

The Hill's opinion piece taps into a familiar dynamic in American politics: when one branch of government closes its doors, activists don't simply go home—they find another entrance. With the National Labor Relations Board stacked against union interests and federal legislation like the PRO Act stalled in Congress, the article's turn toward cities and states is both strategic and historically resonant. State and local governments have long served as "laboratories of democracy," and the current push for municipal collective bargaining ordinances and prevailing wage laws follows a well-worn path. The case for subnational action is compelling. Cities like Seattle and Los Angeles have pioneered minimum wage increases, paid sick leave mandates, and sectoral bargaining experiments that have improved conditions for thousands of workers. Project labor agreements on public construction projects have ensured fair wages without requiring federal approval. For unions facing headwinds in Washington, these local victories are tangible and meaningful—they put food on tables and strengthen organizing infrastructure for future fights. But the article's premise deserves scrutiny from the other side. Critics of local labor activism argue that piecemeal regulation creates a patchwork of compliance burdens that disproportionately hurt small businesses and deter investment. They point to studies suggesting that aggressive union-friendly policies can push employers to relocate to more business-friendly jurisdictions, ultimately harming the very workers the policies intend to protect. Furthermore, the National Labor Relations Act's preemption doctrine places significant constraints on what states and cities can actually do regarding union recognition and collective bargaining—constraints that courts have enforced with increasing vigor in recent years. What makes this piece particularly relevant is how it illustrates the broader fragmentation of American labor policy. We are witnessing a strange inversion: as federal labor law ossifies, the real action has shifted to statehouses and city councils, where both progressives and conservatives wield power depending on the jurisdiction. Red states are passing right-to-work laws and preemption statutes that bar local minimum wage hikes; blue cities are responding with their own protective measures. This is federalism in its most adversarial form—a two-front war over the future of work, fought block by block and county by county. Whether one views this as democratic resilience or regulatory chaos likely depends on where one stands. But the article's core insight—that the labor movement's future may be decided less in Washington than in the nation's municipal chambers—is difficult to dispute. For those who believe unions strengthen the middle class, the message is clear: if the federal door is locked, build a new one locally. For those who see union expansion as a threat to economic dynamism, the lesson is equally urgent: the fight has merely shifted venues. Either way, the battleground for American labor policy has fundamentally changed. Source: <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/6071536-protecting-labor