🔓
Sign in as a Member to unlock the full view of S.3124. · Full carveout list, all affected companies, party defectors, and 30-day trade predictions.
Become a Member$24.50/mo already a Member? Sign in →
S.3124 · 119TH CONGRESS

Protection on the Picket Line Act

Status
In Committee
Sponsor
Tuberville, Tommy (R-Alabama)
Official Source
Investability
0/100
Stage
COMMITTEE
Related Bills
0
Full Text
1,683 chars
Alive
Yes

What This Bill Does · Plain English

Summary
Plain-English summary not yet available for this bill. Check back after our next analysis run.

Action Timeline

2025-11-06
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
2025-11-06
Introduced in Senate

Frequently Asked Questions

Did S.3124 pass?
S.3124 is still alive. Current stage: COMMITTEE. Pass likelihood: pending.
Who sponsored S.3124?
S.3124 was sponsored by Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama).

Full Bill Text

119 S3124 IS: Protection on the Picket Line Act U.S. Senate 2025-11-06 text/xml EN Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain. II 119th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 3124 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES November 6, 2025 Mr. Tuberville (for himself and Mr. Cassidy ) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions A BILL To amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect employees from harassment and abuse, and for other purposes. 1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Protection on the Picket Line Act . 2. Protecting employees from harassment and abuse Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act ( 29 U.S.C. 158 ) is amended by adding at the end the following: (h) In any case in which an employer takes disciplinary action against an employee for harassment or abuse that occurs in the course of activity protected under section 7, it shall not be an unfair labor practice under this section for the employer to take such disciplinary action unless— (1) the General Counsel makes an initial showing that— (A) the employee engaged in activity protected under section 7; (B) the employer knew of that activity; and (C) the employer had animus against that activity, as proven with evidence sufficient to establish a causal relationship between the disciplinary action and the activity protected under section 7; and (2) the employer has not met the burden of persuasion to prove that the employer would have taken the same disciplinary action in the absence of the activity protected under section 7. .
🔒 GovGreed Pro · Trading Intelligence on S.3124 Get Access — $24.50/mo
Loading intelligence layer…
Bill text sourced from GovInfo.gov · public domain · last updated 2026-09-14. Plain-English summary, score breakdown, and trading-intelligence panels are GovGreed-original analysis derived from STOCK Act filings, SEC Form 4 disclosures, FEC contributions, and Senate LDA lobbying reports — all publicly filed federal records. GovGreed is not affiliated with the U.S. Government. Not financial advice. [live render]