2 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in ENGROSSED IN HOUSEcompared with INTRODUCED IN HOUSE (May 12, 2026)

Technical corrections only. The v2 version includes minor stylistic changes in a cross-reference within Section 2(b) and adds the House passage attestation. No substantive policy changes were made to the bill's text.

H.R. 8775119th CongressIntroduced May 12, 2026

Ending Predator Access to Union Power Act

Passed HouseLabor and EmploymentSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]
Committees: Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
Last action: Sep 16, 2026

This analysis was written for v1 (INTRODUCED IN HOUSE, May 12, 2026). ENGROSSED IN HOUSE changed too little to need its own, so it reuses that one rather than a rewrite. The differences between the two are summarized above. View v1

Bottom line

H.R. 8775 expands the list of criminal offenses that disqualify individuals from holding positions of authority within labor unions, specifically targeting those convicted of sex offenses against minors, aiming to enhance safety and integrity.

What it actually does

This bill, titled the "Ending Predator Access to Union Power Act," amends the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) to prohibit individuals convicted of a sex offense against a minor from holding specific positions within labor organizations. These positions include officers, directors, trustees, executive board members, business agents, managers, organizers, or other non-clerical or non-custodial employees. The prohibition lasts for 13 years following the conviction or the end of any imprisonment, whichever is later, aligning with existing disqualification periods for other serious crimes.

Proponents argue

Supporters of H.R. 8775 argue that this legislation is a critical step in protecting vulnerable populations, particularly minors, who may come into contact with labor organizations or their representatives. They contend that individuals with a history of sex offenses against minors should not be in positions of trust, power, or influence within unions, where they might oversee programs, manage facilities, or interact with families. Proponents emphasize that this amendment aligns union leadership standards with broader societal expectations for child safety and ethical conduct, reinforcing public confidence in labor institutions.

Opponents contend

While direct opposition to a bill aimed at preventing sex offenders against minors from holding union positions is rare, potential arguments against similar legislative expansions sometimes focus on the principle of rehabilitation and the scope of federal intervention. Some might generally argue that existing criminal justice systems and background checks are sufficient, or that expanding disqualification lists could be seen as overly broad. However, for this specific offense, organized opposition is highly improbable due to the universally condemned nature of the crime.

The bill is exceptionally concise, making it straightforward for any reader to understand its single, clear policy change within minutes.

Section 2(a)

Prohibition on Holding Union Office for Sex Offenders Against Minors

prominently featuredstraightforward

This core provision of H.R. 8775 modifies Section 504(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. This existing law already bars individuals convicted of certain felonies, such as murder, robbery, or bribery, from holding key positions in labor unions for a period of 13 years. The bill specifically adds "a sex offense against a minor" to this list of disqualifying crimes. Consequently, any person convicted of such an offense would be legally prohibited from serving as a union officer, executive board member, business agent, or any other non-clerical or non-custodial employee within a labor organization for the specified 13-year duration.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupIndividuals convicted of sex offenses against minorsImpactProhibited from holding certain union positions for 13 years.MechanismStatutory amendment to 29 U.S.C. 504(a).ScaleAffects a small, specific subset of individuals who might otherwise seek or hold union positions.

GroupLabor organizations and their membersImpactEnhanced protection and integrity of union leadership, potentially increasing trust.MechanismPrevents individuals with specific criminal backgrounds from holding positions of authority.ScaleBroadly impacts the governance and public perception of labor unions.

GroupMinors who may interact with union-affiliated programs or facilitiesImpactIncreased safety and reduced risk of exposure to individuals with a history of sex offenses against minors.MechanismReduces the likelihood of such individuals being in positions of authority or influence within organizations that may have contact with minors.ScaleProvides a layer of protection for a vulnerable population.

Supporters argue

Proponents assert that this amendment is a vital safeguard, ensuring that individuals with a documented history of harming children are barred from positions of authority within organizations that often interact with the public, including families and youth. They argue it enhances the safety and ethical standing of labor unions, protecting both union members and the broader community from potential harm and maintaining public trust in union leadership.

Critics contend

While direct opposition to this specific measure is unlikely due to the nature of the crime, some general arguments against expanding such prohibitions might include concerns about the duration of the ban or the potential for individuals who have completed their sentences and undergone rehabilitation to be perpetually excluded from certain employment opportunities, even if their union roles do not directly involve minors. However, the overwhelming societal consensus on protecting minors typically overshadows such concerns in this context.

Tradeoffs

The primary tension lies between the societal imperative to protect children from harm and the principles of rehabilitation and reintegration for individuals who have served their time. This provision unequivocally prioritizes child safety and the integrity of institutions over the full restoration of rights for individuals convicted of sex offenses against minors, particularly concerning positions of trust and authority.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.