Federal contracts involve considerable dollars, resulting in employment for many workers. GSA’s data show that federal contracts in fiscal year 1993 totaled about $182 billion. Approximately 22 percent of the labor force, 26 million workers, is employed by federal contractors and subcontractors, according to fiscal year 1993 estimates of the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). Federal law and an executive order place greater responsibilities on federal contractors compared with other employers in some areas of workplace activity. For example, federal contractors must comply with Executive Order 11246, which requires a contractor to develop an affirmative action program detailing the steps that the contractor will take and has already taken to ensure equal employment opportunity for all workers, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In addition, the Service Contract Act and the Davis-Bacon Act require the payment of area-prevailing wages and benefits on federal contracts in the service and construction industries, respectively. NLRA, as amended, provides the basic framework governing private sector labor-management relations. The act, passed in 1935, created an independent agency, NLRB, to administer and enforce the act. Among other duties, NLRB is responsible for preventing and remedying violations of the act—unfair labor practices (ULPs) committed by employers or unions. NLRB’s functions are divided between its Office of the General Counsel and a five-member board. The Office of the General Counsel, organized into 52 field offices in 33 regions, investigates and prosecutes ULP charges. The Board, appointed by the President with Senate approval, reviews all cases decided by administrative law judges (ALJ) in the regions. Under Section 8 of the act, it is illegal for employers to interfere with workers’ right to organize or bargain collectively or for employers to discriminate in hiring, tenure, or condition of employment in order to discourage membership in any labor organization; and such behavior is defined as a ULP. After concluding that a violation has been committed, the Board typically requires firms to cease and desist the specific conduct for which a ULP is found. The Board may order a variety of remedies, including requiring the firm to reinstate unlawfully fired workers or restore wages and benefits to the bargaining unit. In some cases, the Board will also issue a broad cease and desist order prohibiting the firm from engaging in a range of unlawful conduct. If an employer to whom the federal government owes money (such as a federal contractor) has failed to comply with an order by the Board to restore wages or benefits, the government has the option of withholding from any amount owed to that employer (including payments under a federal contract) any equal or lesser amount that the contractor owes under the Board order. A withholding in this manner is referred to as a collection by administrative offset. In addition to the remedies mentioned above, the Congress has considered debarring from federal contracts firms that have violated NLRA in the past. In 1977, legislation that would have debarred firms from federal contracts for a 3-year period for willfully violating NLRA was introduced but was never enacted. NLRB has several databases that track cases at different stages of processing. One of NLRB’s databases, the Executive Secretary’s database, tracks all cases that go before the Board. Many of these cases were first heard by an ALJ after an investigation by the Office of the General Counsel’s regional staff determined the case had merit. Cases that go before the Board represent only a small percentage of all ULP cases because most cases are withdrawn, dismissed, or informally settled without being reviewed by the Board. None of NLRB’s databases, including the Executive Secretary’s database, contains information as to whether or not violators have federal contracts. GSA maintains the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) that tracks firms receiving over $25,000 in federal funding in exchange for goods and services provided. For fiscal year 1993, FPDS tracked information on almost 200,000 contracts totaling about $182 billion, which were awarded to over 57,000 parent firms. FPDS contains a variety of information, including the contractor’s name and location, agency the contract is with, type of industry the contractor is engaged in, and contract dollar amounts awarded. However, FPDS does not contain information on contractors’ labor relations records. Federal contracts are awarded to employers who violate NLRA. A total of 80 firms, receiving over $23 billion from over 4,400 contracts, had both labor violations and contracts. Altogether, about 13 percent of total fiscal year 1993 contracts of $182 billion went to these 80 violators (see fig. 1). However, these contracts were concentrated among only a few violators; six violators received about $21 billion of the more than $23 billion in contracts. These totals are likely an underestimate of the number of violators and contracts they received because of the difficulties involved in the manual matching procedure we used in this analysis. This manual procedure was necessitated by the lack of a corporate identification number for firms in the NLRB case data. Because firms may split up, merge, subcontract, operate subsidiaries, or change names, the same firm might have appeared under different names in NLRB case data and the FPDS and thereby escaped our detection. Also, we were unable to verify those firms that went out of business or relocated or for which location data in NLRB case data or FPDS were incomplete or inaccurate. Each of these six violators, listed below, who together received almost 90 percent of the more than $23 billion in contracts awarded to all violators, received more than $500 million in fiscal year 1993 contracts. (See app. II, fig. II.4.) They are also among the largest federal contractors, ranking in the top 20 firms receiving federal contract dollars. McDonnell Douglas ($7.7 billion), Westinghouse Electric ($4.9 billion), Raytheon ($3.5 billion), United Technologies ($3 billion), American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) ($1.4 billion), Fluor Corporation ($508 million). In contrast, contract dollars were not as concentrated among all federal contractors. Firms receiving more than $500 million in contracts got about one-half (47 percent) of all federal contract dollars. Of the 88 cases decided by the Board during fiscal years 1993 and 1994 involving federal contractors, the Board found that the firm had interfered with workers’ right to organize, a Section 8(a)(1) violation, in 44 cases. In 45 of the 88 cases, the Board found that a firm had refused to bargain collectively with employee representatives, a Section 8(a)(5) violation. Thirty-three of the 88 cases involved discrimination by a firm in hiring or condition of employment, which is a violation of Section 8(a)(3). Far fewer cases involved other types of violations. (See app. II, fig. II.1.) In 35 of the 88 cases, the Board required firms to reinstate or restore workers as the remedy for violations. In 32 of these 35 cases, firms were ordered to reinstate unlawfully fired workers. In 6 of them, firms were ordered to restore workers who had been subjected to another kind of unfavorable change in job status. An unfavorable change in job status could mean the worker, for example, was suspended, demoted, transferred, or not hired in the first place because of activities for or association with a union. Some cases involved both an order to reinstate fired workers and an order to restore workers who were subjected to another kind of unfavorable change in job status. (See app. II, fig. II.2.) In 44 of the 88 cases, the Board ordered the firm to pay back wages to affected workers. The Board ordered the firm to restore benefits in 28 cases. In most cases, back wages or benefits were owed to individual workers who had been illegally fired or subjected to another kind of unfavorable change in job status. However, in 12 cases, wages or benefits were ordered restored to all workers in the bargaining unit because the firm illegally failed to pay wages or benefits as required under its contract with the union. Some cases involved both a remedy for individual workers owed back wages or benefits as well as the same type of remedy for the entire bargaining unit. (See app. II, fig. II.2.) The Board also ordered other types of remedies in many of these 88 cases. For example, in 33 cases, the Board ordered the firm to bargain with the union. In 24 cases, firms were ordered to stop threatening employees with the loss of the job or the shutdown of the firm. Firms were ordered in 33 cases to stop other kinds of threats, such as interrogating employees and circulating lists of employees associated with the union. To facilitate the bargaining of a contract, the Board ordered firms to provide information to the union in 16 cases. (See app. II, fig. II.3.) Nearly 1,000 individual workers and thousands of additional workers represented in 12 bargaining units were directly affected by violations of the act in these 88 cases. During fiscal years 1993 and 1994, the Board ordered firms to reinstate or restore 761 individual workers to their appropriate job position. These workers had either been fired or experienced another kind of unfavorable change in job status; for example, they were transferred or not hired. These workers are included among those who were paid back wages or had benefits restored. Altogether, 801 individual workers were paid back wages and 462 workers had benefits restored because of Board-ordered remedies. In addition, the Board ordered firms to restore wages and benefits to contract levels for thousands of workers represented in 12 bargaining units. Most of the contracts awarded to violators in fiscal year 1993 came from the Department of Defense and went to firms primarily engaged in manufacturing. The violations occurred in facilities owned or associated with parent firms that typically had more than 10,000 employees or over $1 billion in annual sales.