Upcoming! Lawmakers in California Seek Ban on Workplace Anti-Union Meetings

MJP –

The Democrats’ latest effort to bolster union activity in the face of a revitalized labor movement was a bill prohibiting companies from making employees sit through anti-union meetings, which California lawmakers delivered to Governor Gavin Newsom on the last day of their session.

Under Senate Bill 399, which would prevent employers from forcing employees to attend so-called captive audience sessions regarding their religious or political beliefs, California would become the tenth state to do so if Newsom approves it.

One such statute was signed last year by Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz of Minnesota, and Walz has emphasized it during his campaign.

The California bill is primarily targeted at one type of mandatory workplace meeting—when managers debate whether employees should form a union—but it does allow for discussions of employers’ opinions on legislative proposals or candidates.

A growing number of California workers have expressed an interest in unionization in the past few years, mirroring a national trend. The number of union elections has increased dramatically over the past three years, reaching a high of nearly 17,000 in 2023 at over 300 locations in California. A more than fourteen thousand worker union election has taken place in California this year, according to an analysis by CalMatters of data from the National Labor Relations Board.

We are currently playing an ad in the video player. In just five seconds, using the keyboard or mouse, you can evade the commercial.

Employers cannot intimidate employees or deprive them of benefits for being union supporters, yet “captive audience” meetings have been legal according to the National Labor Relations Board’s guidelines for many years. While President Joe Biden was in office, the board’s general counsel vowed to crack down on them, saying they were used to intimidate personnel.

SEE MORE –

California Hits Farmers with $10K Daily Fines: What’s Behind the New Penalties?

In the view of business organizations, the bill’s expansive language would violate the First Amendment rights of employers. There have been challenges against state restrictions in Minnesota and Connecticut in the courts. Being one of the pioneering states to outlaw such gatherings in 2009, Wisconsin eventually caved and decided not to enforce its ban the following year in the face of a lawsuit brought by employers who claimed the restriction violated federal law.

Among the Chamber of Commerce’s most contentious measures this year was SB 399. Tuesday, the chamber issued a legislative notice stating that the bill would “effectively chill any discussions related to legislation, regulations, or other ‘political matters.'”

The business organizations’ August letter to lawmakers was critical of the bill, stating that employers cannot force employees to support a particular candidate or refrain from unionization. Furthermore, they claimed that the measure violates the First Amendment since it permits employers to be fined for discussing employees’ political opinions in the workplace but not for other types of communication.

Ashley Hoffman, an advocate for chamber policy, argued in a letter that the bill’s exclusions for “political organizations” that employ individuals whose job obligations involve political activity are not clear enough.

Opponents argue that the measure does little to curb workplace bullying beyond making it illegal for companies to fire employees who refuse to participate in so-called “captive audience” meetings.

Before voting for the bill, San Bernardino Democrat Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes stated, “If an employer wants to share [their] beliefs at the worksite, that’s fine, but no one should be coerced to listen” on Friday throughout the Assembly floor.

During a news conference at SEIU Local 721 in Los Angeles on Sept. 28, 2023, fast food workers shouted “¡Si Se Pudo!” or “Yes, We Could!,” as Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that would give fast food workers more rights and increase their salaries to $20 per hour beginning in April of 2024.

For unions, who have suffered numerous defeats this legislative session—particularly when contrasted with the 2023 session—the bill’s passage last week was a victory.

Fast food and healthcare workers have had wage increases and benefit increases in the previous two years, although labor-backed requests to make unionization and strikes simpler have been more difficult to implement.

Lorena Gonzalez, leader of the California Labor Federation, told CalMatters, “If we just keep doing legislation that makes things better for workers, that’s good, but it’s not the same power that you’re giving workers in the workplace when they can strike when they can organize without intimidation.”

A law that would have made it easier for farmworkers to organize unions by allowing them to vote in secret without their employers knowing who had signed it was hesitantly signed by Newsom in 2022. Following political pressure from the United Farm Workers and other Democrats, including Biden, he finally gave his support. Now growers are taking that law to court.

The Hollywood writers and actresses who were affected by the “hot labor summer” of work stoppages last year begged him to veto a bill that would have allowed striking workers to obtain unemployment benefits. He vetoed the bill. Even though the measure was reintroduced by the unions this year, it was unable to pass an Assembly committee despite passing the Senate.

The captive audience meetings bill also passed the Senate last year and then eked out of the Assembly last week with just over the minimum 41 votes needed to pass (though a handful of Democrats added “yes” votes later). It won final approval in the Senate Saturday on a 31-9 vote.

The chamber is urging Newsom to veto the bill. The governor has not taken a position and has until the end of September to decide.

Two other bills sent to Newsom last week seek to help laborers cut out of traditional worker protections. He has rejected versions of both before.

Newsom in 2022 vetoed an expansion of unemployment insurance to undocumented immigrants, saying that the bill didn’t identify how to pay for it. The unemployment bill passed this year would require the administration to figure that out, and then report the plan back to the Legislature.

In the past three years, Newsom has twice vetoed an expansion of workplace safety regulations to include domestic workers, such as house cleaners, nannies, and caretakers, citing concerns about subjecting thousands of private homes to possible workplace safety inspections.

The bill passed this year exempts workers who are privately employed by a homeowner or who are sent to private homes by publicly funded programs — such as county programs that pay caretakers for the elderly and disabled.

Instead, the bill that passed this year puts the onus on house cleaning and home care agencies to ensure their employees are safe.