California lawmakers want to ban anti-union meetings at work

By Levi Sumagaysay | CalMatters

On the final day of their session, California lawmakers sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a bill banning employers from forcing workers to sit through anti-union meetings — the latest attempt by Democratic politicians to support union activity amid a revived labor movement.

If Newsom signs Senate Bill 399, California would join nine other states that have recently passed laws prohibiting an employer from requiring workers to attend so-called captive audience meetings about their political or religious views.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, signed one such law last year, and has touted it on the campaign trail.

The California bill can cover discussions of employers’ views on political candidates or legislation, but it’s largely aimed at one specific kind of required workplace meeting — when bosses discuss whether workers should unionize.

California workers, following a nationwide trend, have increasingly sought unionization in recent years. Union elections have spiked in the last three years, with nearly 17,000 workers voting at more than 300 California workplaces in 2023. So far in 2024, more than 14,000 California workers have voted in a union election, according to a CalMatters analysis of National Labor Relations Board data.

The National Labor Relations Board has generally allowed “captive audience” meetings for decades — provided employers don’t threaten workers or withhold benefits for supporting a union. But the board’s general counsel under President Joe Biden has sought to crack down on them, arguing they are often used to intimidate employees.

Business groups say the bill would be much broader, and would infringe on employers’ free speech rights. State bans in Connecticut and Minnesota have been challenged in court. Wisconsin in 2009 was one of the first states to ban such meetings; when employers filed suit the following year, arguing it conflicted with federal law, the state backed down and agreed not to enforce it.

The California Chamber of Commerce made SB 399 one of their most fiercely contested bills this year. In a legislative alert on Tuesday, the chamber said the bill would “effectively chill any discussions related to legislation, regulations, or other ‘political matters.’”

In an August letter to lawmakers opposing the bill, business groups argued they already can’t coerce workers to vote for certain candidates or to vote against unionizing. They also said that because the bill could fine bosses for talking to employees about political views but not other matters, it’s a violation of the First Amendment.

The bill includes exemptions for “political organizations” that employ people whose job duties require them to engage in political activity, but chamber policy advocate Ashley Hoffman said in the letter that it’s too vague.

But supporters say the bill only targets intimidation in the workplace by penalizing employers who punish workers for refusing to attend a “captive audience” meeting.

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

The bill’s passage last week was a win for unions amid a number of losses this year in the Legislature, especially compared to the 2023 session.

And while the state in the past two years has increased wages for fast food workers and health care workers, and boosted worker benefits such as paid sick days, labor-backed demands to make it easier to unionize or go on strike have been a tougher sell.