By Levi Sumagaysay | CalMatters

On the final day of the session, California lawmakers sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a bill that would ban employers from forcing workers to attend anti-union meetings — the latest attempt by Democratic politicians to support union activity in the face of a resurgent labor movement.

If Newsom signs House Bill 399, California would join nine other states that recently passed laws prohibiting employers from requiring employees to participate in so-called public hearings about their political or religious views.

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

The California bill may include discussions about employers’ views on political candidates or legislation, but it largely focuses on one specific type of required workplace meeting — when bosses discuss whether workers should unionize.

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

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

Business groups say the bill would go much further and violate 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 sued the next year, arguing that it violated federal law, the state relented and agreed not to enforce the ban.

The California Chamber of Commerce has made SB 399 one of the most hotly contested bills this year. In a legislative alert Tuesday, the chamber said the bill would “effectively chill any discussion related to legislation, regulation or other ‘policy issues.’”

In an August letter to lawmakers opposing the bill, business groups argued they could no longer force employees to vote for specific candidates or vote against unions. They also said that because the bill could punish bosses for discussing politics with employees but not other issues, it violated the First Amendment.

The bill includes exemptions for “political organizations” that employ individuals whose official duties require them to engage in political activity, but chamber policy advocate Ashley Hoffman said in a letter that it was too vague.

However, supporters of the bill say it is only aimed at combating workplace bullying by penalizing employers who punish employees for refusing to attend a “meeting with the public.”

“If an employer wants to share their beliefs in the workplace, that’s fine, but no one should be forced to listen,” Eloise Gómez Reyes, a Democrat from San Bernardino, said on the Assembly floor Friday before the vote for the bill.

The bill’s passage last week was a victory for unions amid a string of defeats in the Legislature this year, especially when compared to the 2023 session.

While the state has raised the wages of fast-food and health care workers over the past two years and expanded employee benefits like paid sick leave, union-backed demands to make it easier to unionize and organize strikes have proven harder to pass.

“If we just pass laws that make things better for workers, that’s fine, but it’s not the same power that’s given to workers in the workplace where they can strike and organize without fear,” Lorena Gonzalez, leader of the California Labor Federation, told CalMatters.

In 2022, Newsom reluctantly signed a law making it easier for farmworkers to unionize by allowing them to signal their support without employers knowing who was voting. He only agreed after the United Farm Workers brought political pressure from other Democrats, including Biden. That law is now being challenged in court by growers.

Last year, he vetoed a bill that would have allowed striking workers to collect unemployment benefits, a proposal that Hollywood writers and actors said would have helped them survive the “hot summer of work” of the strikes. Unions tried to revive the bill this year, and it passed the Senate but failed to get enough votes to get through a House committee.

The captive audience meeting bill also passed the Senate last year, then died in the Assembly last week with just over the minimum 41 votes needed to pass (though a handful of Democrats later added “yes” votes). It was finally approved in the Senate on Saturday by a vote of 31-9.

The House is urging Newsome to veto the bill. The governor has not taken a position and has until the end of September to make a decision.

Two other bills sent to Newsome last week aim to help workers cut traditional labor protections. He has previously rejected versions of both.

Newsom vetoed a 2022 expansion of unemployment insurance to undocumented immigrants, saying the law didn’t specify how it would be paid for. Unemployment legislation passed this year would have required the administration to figure that out and then submit a plan back to the Legislature.

Newsom has twice vetoed expanding workplace safety regulations to include domestic workers such as cleaners, nannies and caregivers in the past three years, citing concerns about subjecting thousands of private homes to possible workplace safety inspections. The law 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 caregivers for the elderly and disabled.

Instead, a law passed this year requires cleaning and home care agencies to ensure the safety of their employees.

Originally published: September 5, 2024 at 4:30 PM