On August 31st, California Senate Bill 399 was passed by the state legislature and is now sitting on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk where he has until the end of September to either approve it or veto it.
The bill forbids employers from “subjecting, or threatening to subject, an employee to discharge, discrimination, retaliation, or any other adverse action because the employee declines to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or affirmatively declines to participate in, receive, or listen to any communications with the employer or its agents or representatives, the purpose of which is to communicate the employers opinion about religious or political matters and would require an employee who refuses to attend a meeting as described to continue to be paid.”
In effect, the point is to forbid employers from forcing employees to attend anti-union meetings. Apparently, giving employees reasons why they shouldn’t unionize counts as political talk. State law already prohibits employers from directing the political activities of their employees, including how they will vote.
It is therefore a bit puzzling how meetings about why a company’s employees should not unionize counts as an expression of political opinion given that it has no bearing at all on the state’s politics whether a particular workforce unionized.
This is a matter directly relating to the nature of the company. It seems like a perfectly relevant topic that business owners should be allowed to broach even if we were to assume that unions are generally desirable.
Whether unions are ultimately beneficial to the labor force and the economy is controversial. There is plenty of evidence that indicates that unions reduce income and wealth inequality. Evidence also suggests that unions stifle innovation and modernization, hurt non-union employees, and increase costs for customers. It’s safe to say that it’s far from settled whether unions are actually beneficial to our economy.
Knowing all of this, an employer should be able to communicate to employees the possible harms of unionization. The law already prohibits intimidation or retaliation for supporting unionization, which seems reasonable and well-justified. Since SB 399 is meant to address employer intimidation, it’s superfluous. So since intimidation is already illegal, the purpose of the bill appears to be to monopolize the discussion in favor of the pro-union side so that employees never even have a chance to consider the alternative. Union representatives are certainly free to communicate the possible benefits employees would receive from unionization.
Lawmakers often act like they have the right answers even when the topic is highly contentious. The bill was authored by state Senator Aisha Wahab of the 10th District. Taking a look at her finances, it seems that a large percentage of her contributions come from unions – not necessarily remarkable for a California democrat given that our state’s politics are well known to be dominated by unions.
Senator Wahab appears to be the prototypical public servant that spends her days in office wasting our taxes on drafting unnecessary legislation that leads to pointless committees that result in misspent time on the legislative floor.
Related Articles
A question for GOP after attacks on immigrants: Have you no sense of decency?
Donald Trump gets the reality of tariffs backwards. Free trade, not protectionism, makes us richer.
Homeless-industrial complex sends out deceptive mailers about Measure A
Gavin Newsom can’t prove price gouging at the pump but wants new refinery law
Kamala Harris backed taxpayer-funded sex reassignment surgeries for illegal immigrants. Have her values changed or not?
Last year she introduced SB 403, which was meant to outlaw caste discrimination. Newsom rightfully vetoed the bill, stating that discrimination based on ancestry, including inherited positions on a cultural hierarchy, was already illegal in California. Arbitrary and permanent social stratifications have no place in a liberal democracy, which is why discrimination on the basis of such systems was already outlawed.
The intellectual arrogance Wahab is demonstrating should be alarming, particularly because this is about disrupting a possible source of relevant information that employees can use to make educated decisions about their lives. Not all employees would want to have dues extracted from their paychecks that are then used to fund the political campaigns of those with whom they disagree. Some employees might not wish to be part of a collective that could force them to strike at any time and lose the ability to provide for their families.
It goes without saying that there are benefits to employees who form or join unions. But this isn’t about preventing employers from coercing their workers into participating in worship sessions. It’s about unjustifiably disallowing employers from engaging with their work force about matters that directly and fundamentally impact their business operations.
Rafael Perez is a Southern California News Group columnist. You can reach him at rafaelperezocregister@gmail.com.