(The Center Square) – Two new major unionization laws are taking effect in California, reflecting unions’ relatively high strength, approval rating, and membership in the Golden State.
According to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data, California workers are 54% more likely to be members of unions, with 15.4% of California workers belonging to unions, compared to 10% of American workers overall.
Two new laws — AB 800, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2023, and now SB 399, signed into law by Newsom this year, are set to help maintain or even increase union membership in the state.
AB 800, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2023, requires California high school juniors and seniors to be taught about their workplace rights, the achievements of organized labor, and students’ right to join a union.
Education site Chalkboard News used public records requests to discover what exactly this new law is having teachers cover.
“During the week of April 29 through May 3, 2024, all public high schools, including charter schools, will be required to provide students in grades 11 and 12 with information on workers’ rights, including laws on child labor, wage and hour protections, worker safety, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, paid sick leave, paid family leave, state disability insurance, the California Family Rights Act, and the prohibition against misclassification of employees as independent contractors,” Los Angeles Unified School District administrators wrote to the district’s school principles.
“Schools will also be required to educate students on their right to organize a union in the workplace, prohibitions against retaliation, and the pivotal role of labor movements in securing labor protections for workers,” continued the administrators.
Federal Reserve data says over half of American youth between the ages of 16 and 19 participated in the labor market through the early 2000s, but the participation rate has since declined over time to an average of 36.2% nationwide. In California the labor participation rate among this demographic is 28.2%, or 22.1% lower than the national average, suggesting the bill may not have immediate impact, but could change perceptions as more high school graduates enter the labor force later on in life.
SB 399, signed law by Newsom in September, bans employers from punishing employees who do not attend meetings with political or religious purposes, which employees say is necessary to protect their own First Amendment rights.
The California legislature included an official argument in favor of the bill that recounted how workers for Shell in Pittsburgh allegedly were told in 2019 if they did not attend a non-mandatory visit by then-candidate Donald Trump, they would not be able to get overtime.
Employers claim the bill — which goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2025, violates employers’ First Amendment rights.
“It is clear that the motive behind SB 399’s prohibition on employers discussing their opinions about unionization or pending bills is the assumption that employers will talk to their employees about the downsides of unionization and union-sponsored efforts, which the proponents of this bill disagree with,” wrote the bill’s opposition to the legislature. “Employees are already protected by law against coercion, discrimination, retaliation, and hostile environment harassment.”
Aggrieved employees are allowed to use the law to file civil lawsuits for punitive damages, and employers can be fined $500 per employee per incident.
According to Arent Fox Schiff, a national law and lobbying firm, it’s likely employers will sue to prevent the law from taking effect by arguing that it is preempted federal law that allows employers to hold mandatory meetings on unionization as long as the speech does not include threats, reprisals, or holding back of benefits.
“Since the NLRA already sanctions captive audience meetings conducted by employers with employees during working time regarding union and labor-related issues, opponents will argue that SB 399 is in clear conflict with and, therefore, obviously preempted by, this longstanding federal law,” wrote Arent Fox Schiff lawyers Robert Carrol and Marissa Rael.
