[5]By J.L. Wilson
Association of Oregon Industries [6]
Oregon’s largest business advocate
Senate Bill 519 will pass House today, new bill introduced to expand scope of “Gag Bill”. The Oregon House of Representative is poised to pass SB 519 – “the Employer Gag Bill” – under direction from House Democratic leadership to pass the bill in its exact form without any business input. Passage of SB 519 by the House, plus a signature from Governor Kulongoski, will mean the “Employer Gag Bill” will go into effect on January 1, 2010. But in an unprecedented twist, new legislation was introduced this week to change SB 519 before it even passed the legislature. House Bill 3507 was introduced this week to “fix” SB 519 before SB 519 has even been passed.
As has been typical of this legislative session, HB 3507 merely adds insult to injury by expanding the scope of religious, political or union matters that fall under the dictates of SB 519. HB 3507 is expected to sail through the legislature in the waning days.
In its current form, SB 519 (and HB 3507) undermines an employer from requiring attendance at an organization’s meetings concerning the employer’s opinions on “religious or political matters.” This also extends to the employer’s use of mandatory meetings to inform workers of the organization’s perspective on union organization; an employer right allowed under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) for more than seventy years.
The restrictions imposed on employers by SB 519 (and HB 3507) not only interfere with necessary and productive workplace communications, but also restrict an organization’s ability to require employee attendance at certain meetings – even if such meetings were held during the workday and if employees were paid for their attendance.
AOI argued strongly that SB 519 is unconstitutional and saddles employers with the potential for devastating liability by creating a new protected class of employees. AOI also argued that HB 3507 only makes SB 519 worse.
If SB 519 and HB 3507 become law, they would severely inhibit an employer’s ability to communicate with its workers and, most importantly, would diminish the competitiveness of Oregon employers.
By J.L. Wilson
Association of Oregon Industries [6]
Oregon’s largest business advocate