Illinois bans companies from forcing workers to listen to their anti-union talk

Illinois has become the latest state to adopt legislation aimed at protecting workers from their employers' anti-union messaging.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, signed the bill into law on Wednesday, joining a wave of other states that have enacted similar laws over the past couple years as union organizing has surged.

The Illinois Worker Freedom of Speech Act, which takes effect January 1, prohibits employers from holding mandatory meetings to discuss company views on religion or politics, and specifically unions.

Such meetings, known as captive audience meetings, are widely used by companies to convince workers that they'd be better off without a union.

In recent months and years, pro-union workers at Starbucks stores, Amazon warehouses, and a Mercedes-Benz plant in Alabama have described being herded into meetings, sometimes one-on-one, with managers and outside consultants, barraged with text messages, and forced to watch anti-union videos, day after day.

For companies who believe their employees would be ill-served by unions, these meetings have proven effective in dampening worker enthusiasm for organizing campaigns, in some cases even defeating them.

A wave of legislation is banning these meetings

Since 2022, a half dozen states including Connecticut, Minnesota and Washington have made it illegal for employers to mandate attendance at religious, political or anti-union meetings.

These bills have been cheered by labor organizers who welcome the added protections for workers, and derided by business groups who call them employer gag orders.

All together, 18 states have either passed or are considering such legislation, according to Daniel Perez, economic analyst at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

"It's great that states are taking this issue of captive audience meetings seriously," he says.

These meetings loomed large in a failed union campaign in Chicago

Alberto Barraza, organizing director for Painters District Council 14, believes the new Illinois law would have made a difference in a failed union campaign this spring.

The union tried to organize about 45 painters at a small painting business serving commercial clients in greater Chicago.

Many of the painters, including Hilario Becerra, quickly signed union cards, excited about potentially doubling their hourly wage and gaining health insurance through a union contract.

"At the beginning, about 75% or 80% of us were in favor of the union," Becerra says in Spanish.

But then management stepped in, hiring a Spanish-speaking consultant, according to the union. A couple times a week, instead of heading to their job sites, painters were brought into the office in groups and paid to listen to anti-union messaging. The meetings went on for as long as three hours.

It quickly became repetitive, Becerra says. The union would rob them. The union was not good for them. The workers didn't need another party between them and the company.

The consultant also showed up at job sites, taking aside workers individually to continue the pressure campaign, he says.

Finally in June came the union election. The ballot count was 14 to 8 against unionizing. Half of the workers didn't even vote.

"Unfortunately, we couldn't win," says Becerra, blaming the incessant anti-union talk for the union's loss.

Legal challenges to captive audience laws are already pending in other states

Even as Illinois' measure is signed into law, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business are challenging similar laws in other states.

The groups say the laws are a violation of the First Amendment, denying employers their right to free speech, and are also in conflict with the National Labor Relations Act, which protects an employer's communications with employees as long as they do not contain threats of reprisals or promises of benefits.

Given unions are allowed to present their case to workers, one lawsuit argues, not giving employers the same opportunity constitutes "viewpoint discrimination."

Still, nothing in the new laws prevent employers from calling meetings as long as attendance is voluntary.

"If somebody wants to walk away from a meeting, they should have the right to do it without being retaliated against," says Tim Drea, president of the Illinois AFL-CIO, which help pushed through the Illinois legislation.

"We think we're on strong, solid legal ground."

With the bill signed into law, focus turns to educating workers

Under Illinois' new law, a worker who faces discipline for refusing to attend an anti-union meeting has the right to take their employer to court. An "interested party," such as a union, can also file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Labor on that worker's behalf.

Still, labor organizer Barraza knows that many workers may be fearful about skipping out on a company meeting.

So in the coming months, he's on a mission to educate workers, letting them know the law will protect them if they choose to sit out.

"Having that understood, having the mechanisms in place to be able to to enforce it, I think is going to be a game changer for any union organizing drive," he says.