Unions pushing ban on 'captive audience meetings.' What that would mean for RI.

Katherine Gregg, Providence Journal
Updated ·4 min read

PROVIDENCE – Free speech? Union-busting tactic?

From the Rhode Island union point of view: Workers here and across the nation need protection from "offensive or unwanted political speech" by their employers at meetings they dare not skip without putting their jobs at risk.

From the Rhode Island employers' point of view: The legislation that flew out of committee on its way to a full Senate vote next week would prohibit an employer from "communicating how regulations, as well as union organizing efforts, will affect a small business and the workers' jobs."

Such discussions are known in labor parlance as "captive audience meetings." Banning them is one of the top priorities of the AFL-CIO in Rhode Island and a host of local unions.

But killing the bill is an equally high priority for groups that represent employers, such as the Rhode Island Business Coalition and the National Federation of Independent Business, which calls the framing of the bill deceptive.

"This bill appears to attempt to protect the free speech rights of employees in the workplace, but it also limits the First Amendment rights of employers," NFIB State Director Christopher Carlozzi told legislators.

More: He once chased Lincoln Chafee in a George W. Bush mask. Now, he's in line to lead RI AFL-CIO.

Behind the scenes: Amazon prepares to open a facility

The battle here just happens to be playing out as Amazon – a past target of captive meeting accusations in New York – is building a nearly 4-million-square-foot distribution center off Hartford Avenue in Johnston. It is expected to have 1,500 full-time employees once it opens.

Zoom out: What is a 'captive audience meeting' and where is it illegal?

A quick Google search produces this definition of a "captive audience meeting": "A mandatory meeting during working hours, organized by an employer with the purpose of discouraging employees from organizing or joining a labor union. It is considered a union-busting tactic," according to Wikipedia.

At least five states, including New York, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, and Oregon have passed measures barring employers from holding mandatory meetings to talk about religious and political issues, including unionization.

Are captive audience meetings happening in Rhode Island?

Writing on behalf of Service Employees International Union 1199NE, Political Director Alex Moore recalled a long-ago incident at Butler Hospital, where dietary workers were joining a union and an employee was "unjustly fired for refusing to attend a captive audience meeting, a tactic used by employers to dissuade workers from unionizing through forced anti-union propaganda sessions."

"This event sparked a powerful response from his colleagues, who united to confront their employer," Moore continued. "Their solidarity led to the reinstatement of the fired employee."

It is hard to pin down any of the Rhode Island advocates on any recent instances.

The vote by the Senate Labor Committee to effectively ban "captive audience meetings" was 5 to 1, with the lone Republican present – Minority Leader Jessica de la Cruz – casting the only nay vote.

What does the bill do?

It bars an employer from firing or disciplining in any way an employee who refuses to attend an employer-sponsored meeting, "the primary purpose of which is to communicate the employer's opinion concerning religious or political matters."

As Richard McAuliffe, the lobbyist for the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, told senators at a March 20 Senate Labor Committee hearing: "This does not limit free speech of employers at all."

"If an employer, let's say a guy who sells pillows online, decides he wants to talk about how great the former president is and 'the conspiracies' with it, he's more than welcome to do it," McAuliffe wrote. "If an employer wants to talk about why a union is not good for you, they can still have that meeting."

"But as an employee, I can leave and not be disciplined for that."

But not everybody agrees it's as simple as that.

What does each side say?

The advocates for the bill ( H2785) include:

  • Frank Flynn, president of the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals, who told the legislators: "There have been numerous incidents throughout the nation in which employers have forced employees to attend meetings supporting a specific political ideology, anti-union rhetoric or religious doctrine," and that the law establishes a "clear standard" for employers and employees regarding "non-work-related meetings in the workplace."

Those speaking against the bill included:

  • Christopher Carlozzi, the state director of the NFIB, who said: Instead of protecting free speech as it claims, the bill "would actually create constraints on the free speech rights of Rhode Island employers" by prohibiting them from discussing matters that could impact the operation of the business – and the employees' jobs.

  • His arguments were echoed by the Rhode Island Business Coalition, which says it represents 6,280 businesses that employ 231,200 people in Rhode Island.

  • Those co-signing the coalition's letter of opposition to the bill included: the Associated Builders and Contractors, Rhode Island Chapter; the East Greenwich, North Kingstown and Greater Newport Chambers of Commerce; the Rhode Island Mortgage Bankers, Hospitality, Manufacturers, Marine Trade and Staffing Associations, among others.

This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: 'Captive audience meetings' could be banned in RI. Here's what they are.