By Michael K. Mahoney
As the
Second Regular Session of the 122nd Maine Legislature came to a
close, employment issues largely remained out of the limelight for the first
time in several years. Among the bills under review, however, was L.D.
1924, An Act to Protect Workers from Religious and Political Intimidation.
As proposed, the bill would have barred employers from taking any adverse action
against employees who:
- support or refuse to support a position or view on a religious or political
matter;
- attend or refuse to attend employer-sponsored meetings, the primary purpose
of which is to convey the employer’s opinion on a religious or political issue;
or
- participate or refuse to participate in employer-sponsored communications,
the primary purpose of which is to convey the employer’s opinion on a religious
or political issue.
At first blush, this legislation appeared destined for enactment in one form
or another. After all, it was sponsored by Senate President Beth Edmonds
(D-Cumberland County) and enjoyed the strong support of organized labor.
At the public hearing before the Legislature’s Labor Committee, however, it
became clear that this bill may have been a solution in search of a
problem. Even supporters of the bill admitted that the anecdotal evidence
they presented related almost exclusively to so-called “mandatory meetings” held
by employers to persuade workers against organizing. As opponents of the
bill pointed out, however, regulation of employers’ activities on labor issues
is governed exclusively by federal law.
Opponents also argued that, if enacted, this bill would prohibit employers
from disciplining an employee who publicly takes a position on a political issue
that negatively impacts the employer’s livelihood. They noted that if, for
example, an employee of a wind-energy company submitted a letter to the editor
decrying the environmental harms associated with wind power, the employer should
be able to discipline, or even terminate, that employee.
Following the public hearing, the Committee’s five Republican members
uniformly voiced their opposition to the bill. Standing alone, these
objections were likely not a cause for concern among the bill’s
supporters. Time and time again, legislation on employment issues has been
enacted, despite the fact that the Labor Committee vote was divided down party
lines. What ultimately doomed this legislation, however, was fragmenting
of Democrats on the Committee. Three of the Committee’s eight Democratic
members, including House Chairman William Smith, joined the Republicans in
opposing even a watered-down version of the bill. With a divided
Democratic caucus in Committee, and pressure from the business and religious
communities to kill the bill, L.D. 1924 ultimately fell decisively in both the
House (119-27) and the Senate 24-10).
