Political, religious talk may prove costly

By Lawrence Messina
Associated Press Writer

CHARLESTON November 29, 2007 12:20 am

— Talking politics and religion at the water cooler, or anywhere else, could prove costly to West Virginia employers.
Draft legislation endorsed Wednesday by the joint Judiciary Committee would forbid bosses from requiring staff to attend meetings or take part in some other setting “when the primary purpose is to communicate the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters.”
The measure, which would also extend to an employer’s stand-in at such meetings, bars employers from firing or otherwise punishing workers who complain about such conduct. It would further allow employees so targeted to sue.
Absent a contract, state law allows private employers to fire workers “at will” for any or no reason except discriminatory grounds.
A majority of the interim committee’s senators and delegates agreed to include the proposal among the bills that will be introduced during the regular, 60-day session that begins Jan. 9.
Lawmakers opposing the measure consider it a major overreach by the government.
“I’ll tell you what. I will pass this out to certain members of the community to see if there’s a reaction,” said Sen. Mike Hall, R-Putnam. “And I can guarantee you that there will be one.”
House Majority Leader Mike Caputo helped prompt the legislation. A United Mine Workers official, the Marion County Democrat said such coercive meetings have long been a complaint of union members and during organizing efforts.
“Employers have the right, right now, to bring all their employees into a captive audience meeting,” Caputo said. “They can preach anti-union sentiments, wear them out, show them videos, hire expensive union-busters, and force those employees to sit through those meetings.”
Joint Judiciary Co-Chairwoman Carrie Webster said the issue first arose in a failed bill from this year’s regular session.
She also said the draft needs work, including exceptions for political and religious advocacy groups with employees.
Webster, D-Kanawha, said the concept could also end up as part of the state’s existing “at will” employment law.
“The question for us is, whether this should be public policy,” she said.
Caputo said the proposal’s critics will likely try to make the bill sound more complicated or burdensome than it is.
“The bill is quite simple,” he said. “If the company wants to have anti-union or pro-candidate meetings, they just can’t force you to sit through it.”