2009 House Bill 4467: Prohibit employer religious or political meeting/communication mandates

Legislation watch

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Rep. Mark Meadows (D) on February 25, 2009, to prohibit an employer from requiring its employees to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or participate in any communication if the primary purpose is to communicate the employer's opinion about religious or political matters, except as necessary to comply with another law. Employees would be allowed to sue for “exemplary damages.” The bill would not apply to employees of a religious, political, or labor organization, or to college lectures and coursework.
- Referred to the House Labor Committee on February 25, 2009.
  - Reported in the House on June 24, 2009, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Joseph Haveman (R) on June 24, 2009, to prohibit the bill from going into effect until the Michigan unemployment rate is less than the national average. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 24, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Kevin Daley (R) on June 24, 2009, to remove the provision that prohibits an employer from requiring its employees to attend an employer-sponsored meeting to hear about the employer's opinion on religious or political matters. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 24, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tom McMillin (R) on June 24, 2009, to remove an exemption for unions from the bills provisions. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 24, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Pete Lund (R) on June 24, 2009, to rename the bill the "jobs destruction and employer silence act". The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 24, 2009.
Passed 68 to 42 in the House on June 24, 2009.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on June 25, 2009.
- Referred to the Senate Commerce & Tourism Committee on June 25, 2009.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Re: 2009 House Bill 4467 (Prohibit employer religious or political meeting/communication mandates ) by uber-liberal on March 6, 2009

[quote user="jmangan"]

If you mean we are a more mature society now, therefore don't need unions, I think you are mistaken.

[of course you do, jman. you wholeheartedly support unions, no matter what.]

The same catalyst that spawned unions is at work today, in even greater force. Greed.

[could you please tell me how many billions of dollars the unions spent on electing a democrat (any democrat) this year?]

We need them now as much as we did then.

[which in my opinion is not at all. but you disagree.]

Companies now, in this global economy, have the advantage of relocating to another country with lower wages, putting workers at a distinct disadvantage when bargaining with them.

[yes it does, doesn't it? it's tough to get unions to work in communist countries, or tin cup dictatorships.]

This condition has led to a stagnation, and in many cases, such as the auto industry, a decline in wages, and a loss of jobs in this country.

[isn't the union supposed to HELP THE WORKER in those situations, not just sit back and elect more democrats? i'm wondering how popular the unions are going to be when the workers get told that all the money they gave to the unions for 'rainy day funds' has been spent on political electioneering and lobbying?]

This bill doesn't give unions any advantage it didn't have already, if it had one at all. It merely stops companies from preaching or politicing to their captive audience, the workers.

[no, it stops them from preaching ANTI-UNION politics to the workers. preaching about the union is just fine.]

[/quote]

so, jman, which assembly line are you going to be laid off from soon?

Line

2) Re: 2009 House Bill 4467 (Prohibit employer religious or political meeting/communication mandates ) by jmangan on March 6, 2009

If you mean we are a more mature society now, therefore don't need unions, I think you are mistaken. The same catalyst that spawned unions is at work today, in even greater force. Greed. We need them now as much as we did then. Companies now, in this global economy, have the advantage of relocating to another country with lower wages, putting workers at a distinct disadvantage when bargaining with them. This condition has led to a stagnation, and in many cases, such as the auto industry, a decline in wages, and a loss of jobs in this country.

This bill doesn't give unions any advantage it didn't have already, if it had one at all. It merely stops companies from preaching or politicing to their captive audience, the workers.

Line

3) Re: 2009 House Bill 4467 (Prohibit employer religious or political meeting/communication mandates ) by Johnnie on March 5, 2009

That sounds reasonable, JMangan, but let's not forget that current law already creates a tilted playing field between unions and employers. Unions can do all kinds of harranguing to employees about their issues, but employers are severely constrained in what they tell employees on those same issues. I understand that this may have made sense in the context of the early 20th Century when the playing field was tilted the other way, but we are a much more mature society and workforce now - mature enough to allow everyone to make their own arrangements on such matters.

That's not really a threadjack, because it's the broader context for these bills.

Line

View Full Conversation