California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB285

Introduced
2/9/17  
Introduced
2/9/17  
Refer
2/23/17  
Refer
2/23/17  
Refer
3/14/17  
Refer
3/14/17  
Refer
3/23/17  
Refer
3/23/17  
Report Pass
4/25/17  
Report Pass
4/25/17  
Refer
4/25/17  
Refer
4/25/17  
Engrossed
5/15/17  
Engrossed
5/15/17  
Refer
5/26/17  
Refer
5/26/17  
Report Pass
6/21/17  
Report Pass
6/21/17  
Refer
6/21/17  
Refer
6/21/17  
Report Pass
7/19/17  
Report Pass
7/19/17  
Enrolled
8/24/17  
Chaptered
10/7/17  
Chaptered
10/7/17  
Passed
10/7/17  

Caption

Public employers: union organizing.

Impact

The enactment of SB 285 has significant implications for existing laws surrounding labor relations in the public sector. By granting the Public Employment Relations Board jurisdiction over violations of the provisions set forth in the bill, it establishes a formal mechanism to address grievances and enforce compliance. This may lead to a more robust framework for collective bargaining and labor negotiations within various public sectors, potentially improving conditions for public employees across California.

Summary

Senate Bill 285, introduced by Senator Atkins, seeks to enhance protections for public employees regarding their rights to union membership. The bill explicitly prohibits public employers from deterring or discouraging employees from becoming or remaining members of employee organizations. This legislative effort aims at ensuring that public sector workers can freely associate with unions without fear of retribution or coercion from their employers. The scope of public employers includes a broad range of entities such as counties, cities, schools, and public universities.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 285 has been generally positive among labor advocates and public employees, who see it as a step forward in protecting workers' rights. Supporters argue that the bill addresses critical issues surrounding freedom of association and aims to dismantle systemic barriers that inhibit union participation. However, some opponents express concerns over the implications of increased regulation and potential administrative burdens on public employers, arguing it may reduce their flexibility in managing workforce matters.

Contention

While the bill promotes the fundamental right of public workers to unionize, it has sparked debate over the balance of power between employer authority and employee rights. Critics suggest that restrictions on employer communications regarding union membership may infringe on management's ability to inform employees about the implications of unionization. Proponents counter that the bill is essential for safeguarding worker autonomy against potential coercive practices in public employment.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB249

Public employers: employee organizations.

CA AB2017

Public employers: employee organizations.

CA SB931

Deterring union membership: violations.

CA AB2352

Prescription drug coverage.

CA AB3216

Pupils: use of smartphones.

CA AB428

Local government: the Ralph M. Brown Act.

CA AB1418

Tenancy: local regulations: contact with law enforcement or criminal convictions.

CA SB472

Public postsecondary education: Campus Free Expression Act.