[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6361095,"mediaKeyId","2171149-146b9823462cd410861072d2bf439105","parentId",2171149,"title","Committee hears bill to bar mandatory \"captive audience\" meetings; sponsors say enforcement language remains to be worked out","audioSeconds",625,"startMs",628000,"endMs",2741,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2171149-146b9823462cd410861072d2bf439105&start=628&end=2","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2171149-146b9823462cd410861072d2bf439105/thumbnail_628000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6361095/Maryland/Committee-hears-bill-to-bar-mandatory-captive-audience-meetings-sponsors-say-enforcement-language-remains-to-be-worked-out","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361095-ecee98a031b24f8c340dfa10db75657e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167023&Signature=FDq5hxycZR0KwNwJGffbZFkWXIW8APtZUyn4jCPdTNT7plV4P7ndF2zIV7rbWYjcc6Lp4fDy0ZSAIARbHYkc5kzvvTD1BjDCIpPPuwoRi-AMDTZnVgKMCv-~klJVQLIAbS9tPo6H0LMxSelXIO9t4qq1rumacjkmYI8SBxRxYp-MhxFv8wynqWlfGpbYm-ZIuafp-lxTLbcO2fD649C4LIEFXHDKTvgQI-r4lxLYU2hc8tyymnD89QyBqFXCnNoUM--RrByfmO276DZ5nUJgjIKoTfbeQAD-bZSjjNmYAOxbp3Ueu88ovIgQi4elCfbpUZeS-6AeHY1xQf9GV-8SIg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Economic Matters","date","2025-01-30T00:00:00Z","article","Delegate Daniel Vogel and a coalition of labor unions urged the Economic Matters Committee on Oct. 12 to support HB233, the Maryland Worker Freedom Act, which would give employees the right to decline employer‑led meetings that communicate political, religious or anti‑union messages during work time.

Delegate Vogel opened the panel saying the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently ruled captive audience meetings unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), but that federal protections may be uncertain going forward. Vogel asked the committee to adopt a state law ensuring those meetings cannot be used to coerce workers in Maryland.

Union representatives and workers described captive audience meetings as mandatory sessions held during work hours that often contain anti‑union messaging. Kayla Mach of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 400 told the committee “this is not a ban … it simply gives the employee the right to say no,” adding that many workers who are at‑will fear retaliation if they refuse to attend. Matthew Gerardi, political and communications director for ATU Local 689, said these sessions are commonly used during union drives and called them “shakedowns.”

A worker who testified under oath, Laura Jackson of Moms Organic Market in College Park, described repeated mandatory meetings led by company management she said were aimed at discouraging unionization. Jackson said the meetings were “failed attempts to rob us of our democratic freedom to form a bargaining unit” and urged passage of the bill so workers may preserve “political and religious autonomy in the workplace.”

Labor leaders including Terry Cavanagh of SEIU Local 500, Donna Edwards, president of the Maryland State and DC AFL‑CIO, and Thomas Doyle, state program director for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, all urged a favorable report. Witnesses cited NLRB findings and national data in testimony: an NLRB finding that captive audience meetings are used in response to a high percentage of union drives, a 2015 survey on employer political contact, and an Economic Policy Institute estimate offered in testimony that employers spend large sums to prevent organizing.

Committee concerns and enforcement questions: Several committee members raised questions about the bill’s scope and enforcement. The bill as filed uses language that bars retaliation and says an employer “may not” take covered actions. Members asked whether the language is sufficiently enforceable and which state agency would handle complaints. Delegate Vogel and several witnesses said they are willing to work with the committee and the Department of Labor on enforcement language and administrative options.

Members also asked about carve‑outs: the bill text refers to educational institutions that are exempt from Title VII coverage; panelists said they would return with clarification about which schools or institutions are covered or excluded. Witnesses emphasized the bill would not prohibit employers from holding meetings that discuss job duties, safety, training, or other business‑related matters; the bill targets mandatory meetings used to convey political, religious or anti‑union messaging and would protect employees from retaliation for declining to participate.

Action taken: Delegate Vogel asked for a favorable report; no formal committee vote was recorded during the hearing. Several witnesses requested the committee refine enforcement language and clarify statutory exceptions.

Looking ahead: Sponsors said they will work with committee members and state agencies on enforcement language and clarifying carve‑outs for educational and public‑sector contexts.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","ECM Committee Session, 1/30/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Delegate Daniel Vogel and union representatives urged the Economic Matters Committee on Oct. 12 to advance HB233, the Maryland Worker Freedom Act, which would bar employers from compelling employees to attend meetings where political, religious or anti‑union views are pushed.","taxTitle","Economic Matters Committee, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15059,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6361101,"Maryland labor department seeks flexibility for self‑employed under paid‑leave law",549,105000,654000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2171149-146b9823462cd410861072d2bf439105&start=105&end=654","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2171149-146b9823462cd410861072d2bf439105/thumbnail_105000.jpg","/articles/6361101/Maryland/Maryland-labor-department-seeks-flexibility-for-selfemployed-under-paidleave-law","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361101-fcb836dd69888cb35c0aaa1521259019/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167023&Signature=iQoEEiybjM~9NWh0QY1G2SAJj~TtCpwG~FA77Ttox3-R9teFtHueRKT1RJD2h0q-o5VNpyk65-~F1r3Py1JJyxz77R077N1Y8UllShe3orbji17eBK2bQOiwyGDXCd1Xtw5slR5I-Au34MDc0CErYD~SWRis5acL-BAIJ5OD4-wBLVkrTWi6LV~sltkUb9CsmYXZlfNSVBdH1pBfkU5LrglqWf0S0I5eQyEyDbaDfP4n9Uvr7KdaRu9D3vWSvJ18Bykg4ccZpD3cnquFnRmEGU5KRce7MhymCRZmLZWCqet1qmjgcYhmHmDcj6oqCbD-wTowvmTGuuA~fE-1kIAMfQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Maryland Department of Labor asked the Economic Matters Committee on Oct. 12 to support HB102, legislation that would remove current statutory language allowing self‑employed workers to opt into the State’s paid family and medical leave program and direct the department to craft a new participation framework by regulation.

Secretary of Labor Portia Wu told the committee the bill would give the department “more time to allow for some seamless implementation” and let staff rethink how self‑employed workers could participate in the program. Wu said Maryland’s program was modeled on other states, but those states have seen very low takeup among self‑employed people.

The bill would repeal the existing statutory language on self‑employed participation and require the department to develop participation rules by regulation. Regan Vaughn, director of policy for the family division at the Maryland Department of Labor, said the department has held stakeholder sessions that included national and local partners and self‑employed individuals and has secured an actuarial contract to model policy options. Vaughn said the department “intend[s] to engage with stakeholders about exactly how that framework should look.”

Why it matters: HB102 aims to make the program workable for independent contractors and other non‑wage‑paid workers, a group the department says is ill‑served by a benefit calculations model built around regular weekly wages.

Key provisions and clarifications presented to the committee include three department amendments: one to allow the comptroller’s office to share tax information with the Department of Labor to help detect fraud; a second to let public and private plans pay benefits more frequently than the statute’s current biweekly requirement; and a third establishing an \"anchor date\" — defined in the department’s testimony as the earlier of the application date or the date leave begins — to fix the income period used for eligibility and benefit amounts. Vaughn said the anchor date would let the department process applications submitted well before a leave start date without holding them until leave begins.

Committee discussion and fiscal points: Committee members asked about participation estimates for self‑employed workers and whether the proposal would increase administrative cost. Vaughn and Secretary Wu said takeup has been low in other states (they cited about 1–2 percent in states with current models), that the department does not have a precise Maryland estimate yet and that the actuarial vendor will model options. Wu said the department expects the regulatory approach could simplify the system and “take a little bit of work away” rather than add cost, but the committee did not receive a formal fiscal note tied to the amendments during the hearing.

On participation rules, the department reiterated that W‑2 employees are required to participate in the State program while 1099 contractors are not mandatory participants under current law; HB102 would change how 1099/self‑employed participation is structured rather than make it mandatory. The department said it will seek an MOU with the comptroller’s office before any data sharing and is still negotiating exact amendment language with that office.

Action taken: At the close of the presentation, Secretary Portia Wu requested a favorable report on HB102 with the department’s amendments; no formal committee vote was recorded during the hearing.

Looking ahead: The department said it will return to the committee with actuarial modeling and additional draft language as stakeholder engagement continues.","The Maryland Department of Labor asked the Economic Matters Committee to approve HB102 to remove statutory language on self‑employed participation in the State’s paid family leave program and direct the agency to design participation rules by regulation, add payment‑frequency flexibility and establish an \"anchor date\" for benefit calculations.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears bill to bar mandatory "captive audience" meetings; sponsors say enforcement language remains to be worked out

Maryland labor department seeks flexibility for self‑employed under paid‑leave law