A chilling wave is sweeping across America, threatening a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment. It isn’t a direct ban on speech, but something far more insidious: a targeted assault on the right to inform public employees about their constitutional rights.
Last year, Oregon passed a law that criminalizes simply telling union members they have the right to leave the union and keep more of their hard-earned money. Imagine being penalized for sharing information about a freedom already enshrined in the Supreme Court’s 2018 *Janus v. AFSCME* ruling – a ruling unions actively avoid communicating to their members.
This isn’t about protecting workers from misinformation. It’s about silencing anyone who dares to inform them of their legal rights. The Oregon law, HB 3789, was crafted to specifically shut down outreach efforts, threatening crippling financial penalties – $6,250 per communication – for what it vaguely defines as “impersonating a labor union.”
Remarkably, proponents of the law couldn’t point to a single instance of actual deception. The intent wasn’t to prevent fraud, but to suppress information. A judge could interpret almost any communication to a union member as a violation, effectively silencing dissent and maintaining the flow of union dues.
The fight began immediately with a federal lawsuit, but the initial challenge was dismissed. The case is now before the Circuit Court, but the damage is already spreading. Oregon’s audacity has inspired copycat legislation in other states.
New York has introduced SB 9577, an almost identical bill, but with a doubled penalty: $15,000 per incident. It’s not merely a similar approach; it’s a verbatim replication, demonstrating a coordinated effort to stifle worker freedom.
Hawaii is moving even faster. SB 3055 has already passed the full Senate and is rapidly advancing through the House. Union operatives openly admit the bill is designed to “get out in front of” outreach efforts, explicitly citing Oregon as the model. One operative even labeled informational mailers as “deceptive,” not because of their content, but because workers are exercising their rights.
The unions’ defense? They claim the issue is “honesty about who is speaking.” But their mailers are clearly identified. The real problem isn’t deception; it’s that workers are learning about their rights and choosing to leave the union in growing numbers. They’re attempting to legislate away a losing argument.
Three states, identical legislation, a matter of months. This isn’t coincidence. It’s a deliberate, coordinated strategy to undermine a Supreme Court ruling and maintain control over union membership. The 9th Circuit appeal is still pending, yet New York and Hawaii are already pushing forward.
Unions haven’t presented evidence of confusion or deception because none exists. The core issue is the exodus of members, a trend Big Labor desperately seeks to reverse. When persuasion fails, they resort to suppression.
Oregon proved this strategy can work, at least temporarily, tying up opponents in court while dues continue to flow. Now, New York and Hawaii are attempting to replicate that success, hoping to solidify the model before legal challenges can halt them. If they succeed, a dangerous precedent will be set, encouraging other states to follow suit.
The question before these legislatures is stark: Do workers truly have the right to opt out of union membership, or is it merely a theoretical right that no one is allowed to discuss? The future of worker freedom hangs in the balance.
