AB 1389 would protect worker rights to protest ALRB

The ALRB is trying to silence farmworkers who criticize the politicized agency. The UFW “contract” that the ALRB wants to force on Gerawan farmworkers includes a clause that bans the workers from holding strike protests against both the agency and the union.

The employer and employees argued against the clause, but the ALRB put it in the contract anyway.

Why would the ALRB impose it when neither side wants it?

Who would benefit from such an imposition?

Only outsiders would benefit: The political hacks at the ALRB and the UFW, which ALRB illegally represents. The UFW doesn’t want amy more workers de-certifying it as their representative. And the ALRB, which is in cahoots with the UFW, doesn’t like the uppity workers who protest ALRB’s opposition to counting their votes.

Assemblyman Jim Patterson’s AB 1389 would make it so employees can be involved with the creation of a contract, and the employees would be able to vote to ratify or reject the contract. The law is designed to protect worker rights. Why would anyone be against that?

Comments are closed