CHARLESTON -- Employers would need to keep their political and religious views out of their dealings with employees under a proposed state law that will come before the 2008 Legislature.

The as-yet titled bill prohibits employers or their representatives from requiring employees to attend meetings where employers offer their opinions about religious or political matters. It also mandates that workers do not have to participate in communications with their employers to discuss religious or political positions.

The Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary endorsed the bill on voice vote last week and passed it with the recommendation that it be adopted by the Legislature.

"There are certain kinds of communication that some people hold very near and dear to their hearts.... Some people, like it or not, feel that certain things are not other people's business," Delegate Tim Miley, D-Harrison, chairman of the subcommittee that reviewed the bill, told the full committee.

"(Workers) shouldn't feel compelled by the threat of some retaliatory action to participate in discussions that make them feel very uncomfortable," he said.

So far, only New Jersey has adopted "captive speech" legislation aimed at protecting workers from political pressure in the workplace. There also have been attempts in Michigan, Oregon and Colorado to pass the law.

All are part of a nationwide movement by labor and progressive organizations to address what they claim is a growing problem with employers forcing their views on employees and engaging in anti-union activities.

In West Virginia, the legislation comes at the request of local unions.

"We should not be forced or coerced to believe what the company believes," said Kenneth Perdue, president of the West Virginia AFL-CIO.

State lawmakers took up a similar bill during the 2007 Legislative session, but it didn't pass. Unions and progressive organizations are pushing for the legislation because they say that current legal protections for employees, particularly under the National Labor Relations Act, are not being enforced.

"The laws are there to protect the employees, and it's not being done," Perdue said.

But the alleged problem the bill is trying to address is one that Steve Roberts, president of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, believes doesn't exist in the state.

Instead, he said, the legislation would expose businesses to new and costly litigation and make the state that much more unattractive to business investment, Roberts said.

"This will cause West Virginia to stick out like a sore thumb, and we might as well put up a sign that says we haven't learned anything about human resource management," he said.

Nationwide Movement

The proposed bill is a nearly word-for-word copy of the "Worker Freedom Act" -- model legislation that unions and other groups are attempting to get passed into law in a number of states.

The bill and others like it would give workers the ability to sue their employers if they are forced to attend a political or religious event or are otherwise unwillingly subjected to their employer's views.

Political, religious, labor and educational organizations are exempt from the law if an employee's work activities require the person to have knowledge of the employer's positions.

Workers would be required to file suit within 90 days of the alleged violation with the local circuit court.

If the court rules in a plaintiff's favor, then the plaintiff is entitled to triple the amount of actual damages they incurred, as well as attorney's fees and costs.

The proposed law would prohibit employees from being disciplined or discharged for filing complaints under it.

The court could order the employee to be reinstated to his or her former position with back pay and full benefits if the person is terminated.

Attempts to get state legislatures to adopt the Worker Freedom Act only started last year, said Bernie Horn, policy director for Center for Policy Alternatives, a Washington, D.C., organization that promotes progressive legislation in state government.

He said the movement partly was a response to complaints coming from workers during the 2004 presidential campaign.

"Employees have been fired for refusing to take a political bumper sticker off their car or have been threatened because they were seen at a political meeting," Horn said.

Employees also have been pressured to attend religious events they may not feel conformable with, such as being told to attend prayer breakfasts, he said.

CPA cites examples such as a case in Wisconsin, where a man allegedly was fired after making a campaign contribution to a political party his boss opposed. CPA also noted an Alabama woman who reportedly was fired for refusing to take a John Kerry bumper sticker off her car.

It also points to a 2000 report by Cornell University researcher Kate Bronfenbrenner, who concluded that 92 percent of the employers she studied held closed-door, anti-union meetings during union-organizing campaigns.

"(Employers) can't keep people out of the room who might point out people's rights and what the law says," Horn said. "It's just completely unfair."

Legal Concerns

So far, most attempts to get states to enact the Worker Freedom Act have failed.

New Jersey adopted a version of the law in 2006. The Colorado General Assembly passed the law the same year, but it was vetoed by former Republican Gov. Bill Owens.

In his message accompanying the veto, Owens wrote that the law likely violated employers' First Amendment rights to freely communicate with their employees.

He also wrote that it was a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, which allows businesses to require employees to attend meetings.

The state Chamber's Roberts had similar concerns. What if, he said, a presenter makes off-hand comments about God during a mandatory meeting about employee benefits? Could that open up a business to a lawsuit?

"This bill would only hurt the ability of employees to talk to each other and employers to talk about issues that are on the minds of employees," he said.

The Chamber hears from people all over the state, and it hasn't heard of cases that the proposed law is trying to address, Roberts said.

"What is going on in West Virginia that causes us to need to be the only state in the nation to go this far?" he said.

Delegate Robert Tabb, D-Jefferson, also doubted whether the bill is necessary. He unsuccessfully attempted to the have the Judiciary Committee pass the bill without a recommendation, wanting to take more time to study its implications.

"It just has the appearance of putting one more burden on employers, and we don't need more litigation in West Virginia on employers," he said.