NC Senate Judiciary panel passes bill restricting mass picketing at workplaces
North Carolina General Assembly (File Photo)
The North Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill Tuesday morning imposing civil penalties on workers and protesters who conduct 'mass pickets' that are deemed obstructive or violent by a court of law.
The proposal, Senate Bill 484, would allow employers to obtain an injunction and temporary restraining order against anyone who protests at their place of business to the extent of 'hindering or preventing' work, using threats or force, or blocking workplace entrances, exits, or public roads and streets. It amends an existing law that centers on protecting employees from harassment, stalking, and violence.
Among the forms of relief available to judges in the bill are no-contact orders and prohibitions on visiting the workplace, punishable as contempt of court, which would open violators to fines and jail time.
'What Senate Bill 484 strives to achieve is a balance between those who want to peacefully protest and those who actually want to go to work and earn a living uninhibited by those that are protesting,' said Sen. Tim Moffitt (R-Henderson), a primary sponsor of the bill.
The bill comes amid a flurry of labor activity around the state as union efforts has risen in recent years, with the number of union election petitions nationally doubling from 2021 in the most recent fiscal year. In February, North Carolina saw a high-profile union election at Garner's Amazon warehouse that spurred protest events from labor activists, though demonstrators gathered across the street from the warehouse rather than near any entrances or exits.
In an interview after the committee vote, Duke professor and labor organizer Orin Starn said he feels the bill aims to 'discourage workplace demonstrations and picketing' regardless of the conduct of protesters.
A participant in the efforts to unionize the Amazon warehouse, Starn said employers already have 'plenty of protections' when it comes to protests on their property. He noted that some members of the Amazon union campaign were arrested for trespassing by Garner police when they tried to collect union cards and give out food on the premises.
'This bill seems very much about weaponizing the law to keep workers from organizing,' Starn said. 'Workers are already afraid of retaliation because there are minimal protections right now for workers who are trying to organize.'
Sen. Terence Everitt (D-Wake) asked whether protests at Tesla dealerships — which have drawn large crowds around the country as demonstrators have denounced CEO Elon Musk's actions in the Trump administration — would be permitted by the bill so long as they remain peaceful and do not include threats or obstruction. Moffitt confirmed they would be.
Sen. Mujtaba Mohammed (D-Mecklenburg) proposed two amendments seeking to clarify the scope of the bill, aiming to avoid any prohibitions on federally protected labor activity. The first defines obstruction as a 'sustained or deliberate physical blockage' that disrupts operations or public safety, and the second excludes from the bill any peaceful demonstrations, informational pickets, or protected labor activity — provided they do not rise to the level of violence, threats, or obstruction.
Both amendments passed, though Sen. Lisa Grafstein (D-Wake) said she still held concerns that workers may be intimidated from participating in labor protests by the messaging around the bill.
'We have a lot of efforts underway to protect employee rights, and I think it's important that they not be limited or people be intimidated from participating in those,' Grafstein said. 'I believe there are some aspects of this bill that could continue to intimidate people from engaging in peaceful protests.'
The bill is will proceed to a vote before the Senate Rules Committee, where it could then be scheduled for a hearing on the Senate floor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Ending NC Medicaid coverage of anti-obesity drugs would be a terrible mistake
Packages of the injectable weight-loss medication Wegovy are shown (Photo illustration by) As a physician assistant in Charlotte, I have witnessed firsthand the transformative impact of new obesity medications on patients battling this disease. These treatments have enabled individuals to achieve significant weight loss, improve their metabolic health, and reduce the risk of chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease. In August 2024, North Carolina's Medicaid program expanded coverage to include FDA-approved obesity management medications for beneficiaries aged 12 and older. This policy change recognized obesity as a serious health condition requiring medical intervention and aimed to provide equitable access to effective treatments for low-income residents. However, a recent budget proposal circulating within the North Carolina General Assembly threatens to undermine this progress. The state legislature is currently considering significant budget cuts to Medicaid, which would jeopardize coverage for obesity medications. Such cuts could reverse the strides we've made in addressing the obesity epidemic and exacerbate health disparities across our state. Obesity is not merely a matter of personal responsibility; it's a complex health issue influenced by various factors, including genetics, environment, and socioeconomic status. Obesity medications have emerged as a powerful tool in the medical management of obesity, offering hope to patients who have struggled with traditional weight loss methods. By reducing access to these medications, we risk increasing the prevalence of obesity-related complications, leading to higher healthcare costs and diminished quality of life for affected individuals. Moreover, the proposed Medicaid cuts could disproportionately impact rural communities in North Carolina, where healthcare resources are already limited. Approximately 40% of the state's Medicaid beneficiaries reside in rural areas. It is crucial to recognize that investing in obesity treatment is not only a moral imperative but also a fiscally responsible decision. Research from Global Data shows that obesity costs North Carolina households $1.4 billion in medical expenses and the Medicaid program $404 million in increased spending. As healthcare providers, policymakers, and citizens, we must advocate for the preservation of Medicaid coverage for obesity medications. Ensuring access to effective treatments for all North Carolinians, regardless of income, is essential for promoting public health, reducing long-term healthcare costs, and upholding the values of equity and compassion in our healthcare system. I urge our state legislators to consider the profound implications of these proposed Medicaid cuts on obesity treatment and to take action to protect and expand access to these life-changing medications.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
NC advocates continue push for bill to crack down on youth vaping
RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) — Dozens of advocates joined together at the North Carolina General Assembly Tuesday fighting for a chance to have a bill crack down on youth vaping heard by North Carolina lawmakers. House Bill 430, known as Solly's Law, and its corresponding Senate Bill 318 would require a tobacco retail sales permit for businesses to align with federal law, which sets the minimum age to purchase at 21. SPECIAL REPORT | North Carolina mother fighting against teen vaping with new bill The bill is named after Solomon 'Solly' Wynn. The New Hanover County teen died in 2023 at just 15. His stepmother Charlene Zorn says his doctors told her was due to complications from vaping. 'We have to do something now before someone else's child dies,' said Zorn. She was one of the advocates who came to the GA pushing for the bills to pass but it's been at a standstill in both the house and senate rules committees since March. Representative Donnie Loftis of Gaston County is one of the sponsors of the house bill. 'North Carolina is one of the last seven states to raise the age and to bring all unregulated vape shops into compliance with state law,' said Rep. Loftis. The North Carolina Alliance for Health says though most vapes are acquired from retailers, the next most common way teens are able to access them is from a friend under the age of 21. They also say e-cigarette sales have increased by 250% since 2020. Macey Morris, a student at Eastern Alamance High School, is just one North Carolina teen who spoke about what she's seeing at her school. 'Trying to use the restrooms throughout the day during class change and even during class time can be nearly impossible. The bathrooms are filled with students vaping and take up the majority of the space which can make it uncomfortable to try and use the restroom throughout the day,' said Morris. Rep. Loftis says they are waiting for the bills to go to their appropriate committees and they're hoping Tuesday's call for action will help. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Foul-mouthed chef wrongly sacked because she had anxiety, tribunal rules
A junior chef who launched a foul-mouthed rant in front of spa guests has been awarded more than £13,000 after a tribunal ruled her outburst was triggered by anxiety. Abbie Garner was dismissed after she was overheard shouting 'you f---ing made me love you then you cheated on me, you c---' at a colleague. However, a tribunal ruled the outburst was linked to her health problems, which included anxiety and depression. She has since been awarded £13,455.91. Of the sum, £11,000 was paid to reflect 'the injury to the claimant's feelings as a result of the discrimination found'. The row broke out in front of guests near the spa reception at the four-star Thorpe Hall Hotel and Spa in Peterborough on Aug 9, 2023. It was sparked by a personal argument with a fellow chef she had been in a relationship with, the tribunal heard. Complaints were made to reception and the chef was called in for a disciplinary hearing. During the hearing, Ms Garner gave abrupt responses and asked whether her ex-partner would also be punished. Notes from the hearing recorded her saying: 'I have apologised. What else do you want?' The tribunal ruled that she was disabled under the Equality Act and said her inability to control her anger 'arose in consequence of her disability'. It said: 'The claimant is disabled by virtue of anxiety, depression, and polycystic ovary syndrome. 'The claimant relies on her conduct on August 9, the incident, and August 18, her abrupt responses in the disciplinary meeting, as things arising from her disability. 'Namely an inability to regulate her mood or control her anger due to her disabilities.' It added that Ms Garner 'was put at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone without her disability'. Judge C Lewis concluded the hotel failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments by not seeking medical evidence before dismissing her. 'We are satisfied that it would have been a reasonable adjustment for the respondent to have sought medical evidence,' the tribunal said. 'We find that there was a reasonable prospect this could have led to a different outcome.' The judge found her 'continued employment posed a risk to the respondent's reputation', but said this did not justify failing to properly consider whether her conduct was linked to her mental health. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
