HB 3789
Makes it unlawful to falsely impersonate a union representative.
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Sign in to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Sign in to take actionPublic sentiment
Support
30%
Oppose
70%
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
This bill makes it illegal to falsely pretend to be a union representative. It clarifies that unions have the exclusive right to designate their representatives and establishes a process for unions to take legal action against individuals who impersonate them with the intent to deceive. The bill also provides a monetary penalty of $6,250 per incident for those found to have falsely impersonated a union representative.
Key provisions
- Defines ‘falsely impersonate a union representative’ as using fraud or misrepresentation to deceive someone into believing a communication is authorized by a union.
- Establishes that labor organizations have sole authority to identify and designate union representatives.
- Allows unions to file lawsuits against individuals who falsely impersonate them.
- Provides for statutory damages of $6,250 per incident for successful lawsuits.
- Defines key terms such as ‘Designated representative,’ ‘Exclusive representative,’ and ‘Union representative’ according to Oregon law.
- Protects free speech under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.
- Addresses misrepresentation related to mandatory union membership and employee rights to decline or withdraw.
Who is affected
- Labor organizations
- Union representatives
- Public employees
- Individuals who falsely impersonate union representatives
- Members of the public
Notable changes
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
Primary sponsors
Rep Neron
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
Supporters of HB 3789 A express widespread concern over third-party impersonation of union officials and the spread of false information to persuade members to drop their union membership. the need to protect union members from deceptive anti-union groups, misleading business practices, and fraudulent misrepresentation by requiring individuals to properly identify themselves when speaking on behalf of a union or making claims about its benefits. Many share personal experiences with confusion, erosion of trust, and harm caused by such actions, particularly among vulnerable populations such as low-income and non-English speaking members. By supporting HB 3789 A, proponents aim to address these issues, provide clear legal recourse for unions and their members, and safeguard the integrity of labor unions' essential functions.
Source: Testimony Summaries
Arguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
Opponents of House Bill 3789 express concerns that the measure would infringe on workers' rights, free speech, and alternative voices. They argue that the bill's provisions would restrict the ability of professional organizations like the Freedom Foundation to provide alternative union options to workers, limit access to information about union dues spending, and silence dissenting voices. Many that the bill is an attack on their constitutional right to opt out of union dues, free speech, and informed decision-making. They also contend that existing laws can address similar issues, and that the bill's provisions could lead to due process concerns, litigation, and unintended consequences. Furthermore, opponents argue that the bill targets specific organizations, stifling freedom of speech and censorship of truthful information about union practices.