Employers should consider proactive measures to maintain positive employee relations to minimize the risk of a union organizing petition being filed. According to a recent Gallup survey, public approval of labor unions has slightly decreased from 2022's record-high 71 percent to 68 percent in 2025.1 Nonetheless, 2025 is the fifth consecutive year union approval has remained between 67 and 71 percent, with 90 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Independents favoring them. However, union membership is at its lowest point in decades.
These trends notwithstanding, California-based unions continue to actively organize and file charges following the Board's alterations of election procedures in Cemex, among other things, and employers may want to work with counsel and consider the following actions:
On November 13, 2024, the Board overturned Babcock & Wilcox Co., ruling that an employer violates the Act by requiring employees to attend a meeting at which the employer expresses its views on unionization.2 The Board also established a safe harbor from liability for employers who, if reasonably in advance of a meeting, informs employees of the following:
In recent years, several states have done away with captive audience meetings through legislation. For example, in California, captive audience meetings became unlawful effective January 1, 2025.3 Under the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act, employers were prohibited from threatening to or subjecting an employee to discharge, discrimination, or retaliation because the employee refuses to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or declines to listen to any communications with the employer where their purpose is to communicate the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters, including unions.
However, a few days after the Act went into effect, several business groups filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District Court of California challenging its constitutionality. In October 2025, the Court issued a preliminary injunction temporarily prohibiting the Act's enforcement.4 In doing so, the Court found that the NLRA preempted the Act by restricting employers from mandating captive audience meetings. The Court additionally ruled that the Act constituted content-based speech regulation because it targeted employer communications concerning political or religious matters. California's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement is enjoined from enforcing the Act while further litigation is pending and until the Court orders otherwise.
For more information regarding election procedures, visit the NLRB’s website to access the following information:
1. Gallup News Service, Labor Union Approval Relatively Steady at 68% in U.S.
2. Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 16 (2024)
3. CA S.B. 399; Lab. Code sec.1137
4. Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta (E.D.Cal. Sep. 30, 2025, No. 2:24-cv-03798-DJC-) 2025 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 193529