Unions, Workers and Lawmakers Debate Labor‑Peace Agreements for Cannabis Industry

Union leaders, cannabis workers and several legislators told the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy they support S.77/H.161, a bill to require labor‑peace agreements as part of licensure criteria for larger cannabis businesses. Jack Kentsla, political director for UFCW Local 1445, said the union represents “over 1,000 workers, in the cannabis industry, in Massachusetts,” and that LPAs would require employers to remain neutral if employees seek representation. Steph Cornello, a UFCW business agent, described how companies often respond to organizing with discipline and surveillance, and said “The second someone says the word union, the company declares war.” Jeremy Espinosa, a UFCW International representative, noted LPAs are in place in other states and are not forced unionization: “LPA's are not forced unionization and they're not infringement on employer rights.” Workers who have organized or are union members told the committee union contracts improved safety, wages, scheduling and benefits. Multiple testimonies recounted workplace hazards, alleged wage theft, disciplinary practices and the death of a worker in a cultivation facility as background for their support. Why it matters: Proponents argued the cannabis industry has seen concerning workplace safety and labor‑standards gaps that LPAs can help address by giving employees an avenue to bargain and to establish enforcement committees on the job. Several legislators asked whether LPAs would be enforced through licensure and what safeguards exist if negotiations are ongoing or in bad faith. Committee questions and next steps: Lawmakers sought data on how many businesses would be affected by thresholds in the bill (for example, employee counts or revenue triggers). Witnesses said the bill can be structured to exempt small operators and to allow the CCC to consider attestation of good‑faith negotiations when renewals are pending. Senator Lydia Edwards framed the bill as part of corrective action tied to legalization’s origins as a reparative policy. Ending: Backers urged a favorable report to advance S.77/H.161 and said LPAs would protect workers without forcing union membership.