New Weed Bill protects workers and streamlines process

This Article was first published in Headly.com by Dan Ulloa. Dan is the Editor and Publisher of Heady NJ.

New Weed Bill A5291 is called “Establishes timeline for municipal application review and requires municipalities to notify Cannabis Regulatory Commission when permitting cannabis businesses to operate in municipality.” Committee Chair Reginald Atkins (D-20-Union) and Clinton Calabrese (D-36-Bergen) introduced it. “I’m going to cast a respectful no today. I understand the good intent of this bill,” Assemblyman Michael Inganamort (R-24-Sussex) said.

“I am concerned that we are adding another mandate on municipalities, in this case a 90-day timeline. (Also) I think that might be tight,” he argued. It passed 5-1 with Inganamort voting no. The requires towns to establish a timeline for cannabis license application review. They also must notify the Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC) when they beginning allowing cannabis businesses to operate. If passed, towns must give an up or down vote within 90 days.

The town process is one of the biggest issues in New Jersey to opening a licensed cannabis company. Less tha 40 percent of New Jersey’s more than 500 towns allowed cannabis companies to operate in their border. Those that do created license processes that vary wildly in effectiveness, transparency, and fairness. Heady NJ has heard many horror stories about terrible delays due to towns their ineffectiveness and sometimes shady processes. A lot of dispensaries were delayed from opening by town officials one way or another. There has been a plethora of lawsuits resulting from the process in both large cities and smaller towns. Some bogged down the whole process in town while others did not and it continued. The issues have especially hurt local/minority cannabis entrepreneurs.

NJ Cannabis Worker Labor Rights Bill Approved

The NJ Assembly Oversight Committee also reviewed a bill to increase the labor rights of cannabis workers in licensed facilities. A4182 was introduced by Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo (D-14-Mercer) and Atkins. It’s called “Concerns conditions of employment of certain cannabis workers.” At the meeting, Atkins noted cannabis advocate Andrea Raible and AFL-CIO union lobbyist Eric Richard were for it but did not feel a need to testify along with UFCW labor union representatives. Inganamort expressed safety and quality concerns. He noted there was an article about safety standards and failing lab tests has become an issue. “We … need to look into that. When the label is inaccurate with respect to the amount of THC or perhaps having harmful microbes or bacteria in the product that is a concern. It could potentially be dangerous,” Inganamort added. He said he would vote no. “Thank you very much Assemblyman, for voicing your concern but also being gracious and allowing us to move it forward,” Atkins said. The bill passed with little debate, 5-1.

Helping Cannabis Workers According to the text, the bill would provide licensed cannabis workers with rights and protections equal to those provided to other workers regarding employee representation and unfair labor practices. “Currently, certain cannabis workers, most notably those employed by licensed cannabis cultivators, are excluded from protections against unfair labor practices provided to most private sector workers by the federal National Labor Relations Act,” the law says. So, if signed into law, the bill would make it easier for cannabis workers to join a union. Workers have a lot of rights in the bill to defend themselves and organize or join a union. Notably, “the employee organization may petition the board to require the employer to provide a list of current employees with contact information.” It further says, “the bill increases penalties for employer non-compliance from not more than $1,000 to not more than $5,000 per day of non-compliance.” “If the employee organization petitions the board for that information, then the employer must also give the organization access to the employees, including allowing meetings in the workplace and employer-controlled living quarters,” it added. “The bill gives cannabis worker organizations the right to engage in publicity regarding products produced by an employer with which the organization has a dispute, including publicity asking the public to not patronize businesses distributing or selling the products,” the law explains.

So, the unions could severely criticize products benefitting bad bosses and lead a boycott if they want under the bill.

First published in Headly.com by Dan Ulloa. Dan is the Editor and Publisher of Heady NJ.