A growing number of states are moving to bar employers from holding mandatory anti-union meetings at work, a move labor advocates hope will give employees more confidence to vote “union yes.”

Illinois is poised to become the eighth state to enact such a ban after the legislature passed a bill outlawing employers from holding mandatory meetings of a political or religious nature.

Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker plans to sign the legislation by the end of this month, a spokesperson told HuffPost.

That would add Illinois to a list that already includes Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, New Jersey and Washington.

Meanwhile, at least another 10 states are considering passing similar legislation, potentially covering more than 60 million workers around the country, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.

For years, unions have bemoaned the fact that employers have essentially unfettered access to their workers to make the case against organizing, while unions can only mount their arguments in voluntary, offsite settings. There is even a term for when employers force workers to listen to anti-union messaging in group or one-on-one talks: “captive audience” meetings.

Like in other states, the Illinois measure, called the “Worker Freedom of Speech Act,” goes beyond the subject of collective bargaining, forbidding employers from holding mandatory meetings on “religious or political matters.” That means employers could not force a worker to attend a meeting where the company promoted a political candidate or particular religious views.

Tim Drea, the president of the Illinois AFL-CIO, said it made “a lot of sense” for the state labor federation to get behind the bill. While Drea has an obvious stake in opposing anti-union captive audience meetings, he said workers shouldn’t be forced to listen to political talk either.

He noted the famous case from 2012, in which coal magnate Bob Murray allegedly required his miners to attend a rally for then-GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

“There’s a problem with workers having to not only listen to anti-union rhetoric at work, but religious rhetoric or political rhetoric from the employer,” Drea said. “People just want to go to work to work. They don’t want to be indoctrinated.”

But the captive audience meeting bans have come under fire from business groups that argue they violate employers’ First Amendment rights and conflict with federal labor law. Bans like Illinois’ include a private right of action, meaning workers can sue in court when they believe their employer has violated its provisions.

Lawsuits are challenging the bans in Connecticut and Minnesota.

The National Federation of Independent Business claimed in a court filing that the Minnesota law has already “chilled” employers’ free speech and that they “must either refrain from future meetings and communications concerning political matters or go forward … exposing themselves to legal risk, including liability, costs, and attorneys’ fees.”

The state laws are part of a broader effort to cut back employers’ anti-union talk on worksites.

Jennifer Abruzzo, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, has argued in memos and cases that mandatory anti-union meetings violate the law. She told HuffPost in an interview last year that the meetings are “inherently coercive.”

“There is a threat. ... It’s inherent because these workers are economically dependent upon their employer,” said Abruzzo, who was appointed by President Joe Biden. “They have no true ability to exercise their right to refrain without fear of some sort of reprisal.”

The NLRB has not yet ruled on the issue. A decision in Abruzzo’s favor would almost certainly be appealed to federal court by employer groups.

In lieu of a national ban, unions and other pro-labor groups have been pushing state lawmakers to step in and outlaw the mandatory meetings. The Economic Policy Institute notes that “at-will employment” prevails in the vast majority of states, giving employers broad discretion to fire workers, although it is illegal to retaliate against someone for trying to form a union.

“State lawmakers have the power to fight back against employer coercion and address gaps in weak, outdated federal laws,” the think tank urged in April.

A HuffPost series published last year detailed how systematic captive audience meetings can erode union support during an organizing campaign. Employers often hire anti-union consultants who hold the meetings for a going rate of $3,000 per day. Consultants and lawyers also script speeches for managers and guide them on what to say to workers to turn them against the idea of a union.

Drea said that under the Illinois proposal, employers would still be free to make their case against unions — they just couldn’t force workers to hear it.

“Obviously, employers have a freedom of speech to talk,” Drea said. “Employees have a freedom not to have to listen.”