Tenant unions—or so-called “tenant associations”—are increasingly challenging for housing providers to navigate. However, it remains important to make a good-faith effort to acknowledge their role and engage in constructive, solution-oriented dialogue. 

When we think of unions, we hearken back to the days of factory workers who were fighting for collective bargaining rights. But this unionization, typically reserved for shop floors, has now morphed and spread into rental units, empowering tenants to organize to improve housing conditions and advocate for their rights.

Much like providing free legal counsel to tenants facing eviction, San Francisco was a pioneer in laying the groundwork for tenant unions to form. We have not been a Johnny-come-lately on this subject, as we first alerted the rental housing community about this novel idea to bring renters together and take to the picket lines.

Other locales followed suit by allowing tenants to form unions or associations without landlord interference. Before we launch into some of our soliloquy, let’s get an overview of local rules that give tenants the right to assemble.

 

San Francisco 

In 2022, groundbreaking legislation was passed that requires housing providers to “confer in good faith” with tenant associations to air out concerns over housing conditions, community life, landlord-tenant relations, and other issues of common concern.

Tenant associations can be established with support from at least 50% of the occupied tenants. As part of their right to collectively address housing concerns, tenants are allowed to organize in building common areas to conduct such activities as distributing literature, holding meetings, conducting door-to-door surveys, and so forth.

The San Francisco Rent Board has since issued further guidance to landlords on the law. Importantly, landlords must attend at least one tenant association meeting every three months if requested to do so, and must remain in attendance until the meeting concludes (up to two hours).

If a landlord does not comply with their obligation to recognize tenant associations and confer when them in good faith, tenants can petition the Rent Board for a rent reduction. The City Attorney’s Office, moreover, has signaled its intention to enforce the law.

 

Oakland

Oakland has similarly given tenants the right to organize and collectively address issues such as rent increases, maintenance concerns, and eviction protections. Tenant organizers have the right to access common areas to distribute literature, hold meetings, and discuss tenant issues, so long as these activities do not disrupt the normal use of the property.

Tenant organizers have the right to access common areas of residential buildings to distribute literature, hold meetings, and discuss tenant issues, provided these activities do not disrupt the normal use of the property.​ This right is protected under local ordinances, including the Tenant Protection Ordinance (TPO), which prohibits landlords from retaliating against tenants for organizing activities in the form of harassment, unjustified eviction notices, or refusal to make necessary repairs, among other acts.

The right of tenants to organize is bolstered by statewide anti-retaliation statutes and First Amendment protections, especially in large multi-unit housing where common areas are often used for communication among residents.

 

Berkeley

Tenants have the right to organize in buildings that contain ten or more units, or in buildings between 1 and 9 units if managed by a property management company. A tenant association can be formed with at least 50% of occupied tenants signing a petition certifying their intent to form one.

Given a written request at least 14 days in advance, the landlord or their representative must attend at least one quarterly meeting with the tenant association and remain for at least two hours.

Since these organizing activities qualify as a “housing service,” tenants may file a rent adjustment petition to allege that the landlord’s lack of good-faith interaction with the tenant association is a reduction in housing services that should correspond with a rent reduction. It is also the prerogative of tenants to file a private lawsuit and seek an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees if they prevail.

 

What does the term “confer in good faith” mean? 

This is a recurring theme we see in ordinances that require housing providers to come to the table with tenant associations. This term is ambiguous, but essentially means that landlords need to recognize the tenant association and have a constructive dialogue with them. The tenant association cannot be ignored - we have to have a fluid conversation.

Here are some examples of what conferring in good faith may look like:

  • Having a designated point of contact and maintaining regular communication that may include participation by non-resident advocates.

  • Allowing enough time for limited English speakers to obtain translation services.

  • When habitability concerns are expressed, the landlord should acknowledge them and effectuate necessary repairs in a timely fashion.

  • When both parties agree on something, put it in writing.

  • Allow tenant associations to organize freely within reasonable guidelines, such as requiring meetings to be held at certain hours (e.g., not late at night), restricting flyer postings to designated bulletin boards, and requiring organizers to notify management before reserving common spaces.

What we don’t want is obstruction of the tenant association. 

Naturally, housing providers are inquisitive about a campaign orchestrated by tenants to band together. Landlords and property managers need to be careful and allow this democratic process to play out. Get out of the way. If crusading tenants want to make their case to their neighbors, let them articulate it.

Housing providers do not have to endorse flyers and other materials used by tenant associations. Our strong recommendation is for landlords to take a hands-off approach, and if there are differences, have a sit-down with residents, hear them out, and formally address concerns that arise. We can’t just dismiss them.

 

A tenant’s right to organize does not mean that landlords have to capitulate to unreasonable demands.

Ordinances aimed at empowering tenants to unionize were designed for renters to have a collective voice in speaking out against substandard conditions. It’s been said that there is strength in numbers, and these tenant unions would shift the balance of power to take on slumloards who neglect their properties. Sounds reasonable in theory, right?

Instead, what we have seen so far are demanding tenants who are using their status as a member of a tenant association to make unreasonable requests. Take, for instance, people living in a building built in 1908 who request that their building be completely remodeled. The small number of tenant associations that have sprouted up so far have been known to make baseless accusations, like intimidation by their property manager, when we know that is not the case because the property manager has a track record of excellence and has never done anything out of line.

Of course, there are minimal standards that landlords must adhere to. Under California’s implied warranty of habitability, owners must provide housing that is safe and livable. Tenant associations are prone to demand amenities that exceed these standards. There are militant tenant groups who have sold renters a bill of goods. Under their false narrative, unionized tenants can expect some sort of riches, like a brand-new remodeled unit. Not so.

Bornstein Law wants everyone to know that while housing providers need to recognize duly formed tenant associations and have good faith discussions with them, they do not have to give away the store. Landlords do not have to capitulate to unreasonable demands, and whenever there is doubt about whether a tenant association’s request is reasonable or not, contact our office.

Our opinions, for what it is worth. 

We are hard-pressed to object to the whole concept of tenant unions. The stated goal to pave the way for their formation was to give tenants a megaphone to protest unacceptable conditions in the building, but the law is always cleaner on the page than it is in real life. By and large, these tenant associations have arisen in buildings that do not have serious code violations, and their organizers have articulated a wish list that can be difficult to accommodate.

Tenants have an abundance of protections under state law and even more safeguards if subject to a local ordinance, but this is not enough for some lawmakers who want to add new layers of regulations to trap landlords. 

Anti-harassment ordinances have proliferated throughout the Bay Area, and they just add new penalties to existing landlording rules. It’s redundant and can potentially put good landlords out of business because of a simple mistake or ignorance of the law. 

Now we have to deal with tenant associations and yet another set of responsibilities to comply with. If there is any good news in this, it is that we don’t expect many of these unions to be created. Gathering signatures is one thing, but participation is another. Most tenants are not activists; they want to make a living, come home at night to their habitable apartment, and shut their door, which is good working order. This is the silent majority. 

What is left over is a handful of vocal tenants in a building who are adamant about making complaints and demanding sweeping changes. Housing providers need to allow them to vent. Housing providers must be neutral, non-discriminatory, and refrain from chilling organizing efforts through interference or retaliation.

Finally, a surefire way to avoid the formation of a tenant union in the first place is to maintain rental units in good working order, be communicative with residents, and not allow concerns to fester.