‘The disrespect’: Utah bill to end collective bargaining for public workers moves forward despite union opposition

Union representatives from across Utah packed into the state Capitol on Thursday afternoon to protest HB267, a bill aimed at banning collective bargaining for public employees.

The designated overflow room was full, as was the overflow room’s overflow room, forcing firefighters, teachers and police officers alike to stand in a hallway as the House Business, Labor and Commerce Committee discussed the measure.

After more than a dozen split public comments, and the majority of attendees opposed, lawmakers in an 11-4 vote moved the bill forward to the House Floor for further consideration.

“It’s bull----,” said Chris Lowe with the United Steel Workers Local 392. “It’s embarrassing, the disrespect that they have in that room. … [They voted] against public sector employees that are out there every day doing the job of the people, educating the kids, keeping our state safe.”

Although the proposal excludes the private sector, protected under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, private sector workers still showed up Thursday in solidarity.

“An injustice and harm to one is a harm to all,” Lowe said.

HB267 would eliminate collective bargaining across all government-owned organizations, including public education, law enforcement, fire departments and public transportation.

The bill would not prevent public employees from joining or forming unions, but it would prohibit government employers from “recognizing a labor organization as a bargaining agent.”

It would also eliminate paid leave for public employees engaged in union duties and mandate that unions cover the cost of using public spaces for union activities.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan, said it’s about “safeguarding public resources.”

“It’s important that public resources are dedicated solely to supporting public services and not subsidizing any union activities,” Teuscher said Thursday.

Bill would allow ‘all voices’ to be heard, sponsor argues

Teuscher argued HB267 brings more voices to the negotiation table, particularly in the public education space.

“I know how hard teachers work, and if I didn’t believe that this bill was really going to, in the end, help that environment to be better for students, I wouldn’t be running this bill,” he said. “But I strongly believe that this path will actually get to a place where all voices are heard.”

Others who spoke in favor of the bill included newly-elected Utah State Board of Education member Cole Kelley, who echoed Teuscher’s statements.

Kelley teaches at American Fork High School and said he’s been in education for 27 years.

“One of the struggles that I faced in those 27 years … is that my voice has not been heard,” Kelley said. “And it’s no secret that the industry is dominated by females when you go to the collective bargaining process.”

Kelley added that he’s experienced “bully tactics” by unions — tactics that he called “outdated.”

“We need all voices to be heard in the teaching profession,” he said.

Many opponents of the bill argued that banning collective bargaining would jeopardize the safety, salaries, and benefits of public employees and the people they serve. Teuscher disagreed, and at times, other lawmakers asked speakers to explain how their safety would be impacted.

“Employers are less likely to sit down with their employees if they’re not unionized,” said Jack Tidrow, president of the Professional Fire Fighters of Utah and an active firefighter. “Now that said, we only have one fire department [that has] collective bargaining: Salt Lake City. But by the existence of it, it also helps foster good meet-and-confer arrangements around the state.”

Bill targets the UEA, union reps say

Several union representatives told The Salt Lake Tribune that Teuscher’s bill appears directed at one union in particular: the Utah Education Association.

The UEA has recently squared off with the state in court in two cases. In the first, the UEA argued in a May lawsuit that state’s $82 million “Utah Fits All” program is unconstitutional because it uses income tax dollars to fund vouchers meant to cover private school and homeschooling expenses. Third District Judge Laura Scott heard arguments in December but has not yet issued a ruling.

The second clash between the UEA and the state came in the form of a complaint tied to the UEA’s reasoning in the May lawsuit. In this case, the UEA asked a judge to throw out Amendment A, a ballot proposal that sought to erase the constitutional guarantee that income tax revenue would fund public schools.

The judge ultimately ruled the ballot question void. That resolution followed the Utah Supreme Court’s ruling on Sept. 25 that upheld a lower court’s decision to void Amendment D, which would have given the Legislature the power to repeal citizen-passed ballot initiatives.

“It’s clear [that the] intent of the bill really is to diminish the UEA,” Sara Jones, UEA’s director of government relations, policy and research, told lawmakers Thursday. “But I think, more importantly, there’s a broad misunderstanding of how labor groups organize and operate in Utah.”

Under Utah’s current “right to work” law, an employer cannot require someone to join a union or labor association to get or keep a job, in the private or public sectors — and cannot require someone to quit a union or labor association to get or keep a job.

“Passing this bill, unfortunately, it sends a message that educators don’t deserve a collective voice,” Jones said.

Other public employees will lose their voice, too, said Zach Jeppson, union president for the Salt Lake City Fire Department. He specifically pointed to a part of the bill that would exclude “new labor organization employees from participating in Utah Retirement Systems,” according to the bill language.

“It punishes those who choose to join a union by saying they can no longer be part of the pension system,” Jeppson said. “We do a hard job, we’re [more] at risk for cancer. We generally do this for lower pay than we can make in some sort of private sector, and the trade-off for that is that we usually get a pension when we’re done.”

“The bill very clearly says that if you choose to join a union as a new employee, you would not be eligible to join the pension system,” he continued. “And that’s absolutely not right.”