Thousands of emails, calls and text messages flooded Utah lawmakers’ inboxes over the weekend opposing HB267 — a bill that would eliminate collective bargaining for public sector employees, including teachers, firefighters and police officers.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle acknowledged the barrage of messages during a House hearing on the bill Monday. Then in a 42-32 vote, they again moved the controversial measure forward, bringing it one step closer to passing as it now heads to the Senate Business and Labor Committee.
“Many of our legislators are just not listening to their constituents,” said Renée Pinkney, president of the Utah Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union.
HB267 would ban collective bargaining across all government-owned organizations. While it would not prevent public employees from joining or forming unions, it would prohibit government employers from “recognizing a labor organization as a bargaining agent.”
Bill sponsor Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan, argued that the measure doesn’t stop unions from advocating for their members but instead ensures more voices are included in the process.
“In a lot of our government agencies that do collective bargaining today, that voice is made up by a far minority of the employment base across the board,” Teuscher said Monday. “There are literally thousands of voices across our state that just don’t get heard as part of that negotiation process.”
Brad Asay, president of the American Federation of Teachers Utah, called Teuscher’s arguments — echoed by several other Republican representatives Monday — “disingenuous.”
“It can’t bring more voices to the table,” Asay said of the bill, because he argued the collective bargaining process is where employees can receive advocacy for issues including benefits, salaries and safety. The negotiations also often include “due process” for employees in disciplinary and termination matters.
If the bill passes, Asay said, employee advocacy without a ratified contract would essentially be useless.
“None of these entities, none of these employers, are going to do that individually with employees,” he countered.
‘Bipartisan opposition’
Following the hearing, the Utah House Democratic Caucus released a statement condemning the decision.
“We are disappointed that [HB267] was passed on the House floor despite bipartisan opposition and widespread criticism from constituents,” the statement said. “This legislation directly contradicts Utah’s commitment to supporting our education professionals, public safety officers, and public service employees.”
While several Republicans spoke in support of the bill, some stood opposed, including Rep. Douglas Welton, of Payson, who teaches in the Nebo School District.
“As the only active teacher in this body, this is a very meaningful and difficult discussion for me to speak to,” Welton said. “I am still unsure that this really answers one of the core issues that we have, is that all teachers are being represented. … Overwhelmingly, my constituents are opposed to this bill.”
Rep. Troy Shelley, R-Ephraim, said he supported the bill, arguing that unions “create an avenue to circumvent our elected officials.” He gave an example of a teacher who may turn to a union for help with an issue instead of addressing it with their local school board.
Elected officials, he continued, are “elected by a group of people to represent them,” while unions are not.
Rep. Raymond Ward, R-Bountiful, countered.
“We say we are ‘the voice of the people’ here, and in one really fundamental and important sense, that is true,” Ward said. “But does that mean that we are the only voice that they get to have?”
He added that it’s difficult for people to appeal to elected officials when issues arise.
“It’s easy to say, ‘The teacher can come and make their presentation to the school board by themselves,’ or, ‘The firefighter can come and appeal to their government officials,’” Ward said. ”That’s not as easy as having a group that you feel represents you. … People do go other places besides just us in the Legislature to find a voice.”
The bill would also eliminate additional paid leave for public employees to participate in union duties and mandate that unions cover the cost of using public spaces for union activities.
“I think we can all agree that it makes sense to have that separation and clear guardrails in place that public, taxpayer money is not being forwarded to pay for union work,” Teuscher said.
Bill specifically targets the UEA, union reps say
Several union representatives have said Teuscher’s bill appears directed at one union in particular: the Utah Education Association.
“The problem is [everyone else] is collateral damage,” Asay said.
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.
“Many representatives that we’ve spoken to are upset with the Utah Education Association,” Asay said. “This was really targeted at them. It’s retaliatory.”
Rep. Candice Pierucci, R-Herriman, alluded to the UEA’s political influence Monday.
“The NEA [National Education Association], a large union affiliated with the UEA, has involved itself in Utah policy and espouses political views in direct contradiction to laws we have passed in Utah by the voice of the people,” Pierucci said.
More broadly, Asay argued, the bill seems to align with a national conservative-led agenda aimed at silencing political opposition.
“Public employee unions wield a lot of political clout,” he previously told The Tribune. “We’re kind of that last power that stands in the way of those that have that political ideology of the right. … They don’t like that power in solidarity.”
He explained that without collective bargaining, employees may be less inclined to join unions. Without enough members — 50% plus one of the affected workforce — a union cannot exist.
“[Lawmakers are] hoping that people will leave the union, and if they leave the union, there is no union,” Asay said.
