Public labor union bill back to a complete ban on collective bargaining

Yahoo

05-02-2025

After multiple changes were made to one of the most controversial bills of the 2025 legislative session, the latest House version of a public labor unions bill would once again completely prohibit public sector collective bargaining.
The fourth substitute of HB267 was made public early Wednesday morning, just hours before Senate floor time began. The bill has been waiting on a vote from the Senate since last Friday when the first major change was made to the bill.
Since the bill has gone to the Senate floor, members of public labor unions in opposition to the bill have gathered at the Capitol each day since in anticipation of a vote.
The first version of HB267 completely prohibited public sector collective bargaining, but on Friday changes were made to the bill that made it so unions could collective bargain if they had a majority of all employees vote for them. The new substitute of the bill brings back a complete ban on collective bargaining.
'So as far as working with stakeholders and navigating a path for a bill, this has probably been as hard a bill as I've dealt with,' the bill's floor sponsor, Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Draper, said.
Because the bill has been changed since the House passed it, it would have to return back to the House if it passes the Senate. The bill's sponsor is Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan.
'They seem really committed to ending collective bargaining for public employees, and they use words that make it sound like collective bargaining is an adversarial process,' said Susan Johnston, a Salt Lake County worker who is a part of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Last week, lawmakers decided to take away the complete ban on collective bargaining after working with unions to come to a compromise. The change introduced on Friday made it so labor unions could hold an election, and if they were certified by a majority of all employees, not just union members, then they could act as a collective bargaining agent.
After the changes were introduced, multiple unions declared they were neutral on the bill, which means that they would accept the bill, but would still prefer that it didn't exist. A few unions remained opposed to the bill even after agreeing to the changes.
Because not all of the stakeholder groups were on board, lawmakers decided to introduce the substitute that would once again ban collective bargaining.
'So, if HB267 does pass through the Senate it will essentially kill SB168.'
— Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Draper
'We were getting indications that some of these groups were coming together and that there was going to be this consensus of neutrality, and that just hasn't crystalized,' Cullimore said.
The fourth substitute substantially does the same things as the original version of the bill, with some definition and technical changes.
'I think this is reflective of the policy that most of the legislators that have to vote on this want, and if there wasn't consensus on the other stuff, this is the vehicle that moves forward,' Cullimore said.
Cullimore and other members of Senate leadership would not say which version of the bill they will move forward with or when the Senate will be voting on the bill. While there are multiple lawmakers on board, both the House and Senate minority remain opposed to HB267.
'Both the House Democrats and the Senate Democrats are going to oppose anything that dismantles collective bargaining,' said Sen. Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, the Senate minority leader.
Though the bill has yet to be voted on, there are still groups of public labor union members who show up to the Senate everyday for floor time.
'It seems as though, when we stop showing up, they'll try and slide it through. I don't know that to be true, but that's what it feels like,' Johnston said.
Aside from members of AFSCME, those who gather each day include firefighters, nurses, teachers and other public employees.
'I think that this large presence of labor union members and allies has made a difference, and so we'll just continue to do it until the bill is dead,' said Shykell Ledford, who works with Johnston and is also a member of AFSCME.
Many of these employees who come to the Senate are using vacation time in order to be at the Capitol. Johnston said since she is a longtime employee she has more vacation time to use than other people do.
'I feel like it's kind of my responsibility, because I have more vacation time that I can use for this, that it's important for me to show up, to represent those who don't have that and can't show up,' Johnston said.
Ledford said that there are multiple employers around the state that do enjoy collective bargaining with the unions because it is an efficient process.
Public employees are being encouraged by multiple organizations to go to the Senate to show that there are still people opposed to the bill, she said. 'Lots of organizations are saying this is serious. We need everyone who can, who has the ability to show up, to show up,' Ledford said.
Collective bargaining is when an employer and a union come together to negotiate a contract for employees. This bill applies only to public sector labor unions and has nothing to do with the private sector.
'In most of those collective bargaining agreements, it spells out specifically that the union representation is the sole collective bargaining agent, meaning that the public employer is not able to negotiate with anyone else, other than union representatives,' Teuscher said.
This bill wouldn't just ban collective bargaining contracts but also makes it so public employers can no longer recognize labor organizations as bargaining agents. The bill would also ban unions from making meet and confers, and memorandums of understanding with employers.
Utah would not be the first state to ban public collective bargaining. Public sector collective bargaining is completely banned in North Carolina and South Carolina. In Texas and Georgia, only police and firefighters are given the right to collective bargain.
Sen. David Hinkins, R-Orangeville, has introduced another bill that focuses on public employee and labor relationships with employers.
SB168 establishes a labor relations board which would oversee public employee labor relations on a state level instead of on the federal level as it is currently done.
'I would really encourage everyone to turn their attention to Senate Bill 168, by Sen. Hinkins, which is a much better, it says let's manage public employee unions instead of abolishing them,' Ledford said.
This bill is in opposition to the fourth substitute of HB267 because it enforces collective bargaining, and defines how it can be used. Hinkins said his bill and the provisions it allows would help to create a stabilized workforce.
'So this way you negotiate, everybody gets, pretty much whatever they're doing, they get paid for it,' Hinkins said. 'That's a stabilized workforce.'
According to both Hinkins and Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, HB267 and SB168 are essentially opposites to each other.
'Well, they run head on to each other,' Cullimore said. 'So, if HB267 does pass through the Senate it will essentially kill SB168.'