What really happened with the bill banning collective bargaining?
A bill banning public sector collective bargaining was one of the most controversial bills of the 2025 session, but the bill sponsor, Rep. Jordan Teuscher shared that this bill has been a work in progress for years.
HB267 was signed by Gov. Spencer Cox on Feb. 14, and last week Teuscher, R-South Jordan, had an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal which described what his negotiations with public labor unions, specifically the Utah Education Association, looked like.
After the op-ed ran, Teuscher offered context and background on HB267 and his thoughts on public labor unions to the Deseret News.
In the op-ed, Teuscher specifically called out certain actions of the Utah Education Association, one of the biggest advocates against HB267. He said the union went back on promises made and was difficult to work with.
In response to what Teuscher wrote, the UEA told the Deseret News they disagreed with Teuscher's characterizations of the negotiations, adding they didn't make the promises he said they did.
Teuscher said the path to introducing HB267 started after he worked with the UEA and other unions while running a bill on curriculum transparency in schools. During that time he said he recognized issues with the public labor unions that he wanted to address.
'As I dived into it, learned more about how collective bargaining worked and how you have some districts that have 25% of members of the union that get to speak for 100% of everyone, and they have this monopoly in collective bargaining, I thought, 'this is wrong,'' Teuscher said.
During the 2023 session, he introduced HB241, which focused on the financial side of public labor unions. Teuscher said he introduced that bill late in the session to gauge reactions and to see how he could move forward with similar legislation in the future.
Teuscher returned in 2024 with HB285, which addressed collective bargaining as well as payroll deductions.
'It had the recertification provision in it that said, in order to collective bargain, you have to have at least 50% of the members of the employee class be members of the union,' Teuscher said.
Many unions were against the bill. Teuscher said he had the votes to pass the bill a year ago but after feedback from stakeholders and conversations with leadership, he decided to pull the bill as a measure of good faith.
Along with negotiations for pulling HB285, Teuscher said the UEA agreed to stay neutral on Amendment A — a constitutional amendment that would have expanded how the income tax could be used — and he believed collaboration would be better than confrontation.
'We were wrong. The moment the legislative session ended, the UEA reneged. Not only did it oppose the amendment, it also filed a lawsuit to remove it from the November ballot. The union exploited our good faith,' Teuscher wrote for The Wall Street Journal.
In a statement to the Deseret News the UEA said they never agreed to be neutral on Amendment A.
Over the interim, he worked on preparing a new bill focused on public labor unions and collective bargaining, which became HB267. Teuscher said he told the unions he would be putting together a new bill for 2025, but that it had nothing to do with Amendment A and what happened in 2024.
He said one reason he chose to address public sector collective bargaining completely with HB267 is because he heard from teachers who said that even with unions who have a majority of employees as members, there were still people who weren't able to have their voices heard.
He said he also decided during the interim that he didn't believe he could work well with the UEA.
'I've tried working with the UEA. ...It doesn't get me anywhere. They're not a good faith actor. We saw what they did at the end of the session. They made promises during the session on Amendment A and completely reneged on that promise,' Teuscher said.
In the statement sent to the Deseret News the UEA responded to claims made by Teuscher in his Wall Street Journal piece.
'It was disheartening to see Rep. Jordan Teuscher use a national platform to misrepresent the Utah Education Association's (UEA) positions on Constitutional Amendment A and the 2025 labor bill. Utahns deserve honest discussions, not misleading claims that attempt to undermine those who serve our communities every day,' read the statement from the UEA.
As the bill made its way through the Legislature, some referred to HB267 as Teuscher's 'revenge bill' against the UEA.
But, Teuscher said, 'I've been working on this issue for a really long time, and trying to get the right policy in place. Just because they've been a bad actor isn't the reason that we're running this bill now.'
When HB267 was first introduced at the start of the session there was immediate backlash. Hundreds of public employees opposed to the bill filled multiple overflow rooms. Other lawmakers said they had heard more about HB267 from their constituents than any other bill.
Because of this reaction, Teuscher said he worked with the unions to try to come to a compromise. The original version of the bill completely banned collective bargaining, and after negotiations, Teuscher published a substitute to the bill that would allow collective bargaining if a majority of employees were members of the bargaining unit.
'You know, no one worked harder to try to get to that compromise. And I truly believe that. I mean, how many meetings, late night meetings we had with labor unions in this room trying to get to somewhere or phone calls or whatever,' Teuscher said.
When the substitute was first decided on, Teuscher said he had eight major public labor unions in the state neutral on the bill, but then after the substitute was introduced some of the unions took back their support. He said he heard some of them reneged because their national parent organizations asked them to.
The bill was sitting in the Senate while Teuscher and others were working towards a compromise. After the compromise did not work out, the Senate decided to go ahead and pass the original version of the bill to completely ban public sector collective bargaining.
The UEA told the Deseret News that they believe they honored their commitment to be neutral on the changes made to HB267.
In his interview with the Deseret News, Teuscher expressed concern that the Republican Party is becoming friendlier with public sector unions, referencing Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, working on legislation to expand unions' powers and the Teamsters speaking at the Republican Convention.
This concern is what led him write the piece for The Wall Street Journal.
'I'm like, guys, this is not the direction that we should be going as a party, and so I felt like it was important to share that message nationally,' Teuscher said.
HB267 will prohibit public sector collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is when an employer and a union come together to negotiate a contract for employees.
The bill also provides professional liability insurance that teachers would be able to opt into. Teuscher also submitted a Request for Appropriations that would give the state government the option to pay for part of these insurance policies for teachers.
Now that the bill has been signed it will go into effect on July 1, 2025.
'What it doesn't do is it doesn't affect the relationship between any employer or employee in the state that wants to identify with a union, join a union, pay union dues, participate in a union, do union activity,' Teuscher said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
AI requires an explosion in power, both parties are losing ground and other commentary
Energy beat: AI Requires an Explosion in Power Every tech report acknowledges 'that deploying AI at scale will lead to massive increases in electricity demand,' since 'the digital economy runs on hardware, and hardware consumes a lot of energy,' notes City Journal's Mark P. Mills. 'A single large AI data center can use as much electricity as 2 million households.' Offsetting the costs of this soaring demand will 'exponential' gains in 'energy-efficiency.' Then again, AI will boost productivity, adding perhaps 'a cumulative $10 trillion above projections to U.S. GDP over the coming decade,' and so sprak further 'spur growth in energy demand.' Hence the tech community's demand for an 'all options on the table' energy plan, ending 'the past decade's monomaniacal obsession with wind and solar as the only options.' Liberal: Both Parties Are Losing Ground Most political commentary is missing 'the collapse of trust in the two traditional parties, increasing independence among voters, and rising allegiance to an undefined 'neither' party,' warns the Liberal Patriot's John Halpin. Per ample polling data, 'lots of Americans do not like the positions and brands of the only two parties' they can 'choose from in most elections,' nor do they fit any 'alternative third party at the moment.' 'Given the mounting number of economic and social concerns among Americans, a failed two-party system cannot endure indefinitely.' Today's parties must each 'bring in more voters with more diverse views' with an 'agenda that delivers for people,' or 'dwindle in membership' and 'retreat into ideological purity' while 'other Americans search for alternatives.' From the right: Dems' Identity-Politics Blinders 'Liberals are in denial,' contends The Wall Street Journal's Jason L. Riley, but even The New York Times admits 'Republicans are overwhelmingly making gains in working-class counties,' while Democrats are losing 'Black, white and Latino' working-class voters alike. Blame the left's 'identity-based appeals,' argues Riley. 'Minority voters are courted as minorities rather than as Americans who have the same priorities — good schools, safe neighborhoods, gainful employment — as everyone else.' Dems pretend 'Hispanics don't care about illegal immigration' and that 'blacks think policing is a bigger problem than crime,' though polls suggest the opposite. 'This is what happens when a small subset of progressives set the policy agenda for tens of millions of people.' And as long as Democrats refuse to change, 'Republicans stand to benefit.' Libertarian: JD's Free-Market Double Standard Veep JD Vance's 'position on bitcoin is' seemingly far out of step 'with his stated views — and those of the Trump administration, more generally,' on market forces, snarks Reason's Eric Boehm. In a Newsmax interview, Vance explained the administration's hands-off approach to cryptocurrency: 'What you shouldn't have is a dictatorial government that tells certain industries they're not allowed to do what they need to do.' Says Boehm: 'That's exactly right,' but 'from trade to immigration (which is an economic issue, yes) to minutiae' like 'how many dolls American kids get to play with, the Trump administration is demanding more dictatorial government that tells industries exactly what to do.' Sorry: 'The benefits of the free market should not be reserved exclusively for people who invent and use cryptocurrency.' Media watch: They Just Don't Learn 'If you thought that the media would have a come-to-Jesus moment' after their 'debacle' covering the Biden presidency, 'think again,' scoffs Joe Concha at the Washington Examiner. A recent Media Research Center study shows President Trump has gotten just 8% positive coverage and 92% negative in his first four months back in office on ABC, NBC and CBS, despite his great results on the border, inflation, unemployment and other issues. The 'good news'? Trump won last November despite negative coverage: 'Legacy media influence is a fraction of what it once was.' So 'for the next 42 months of Trump's presidency, expect more of the same': 'Ratings will continue to fall, as will readership.' And for the old media, 'so will trust.' — Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Lyman launches lawsuit claiming Utah is violating national election transparency law
Former gubernatorial candidate Phil Lyman launched another legal battle against Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson on Friday, alleging that Utah voter privacy laws violate federal statute and demanding that he receive access to state voter registration information. The organization representing Lyman, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a national nonprofit firm focused on election transparency, said they filed the lawsuit on Friday morning in the Utah District of the United States District Court. During his race against Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, Lyman filed a number of unsuccessful lawsuits, including one he filed by himself asking the Utah Supreme Court — and then the U.S. Supreme Court — to overturn the results of his 2024 election loss to Cox in the primary and general contests. 'I'm not interested in election integrity because I ran for governor, I ran for governor because I'm interested in election integrity,' Lyman said Friday. Lyman was joined by around 150 supporters on the south steps of Utah Capitol Building who repeatedly made statements about Lyman being 'cheated' out of an election and Lyman being the rightful governor of the state of Utah. But whereas Lyman has spent the past year making unsubstantiated allegations of corruption against Henderson, the lawsuit filed Friday takes a narrow approach that the Public Interest Legal Foundation has used several times before to win cases across the country. 'This isn't about the lieutenant governor; this is about the Utah statute that doesn't comply with federal law,' Chris Adams, the president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, told the Deseret News. Utah law allows voters to make their voter registration information private and unavailable for public information requests. Only government employees acting in their official capacity and political parties can access this information. Utah law also classifies the voter registration records of some 'protected individuals' as 'withheld,' meaning it cannot be accessed by political parties; only government employees acting in their official capacity. This designation applies to voters who are public figures, law enforcement officers, members of the armed forces, victims of domestic violence, those with a protection order, and all those who had already opted for their information to be private before the 'withheld' designation was created in 2020. A request for voter registration rolls from Nov. 3, 2020, revealed that nearly 34% of the 610,000 voter registration records in Salt Lake County had either 'private' status (16%) or were 'withheld' (18%), according to the lawsuit. Lyman's lawsuit, obtained by the Deseret News, argues that Utah's opt-in privacy designations, and expanded 'withheld' category from 2020 — which are both unique in the United States — are illegal under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. The 32-year-old law requires state DMVs to provide voter registration when individuals obtain a driver's license. But it also mandates that states create a process for members of the public to inspect all 'voter list maintenance records,' including the final statewide voter registration database. 'No other state in the country does what Utah does and block public records from the public simply by marking a box that 40% of the people have hidden records,' Adams told the Deseret News. 'No state in the country even comes close to them.' The case does not allege any 'malfeasance' by state officials, Adams clarified. It argues that the state law allowing for increased voter privacy should never have been passed because, under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal statute trumps state authority. The lawsuit states that Lyman reached out to the Lieutenant Governor's Office in September seeking access to the complete statewide voter registration database 'pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act.' Lyman allegedly never received a response. Following a subsequent request in October, Lyman was allegedly directed toward the public version of the statewide voter roll but was denied full access because of the state law. On March 7, the Public Interest Legal Foundation on behalf of Lyman, notified Henderson that they believed she was in violation of the National Voter Registration Act, and that they would file a lawsuit if the state did not comply within 90 days. 'The Office of the Lieutenant Governor has received letters from the Public Interest Legal Foundation. We're working through their requests and will respond according to law,' the lieutenant governor's spokesperson told the Deseret News in a statement. 'We've evaluated state election and privacy law, and the NVRA, and are confident in our compliance with both.' The statement continues: 'While our office does not comment on pending or active litigation, we have not been served a lawsuit and, according to the latest correspondence with PILF and according to the NVRA, the office has until mid August to respond to the requests and to address the concerns raised. The office will submit responses within that statutory timeline.' Over the past few years, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, based out of Alexandria, Virginia, has won a number of lawsuits focused on compliance with the National Voter Registration Act, including in Illinois, Maine and Maryland. They have also experienced victories, which have been appealed, in ongoing cases in Hawaii, South Carolina, Minnesota and Wisconsin. If Lyman's lawsuit is successful, Utah's voter privacy statute would be struck down. The lawsuit also asks the judge to order Henderson to give Lyman 'the full and complete Statewide Voter Registration List, including registrations classified as 'private' or improperly classified as 'withheld.'' This would include the names, addresses, contact information and voter registration dates for all Utah voters except for those who have applied for 'withheld' status since the designation was created in 2020, according to Adams. 'We do this all over the country. We don't lose these cases on the merits,' Adams said. In every state where it obtains voter registration information, the Public Interest Legal Foundation then also conducts a review looking for voter roll issues. A Utah legislative audit report released in December identified 1,400 deceased voters who were still on Utah voter rolls. Of these individuals, 700 likely received ballots and two cast a vote in the November 2023 election. The audit also found 300 duplicate records and 450 records where multiple people were apparently registered using the same driver's license number. 'We identified voters who appeared to cast ballots inappropriately in each of these areas of analysis,' the audit said.

Engadget
3 hours ago
- Engadget
Trump reportedly plans to extend the pause on the TikTok ban yet again
President Donald Trump plans to extend the pause on enforcing the TikTok ban once again, The Wall Street Journal reports. Trump previously extended the pause on April 4 to give TikTok, its potential US buyers and the Chinese government more time to reach an agreement, but the deal has made little progress since then. The current pause on enforcement is supposed to end on June 19. Given the state of the negotiations between the US and China, the odds of a deal being reached before then seem highly unlikely. The issue hasn't been helped by the fluctuating tariffs the Trump administration has attempted to levy on goods manufactured outside of the US, which started on April 2 and at one point included a 125 percent tariff on everything shipped from China. The two countries are expected to restart trade negotiations at some point in the near-future, according to The New York Times , but there's been no public mention of a TikTok sale being a key part of the discussion. A number of investors are still looking to own a piece of the US version of the app, including the software company Oracle, which has a pre-existing relationship with TikTok as a cloud provider. The TikTok ban went into effect on January 19. TikTok tried to appeal the ban beforehand, but the Supreme Court ultimately decided to uphold it, prompting Trump's first executive order pausing the ban on January 20, 2025.