logo
What really happened with the bill banning collective bargaining?

What really happened with the bill banning collective bargaining?

Yahoo07-03-2025
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Tesla eyeing NYC for autonomous taxi service tests, WSJ reports
Tesla eyeing NYC for autonomous taxi service tests, WSJ reports

Business Insider

time3 days ago

  • Business Insider

Tesla eyeing NYC for autonomous taxi service tests, WSJ reports

Tesla (TSLA) is hiring vehicle operators in New York City to gather audio and video for its Autopilot program, The Wall Street Journal's Becky Peterson reports. Tesla hasn't applied yet to test autonomous vehicles in New York City, according to a spokesman for the city Transportation Department. Tesla is looking to expand its robotaxi service beyond Austin, Texas, with data-collection roles in multiple states. Alphabet's (GOOG) (GOOGL) Waymo, which announced its interest in the market in June, has applied for that permit and is seeking to be the first company to start testing. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence.

Wholesale Prices Surge at Fastest Monthly Rate Since 2022
Wholesale Prices Surge at Fastest Monthly Rate Since 2022

Wall Street Journal

time3 days ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Wholesale Prices Surge at Fastest Monthly Rate Since 2022

Factory-gate prices climbed faster than expected in July, reaccelerating after they held steady a month earlier. The producer-price index increased by 0.9% last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal were expecting PPI inflation of 0.2% month-over-month. It was the largest monthly rise in more than three years. The trend spanned sizable monthly increases for both wholesale goods prices, which rose 0.7%, and wholesale services prices, up 1.1%..

Trump v. The Wall Street Journal through a cinematic lens
Trump v. The Wall Street Journal through a cinematic lens

Yahoo

time3 days ago

  • Yahoo

Trump v. The Wall Street Journal through a cinematic lens

President Donald Trump's recently filed lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for its report about a birthday letter Trump allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein has me thinking about the movies. As I read the lawsuit, I can't help but think of some cinematic parallels. The 1994 classic "Dumb and Dumber" immediately comes to mind, given that Trump's lawyers failed to comply with Florida's statue requiring a defamation plaintiff to give the defendant five days' notice before filing a defamation suit. This would allow the court to immediately dismiss the suit. It's not clear if Jim Carey or Jeff Daniels is co-counsel. The other thing that's notable about the lawsuit is that it makes a demand for $10 billion in damages. This reminds me of the scene in "Austin Powers" where Dr. Evil initially plans to demand $1 million in ransom, but, on advice of Number 2, decides to demand $100 billion. But let's look at the substance of the case. In the suit, Trump and his lawyers claim unequivocally that the letter does not exist. This is notable. He doesn't say The Journal quoted the letter out of context or somehow made a mistake about the letter's content. Rather, the suit plainly says the letter is "fake and nonexistent." This makes me think of the line in "Top Gun" where Officer Stinger tells Maverick, "Son, your ego is writing checks your ego can't cash." Claiming that The Wall Street Journal made up the very existence of the letter is a check that may turn out very hard to cash. Having represented the media for 30 years, I find it hard to believe The Journal's lawyers would allow the paper to publish the story without having reviewed the letter. We all know Trump's propensity to sue, so the lawyers at The Journal no doubt flyspecked that reporting to the nth degree. Discovery will likely show whether the letter exists. Much like the movie "Big," Trump should be careful what he wishes for here. But the lawsuit may not get to the discovery stage. If the court doesn't dismiss the suit for the failure to comply with Florida law, it may dismiss it because it is legally deficient. In the first place, an article must be defamatory to be actionable. That means the article has to say something that would harm Trump's reputation. Or, as Trump would say, it has to be "nasty." But all the article says is that President Trump sent a birthday letter to a friend. Trump admits he was friends with Epstein during this time. So, what is the defamation here? The Journal didn't accuse Trump of a crime. It's not defamatory to report on a birthday greeting. The other reason the court could dismiss the suit at the jump is because it doesn't adequately plead "actual malice." When a public figure like Trump sues for defamation, he must plead and prove that The Journal published the article knowing it was false. The lawsuit states that The Journal published the article with "actual malice," but it doesn't give any facts to support that allegation. The closest it comes is to say that when The Journal called the White House for comment, White House counsel responded that the intended "article was false in claiming that President Trump authored the purported letter, which he did not." Maybe President Trump's lawyers missed that day in law school, but it isn't "actual malice" to refuse to take the president's word for it. This reminds me of the scene in the "Godfather" when Michael Corleone tells Carlo, "Don't insult my intelligence . . . it makes me very angry." The judge may feel the same way. Ultimately, the lawsuit is like Cool Hand Luke's poker hand in the movie of the same name. In that case, it worked out well for Luke, who comments "sometimes nothing is a cool hand." But here, I don't think President Trump should count on the same outcome. Jack Greiner is a partner at Faruki PLL law firm in Cincinnati. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues. This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Strictly Legal | Trump v. The Wall Street Journal through a cinematic lens

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store