Lawmakers aim to clarify definitions for the public sector collective bargaining ban
More than a week after Gov. Spencer Cox signed HB267 to ban public sector collective bargaining, a new bill has been numbered that would clarify definitions around labor organizations and public employees.
HB327 is sponsored by Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, R-South Jordan, and would narrow the definition of a union and expand the definition of a public employer for the previously passed public labor unions bill, HB267.
Fillmore's new bill builds onto the provisions of HB267 which bans public sector collective bargaining and was sponsored by Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan. Collective bargaining is when an employer and a union come together to negotiate a contract for employees, with the labor union acting as the sole bargaining agent for the employees.
Under HB327, an organization that contracts with government agencies to do internal work would be excluded from the definition of labor organization or union. These groups, such as law firms or human resources films, would not fall under the restrictions set by HB267.
'The issue was that in 267 the labor union definition, which is new, was maybe a little bit broad and had the potential of encompassing contract organizations that were not intended,' said Michael K. Mckell, R-Spanish Fork.
It would also expand the definition of public employees to include charter schools and schools for the deaf and the blind into the collective bargaining ban. This bill does not exclude any union from HB267's collective bargaining ban.
Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, said this bill is essentially a cleanup bill that they decided to run before the end of the session.
The bill also clarifies the definitions for other terms in HB267 such as union activities, labor union members, political purposes and labor organization representatives.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
A pro-family tax code is a pro-America tax code
The greatest joy in life is having children. Many in the developed world have drifted from this core value, and the evidence is seen not just in birthrates, but in a culture that no longer celebrates family. However, two decades of public service, the last eight in Congress, and six more as a college professor and youth mentor have made me an optimistic man. I believe young people are returning to what has been the bedrock value of American society for 250 years. Family and child-rearing is a source of meaning, responsibility and our economic future. As Republicans in Congress map out a tax code for the next American century, they should take tender care to ensure providing for children is as generously encouraged and welcomed as possible. With an expanded Child Tax Credit, the House-passed 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is an excellent first step. Now, the Senate must do its part. Many families say they are having one child fewer than they want due to financial pressure, with the average being 0.5 children fewer per couple. Childcare today costs more than in any other period in American history, rising over 200 percent in the last three decades and now outpacing college tuition in most states. Couples raising children usually require more space than those who are not, and so are more affected by the national housing crisis, too. Our culture makes it all worse — we all know couples who don't want to start families if they can't put them in the best daycare, the top schools, the safest neighborhoods, and all those costs are significantly higher than the baseline. 'Making perfect the enemy of the good' used to be a punchline for politics. Now, it's how we live our lives. From costs to social media-induced delirium, the pandemic only made it all worse. Congress can't solve all of this, but the least politicians can do is ease the financial burden of child-rearing, and help those that want kids, have them. In 2017, when I served in Congress during the first administration of President Trump, we doubled the Child Tax Credit to $2,000 as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We knew that if we were going to reshape the tax code to spur economic growth, we couldn't leave families behind. That expansion helped millions of working families breathe easier while maintaining incentives to work and contribute to the economy. President Trump recognized early that our economic growth is intimately tied to the strength of the American family. Without growing families, we lose the next generation of workers, innovators and taxpayers. Combine President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration with Congress's inability to reform legal immigration, and our future workforce projections shrink unsustainably. Our need for homegrown population stability becomes even more urgent. Many developing countries today are either near a zero or negative population growth rate. Increasing the population of its citizenry sustains a growing economy. How can a nation survive if it does not encourage the growth of families? How can a nation carry on the cultural traditions which are so crucial to its heritage? Today, that legacy is continued by the chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.). Last year, against pressure from both sides of the aisle, he forged a real bipartisan compromise on the Child Tax Credit — one that rewarded work, supported children and reflected our shared commitment to the next generation. He has captured the spirit of that compelling vision for family policy with the Child Tax Credit expansion in the 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' growing the benefit to $2,500 per child and tethering it to inflation. We need more lawmakers like him — people who put policy before politics and families before partisanship. This is not a welfare giveaway. It's an investment. It pays off in both the short term and the long run. Research has shown that the Child Tax Credit increases labor force participation among lower-income families. That means more people working today, while the children who benefit from stable homes and better nutrition grow into healthier, smarter, more productive adults tomorrow. That's what I call a win-win for America. That's the kind of winning President Trump promised. The Senate will, of course, bring its own considerations to the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' That's how Congress works. But they must preserve or expand Smith's improvements to the Child Tax Credit, the furthest-reaching component of the 2017 tax reforms which touched tens of millions of parents. Republicans cannot leave behind the working class families that have flocked to them, and they must secure and expand this investment in the future of our country. The Child Tax Credit is common-sense policy that meets the moment. Let's build a tax code — and a country — that welcomes the next generation with open arms. Dennis Ross, a Republican, served in Congress from 2011-2019.
Forbes
33 minutes ago
- Forbes
How House And Senate Education Proposals Could Reshape Higher Education
Graduation mortar board cap on one hundred dollar bills concept for the cost of a college and ... More university education As Congress navigates the complex terrain of budget reconciliation, education policy has emerged as a major battleground between competing visions for America's higher education system. The House and Senate are advancing dramatically different approaches to federal education funding, with proposals that could fundamentally alter how millions of students access and pay for college. The House reconciliation bill targets higher education with what critics describe as unprecedented cuts, while the Senate is crafting its version that takes a different approach to similar goals. Both chambers face mounting pressure to address rising college costs and student debt, but their proposed solutions diverge sharply on fundamental questions about the federal government's role in education funding. The most significant differences between the House and Senate proposals center on Pell Grant eligibility, the cornerstone of federal student aid that serves nearly 7 million low-income students annually. The House version seeks to expand Pell Grant eligibility for short-term programs, a bipartisan initiative that would allow students to use federal aid for career training programs lasting as little as eight weeks. This expansion could benefit hundreds of thousands of students pursuing high-demand skills in healthcare, technology, and skilled trades. However, the House proposal also includes restrictions based on immigration status that would eliminate aid for specific student populations. The Senate takes a more restrictive approach to existing eligibility. Senate Republicans propose cutting off Pell Grant access for students who receive scholarships covering their full cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, living expenses, and course materials. This provision would primarily affect high-achieving students from low-income families who combine merit aid with need-based grants, potentially forcing them to choose between scholarship opportunities and federal aid eligibility. The impact of these competing approaches would be profound. The House expansion could democratize access to career training, potentially addressing workforce shortages in critical industries. However, the Senate's scholarship restriction could create perverse incentives, discouraging institutions from offering comprehensive aid packages to their neediest students. Both chambers propose significant changes to federal student lending but through different mechanisms. The House bill includes provisions for "risk-sharing" arrangements that would require colleges to assume financial responsibility for a portion of their students' loan defaults. This policy aims to incentivize institutions to improve outcomes and control costs by making them stakeholders in their graduates' financial success. The House approach represents a market-based solution that could drive down costs and improve program quality. Institutions would have strong incentives to ensure their programs lead to employment outcomes that enable loan repayment. However, critics argue this could push colleges to avoid serving higher-risk student populations or eliminate programs in fields with lower earning potential but high social value. Senate proposals focus more on tightening eligibility requirements and modifying repayment terms, though specific details remain under development as the chamber works toward its July 4 deadline for passage. The most controversial element of the House proposal involves new taxes on college and university endowments. The bill would expand existing endowment taxes and impose additional levies on institutions with substantial financial reserves. Supporters argue this addresses the disconnect between institutional wealth and student affordability, forcing well-endowed colleges to contribute more to the broader education system. The endowment tax provisions could generate significant revenue while pressuring wealthy institutions to increase student aid or reduce tuition. However, universities warn that such taxes could reduce their capacity for long-term investment in research, facilities, and student support services that benefit the broader academic mission. Small colleges, including Swarthmore, Pomona, and Grinnell, have banded together to oppose the tax because half or more of their operating income comes from the endowment revenue, and the tax would decimate their financial aid budgets. The Senate has not adopted endowment taxation to the same extent, instead focusing on spending reductions and eligibility restrictions to achieve fiscal goals. The House reconciliation bill extends beyond traditional education policy to affect healthcare access for students. Provisions related to Medicaid and other health programs could significantly impact the millions of college students who rely on these services. The bill's approach to social safety net programs would create additional barriers for students from low-income families who depend on multiple forms of federal assistance. This broader impact illustrates how education policy intersects with other aspects of social policy, making the stakes of reconciliation higher than traditional education legislation. The House takes Title I, II, III, and IV funds into state block grants based on the total student population (excluding the disabled and low-income populations) and allows students to use these funds for private schools. The Senate bill strengthens formulas to target the highest-poverty districts and schools better. The Senate bill generally rejects significant Title I portability beyond district public and charter options. The House bill eliminates federal mandates for state accountability systems (testing frequency, interventions). It proposes that states design their systems (standards, tests, improvement) with minimal federal approval. It maintains basic federal reporting (graduation, disaggregated data). The Senate bill takes the opposite approach, requiring a robust federal accountability system, annual testing in core grades, identification of low-performing schools, evidence-based interventions, public and transparent data, and disaggregated data. The federal requirements for teacher preparation and accountability would be transferred to the states under the House bill, with states setting their standards for certification, evaluation, and professional development. The Senate bill would maintain the federal role and would provide funds for evidence-based professional development in high-need districts. It also has provisions to require states to demonstrate that students have access to experienced and effective teachers. Charter school funding is increased in the House bill, as is access to vouchers to attend private schools. The Senate bill places restrictions on the use of vouchers or Educational Savings Accounts to fund private school tuition and places increasing accountability measures on these funds. The House bill similarly adds early childhood funds to state block grants. In contrast, the Senate bill provides significant new federal funding for universal, high-quality Pre-K programs with state quality standards. It may also expand childcare subsidies and improve quality. Evaluating these competing visions requires considering both immediate impacts and long-term consequences for educational access and quality. The House expansion of Pell Grants for short-term programs addresses a genuine need in the modern economy, where many high-paying careers require specialized training rather than traditional four-year degrees. This provision could significantly improve economic mobility for working-class Americans seeking career advancement through skills training. However, the House bill's overall approach prioritizes fiscal savings over educational access. The combination of aid restrictions, endowment taxes, and risk-sharing requirements could create a more constrained higher education environment where institutions focus primarily on financial metrics rather than educational missions. The Senate's more targeted approach to eligibility restrictions may preserve broader access while addressing specific concerns about the efficiency of aid. However, the scholarship restriction provision could undermine the very merit-aid programs that many institutions use to attract and retain talented students from diverse backgrounds. Both proposals face significant implementation challenges and political obstacles. The House bill's passage required narrow party-line votes, and similar dynamics are likely in the Senate. The fundamental tension between controlling costs and maintaining access will ultimately require compromise that neither chamber's current approach fully addresses. The most promising elements from both proposals involve targeted expansions of aid for career training and workforce development programs that directly address economic needs. However, the broader restructuring of federal education funding requires more careful consideration of unintended consequences. Effective education reform should expand opportunity while maintaining quality and access. The current reconciliation process, driven primarily by fiscal rather than educational considerations, may not provide the optimal framework for achieving these goals. A more comprehensive reauthorization of higher education policy, developed through bipartisan collaboration, would better serve both students and institutions. As both chambers work toward final passage, the ultimate measure of success should be whether these proposals genuinely improve educational outcomes and economic opportunity for American students rather than simply achieving short-term budgetary targets.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Senate Republicans seek to limit judges' power via Trump's tax-cut bill
By Nate Raymond (Reuters) -U.S. Senate Republicans have added language to President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that would restrict the ability of judges to block government policies they conclude are unlawful. Text of the Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's contribution to the bill released by its chair, Senator Chuck Grassley, late on Thursday would limit the ability of judges to issue preliminary injunctions blocking federal policies unless the party suing posts a bond to cover the government's costs if the ruling is later overturned. The bond requirement in the Senate's version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is different from the provision the Republican-controlled House of Representatives included when it passed the bill last month that would curb courts' power in a different way. The House version curtails the ability of judges to enforce orders holding officials in contempt if they violate injunctions. Judges use contempt orders to bring parties into compliance, usually by ratcheting up measures from fines to jail time. Some judges who have blocked Trump administration actions have said officials are at risk of being held in contempt for not complying with their orders. Congressional Republicans have called for banning or curtailing nationwide injunctions blocking government policies after key parts of Trump's agenda have been stymied by such court rulings. The House in April voted 219-213 along largely party lines in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act to do so, but the Senate has not yet taken up the measure. A White House memo in March directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post bonds if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. Such bonds can make obtaining an injunction a cost-prohibitive option in cases concerning multi-billion-dollar agenda items. Grassley's office said in a statement the language the Judiciary Committee proposed would ensure judges enforce an existing requirement that they make a party seeking a preliminary injunction provide a security bond to cover costs incurred by a defendant if a judge's ruling is later overturned. Judges rarely require such bonds when a lawsuit is not pitting two private parties against each other but instead challenging an alleged unlawful or unconstitutional government action. Several judges have denied the Trump administration's requests for bonds or issued nominal ones. Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, are using complex budget rules to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 votes needed to advance most legislation in the 100-seat chamber. The Senate Judiciary Committee's piece of the bill would also provide the judiciary funding to study the costs to taxpayers associated with such injunctions and provide training for judges about the problems associated with them. A spokesperson for Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, criticized the Republican-drafted legislative text, saying "Republicans are targeting nationwide injunctions because they're beholden to a president who is breaking the law — but the courts are not."
