Utah’s anti-public union bill advances again with promise of ‘union-neutral’ rewrite — but union reps say they haven’t seen it

A bill facing dramatic public backlash is, yet again, advancing through the Utah Legislature — but this time, lawmakers are promising that at least one significant revision is on the horizon.

As of Thursday afternoon, HB267 as written would eliminate collective bargaining for public sector employees, including teachers, firefighters and police officers. 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.”

The bill has elicited a firestorm of opposition from constituents, who say nullifying public sector employee unions’ collective bargaining rights would hurt workers and compromise essential public services.

In an 18-10 vote Thursday, senators passed HB267 to the next stage in the legislative process, known as a “third reading.” This final phase allows for substitutes to be introduced. The bill’s co-sponsor, Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Cottonwood Heights, promised a substitute bill would be presented.

That substitute had yet to be released as of Thursday afternoon, but Cullimore said it would “allow a path” to collective bargaining if at least 50% of an organization’s workforce votes to do so.

“I don’t want to speak for any special interest groups and stakeholders, but as I understand, fire, police, and many of our local education unions are … neutral on the substitute,” Cullimore said during a Senate hearing on the bill Thursday.

However, several union representatives involved in negotiations with lawmakers told The Salt Lake Tribune they had not yet seen an updated draft as of Thursday afternoon.

“They would like us to be neutral? Perhaps when we see it,” said Brad Asay, president of the American Federation of Teachers Utah. “But no decisions have been made yet. We haven’t seen the draft.”

Zackery Hatch, a union representative with the Professional Firefighters of Utah, echoed Asay’s sentiments.

“Until something’s in writing, I don’t know what we can be on board with,” Hatch said, adding that the firefighters union has been pleased with what’s been promised in discussions.

Officials from the Utah Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, also said they had not seen any major substitutes drafted as of Thursday afternoon.

Before the vote, Sen. Kathleen Riebe, D-Cottonwood Heights, urged her fellow lawmakers to wait until any planned substitutions were made public before voting on it.

“We are beholden to vote on the bill before us,” Riebe said. “If our good senator wanted us to vote on the bill that’s somewhere in the wings, they would have brought that bill today. We cannot vote on a bill that we don’t know about.”

She called it “un-American” for legislators to keep ignoring the thousands of pleas from constituents decrying the measure, urging senators not to pass the bill.

Cullimore countered that the fear driving the public response was “unfounded.”

“Public employees will retain the freedom to join unions and advocate for their interests,” he said.

That fear, Cullimore continued, is being “promulgated,” particularly by education unions that are “recognizing” they don’t offer the services they claim to provide.

“[It] is because of legislative action that teacher pay is where it is today, and not from union representation over the last few years,” Cullimore said.

Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove, agreed.

“I don’t think they’re doing the amazing job that you think they are,” Brammer said. “Those unions are not keeping up with the funds that we are sending to the [schools], and they haven’t over and over and over again. You could be doing much better on your own than with the union.”

Several other Republican lawmakers Tuesday said they were voting against the bill because they hadn’t seen any proposed substitutes.

“What I see in the faces in the gallery here is tremendous concern,” said Sen. Daniel Thatcher, R-West Valley City. “And if every one of my constituents told me to do something that I believed was absolutely the wrong thing to do, in a republic, I cannot sacrifice what I believe is right for what I believe is popular. However, what I am hearing from my constituents makes sense to me, and seems to be the correct principle.”

Several other Republicans still voted in favor, with the caveat that their support was subject to change depending on what any significant substitutions may look like by the time the Senate plans to revisit the bill Friday morning.

Still time for ‘consensus,’ lawmaker says

Support with reservation was a similar sentiment Wednesday, when HB276 narrowly passed out of the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee with a 4-3 margin.

Committee chair Sen. Dan McCay, R-Riverton, cast the deciding vote, but told bill sponsor Republican Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher that his “aye” wasn’t a promise to support the bill in the future.

He encouraged Teuscher and the bill’s Senate sponsor — Kirk Cullimore, who sits on the Revenue and Taxation committee — to “continue meeting with stakeholders and try to drive some consensus.” McCay also tried to quell concerns from the bill’s opposers, saying there’a still “a lot of time” for changes to be made.

“The legislative process isn’t over,” McCay said.

Opponents of the bill have characterized it as an attack on the state’s largest teachers union, the Utah Education Association, in retaliation for lawsuits the union has filed challenging both the “Utah Fits All” school voucher program and a constitutional amendment that would have allowed the state to spend income tax revenue on other “state needs” beyond public education, higher education and disability services.

Even if the target is the teachers’ union, opponents have worried the bill could have a wider chilling effect on all public sector unions. Without the ability to bargain, fewer people may opt for union membership, which may ultimately lead to the dissolution of some unions entirely.

“It’s clear that the only reason you’re running this bill is because you hate teachers and police officers, right?” McCay asked Teuscher on Wednesday.

“Of course not,” McCay continued, adding that he’d received many emails suggesting that. “I figured maybe you could answer that.”

“I respect and appreciate all of our public employees across the board,” Teuscher responded, “and I would not be running this bill if I didn’t think would help all of those employees have a bigger voice in the process.”

While discussion of the bill was originally the last item on the Senate committee’s agenda Wednesday, McCay moved it to the No. 1 spot to accommodate the surge of attendees. So many people showed up at the Capitol for the bill discussion that they filled three overflow rooms, on top of the original committee meeting room.

In total, lawmakers heard from more than 20 members of the public, most of whom spoke in opposition to the bill, and McCay issued just one decorum warning after attendees clapped at the conclusion of a public comment.

As McCay wrangled commenters to speak, asking those in opposition to queue in the middle of the room and instructing supporters to line up on the side, staff had to check the overflow rooms to find anyone wishing to speak in support of the bill.

Teuscher introduced the bill to the committee on Wednesday and attempted to dispel “miscommunication” about its impacts. It doesn’t ban state employee unions, he said, nor would it impact private sector unions. He said that these public unions represent less than half of eligible employees, but make decisions for them all.

The bill, Teuscher said, is three years in the making and aims to “ensure fairness, transparency and accountability” by empowering lawmakers to make funding choices for these public institutions instead of acquiescing to whatever contract public unions and employers may enter into.

“It should be the elected representatives that negotiate spending and public policies doing that. That’s the Democratic process,” said co-sponsor Cullimore. “Taking the taxpayers out of the equation is un-American.”

The bill would also bar public labor union employees who aren’t state employees from accessing state retirement benefits and require that those unions use public spaces pursuant to the same rules and associated costs as private groups.

Many commenters were not convinced, including Zach Jeppson, union president for the Salt Lake City Fire Department.

“Let’s start by calling a spade a spade. This has nothing to do with transparency,” he said, “and everything to do with back-breaking union leadership and unions in Utah.”

Jeppson worried that nullifying his union’s bargaining powers would erode the progress it’s made. For instance, their current agreement requires “four-handed staffing,” meaning four firefighters are dispatched per engine or truck on all calls.

Salt Lake City fire Captain John Maddox said that when he started at the department 35 years ago, the standard was three firefighters per engine or truck.

“Why?” he asked. “Because it was a cost-savings to wages and benefits for the city.” But it wasn’t safer for firefighters or the people they’re called to help.

Christy Giblon, president of the Provo Education Association, refuted Teuscher’s assertion that unions represent a minority of eligible workers. Teuscher had said his estimate came from tallying the number of automatic deductions from state employee paychecks for union dues.

Giblon’s union represents 54% of certified employees, she said, including teachers, counselors and social workers.

“However, if Representative Teuscher were to pull our payroll deductions, he would only find around 120 members,” she said, “because we have been quickly moving our members to electronic funds transfer because of the attacks from this body.”

Ian Decker, vice president of the union that represents Utah Health Workers United and United Campus Workers of Utah, urged lawmakers to vote against the bill, warning they were moving too quickly and not thinking about “unforeseen consequences.”

He alluded to the recent strikes at Park City Mountain Resort. If public employee unions lose the ability to negotiate, they may turn to strikes because of a lack of options.

“I would prefer not to do these things, but if you only give us one path, and force one method of thinking on us, we’re still going to take that path,” he said. “We would prefer to address this at the table, through contracts. Not picket lines.”

Just a handful of attendees spoke in favor of the bill, including Kevin Greene, with Americans for Prosperity — Utah, and Jason Chipman, with the Libertas Institute. Both said the bill safeguards taxpayer funds.

“We need transparency and we need efficiency to make sure out taxes stay low,” Chipman said, “and I think this bill does exactly that.”

Just under two hours after the meeting began, and people filled every available chair, McCay moved to the next agenda item.

“If you aren’t — the rest of you — here for Motor Vehicle Division Amendments...,” he said waggishly, “if we can get up and head toward the exit pretty quickly, that would be helpful.”

Correction • Jan. 31, 10:30 a.m.: This story has been updated to reflect which employees are members of the Provo Education Association.