TagUnion Station

Florida Republicans recently introduced companion bills in the state legislature that would prohibit certain public-sector employees from having union dues withdrawn from their pay. 

About the bills

Senate Bill 256 and House Bill 1445 state, “[A]n employee organization that has been certified as a bargaining agent may not have its dues and uniform assessments deducted and collected by the employer from the salaries of those employees in the unit. A public employee may pay dues and uniform assessments directly to the employee organization that has been certified as the bargaining agent.”

The bills would also require public-sector employees wanting to join a union to sign a membership authorization form including the following language:

The State of Florida is a right-to-work state. Membership or non-membership in a labor union is not required as a condition of employment, and union membership and payment of union dues and assessments are voluntary. Each person has the right to join and pay dues to a labor union or to refrain from joining and paying dues to a labor union. No employee may be discriminated against in any manner for joining and financially supporting a labor union or for refusing to join or financially support a labor union. 

Under the legislation, unions would be required to allow members to revoke membership at any time. 

The bills would also amend registration and renewal requirements for certified bargaining agents, including requiring recertification if the number of dues-paying union members is less than 60% of eligible employees in the unit. 

Unions representing law enforcement officers, correctional officers, correctional probation officers, and firefighters are exempted from the bills’ provisions. According to Orlando Weekly’s McKenna Schueler, SB 256 sponsor Sen. Blaise Ingoglia (R) said the exemptions were included “because these brave heroes often work second and third shifts while risking their lives to save others,” stating, “I cannot in good conscience ask them, after a 14-hour shift with no sleep, to meet with union reps to give them their check.”

Ingoglia filed SB 256 on Feb. 28. The Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee voted 5-3 along party lines in favor of a committee substitute bill during a hearing on March 7. The substitute bill removed a requirement for unions to pledge that union officials would not earn more than the highest-paid employee in the unit. The substitute bill was referred to the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee on March 9. 

Rep. Dean Black (R) filed HB 1445 on March 3. The bill was referred to the House State Affairs Committee on March 9.

Republicans have had a trifecta in Florida since 2011 and currently hold veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate.  

To read about Gov. Ron DeSantis’ (R) support for these proposals in the Dec. 23 edition of Union Station, click here. 

Perspectives

Support

Ingoglia said, “One of the ideas here is to make sure that the union members are getting the best possible union representation as possible. And one of that is to make sure that they’re having face-to-face conversations with their union representatives.”

Vincent Vernuccio, a representative for the Mackinac Center’s Workers for Opportunity initiative, said, “[SB 256] is about transparency, accountability, good bookkeeping, and democracy. … This bill is about the rights of public employees: making sure they’re informed and they can exercise them.” 

Freedom Foundation representative Rusty Brown said, “There’s nothing in this bill that curtails organizing or collective bargaining for wages, benefits, or working conditions, which is what a union should be doing. And when you have a union whose membership is half [the people they represent] … then that could be indicative of a problem. … [This bill] gives the employees represented by the union the opportunity to vote … if they would like to continue allowing that union to represent them.”  

Opposition

The Florida Education Association said, “SB 256 seeks to silence the voices of educators and union members, and we must join together to let legislators know this bill is bad for educators and bad for public education.”

Florida Education Association president Andrew Spar said, “We see a piece of legislation that, quite honestly, is somewhat insulting to teachers and staff in the state of Florida, basically telling them that they don’t know better and someone big government has to watch out over them.” 

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said, “This noxious attack on the freedom of Florida’s teachers, staff and professors to join together and work together will irrevocably harm the children and communities they serve. … [Teachers] need a pay raise and support, not additional obstacles.” 

Michigan HB 4004 update

Following up on last month’s Union Station: The Michigan House of Representatives passed a substitute bill for House Bill 4004—which would repeal a section of law prohibiting public employees from being required to pay union fees—on March 8. The substitute bill states that a provision allowing non-member employees to be required to pay union fees would go into effect if the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME were reversed or limited, or if a relevant constitutional amendment were ratified: 

A public employer and a bargaining representative may enter into a collective bargaining agreement that requires all public employees in the bargaining unit to share equally in the financial support of the bargaining representative. This act does not, and a law or policy of a local government must not, prohibit or limit an agreement that requires public employees in the bargaining unit, as a condition of continued employment, to pay to the bargaining representative membership dues or service fees. This subsection becomes effective immediately upon, and applies to the extent permitted by, either of the following:

(a) A decision or ruling by the United States Supreme Court that reverses or limits, in whole or in part, Janus v AFSCME, Council 31, ___US___; 138 S Ct 2448 (2018).

(b) The ratification of an amendment to the United States Constitution that restores the ability to require, as a condition of employment, a public employee who is not a member of a bargaining representative to pay, under any circumstances, fees, including agency fees, to the bargaining representative.

The substitute bill also includes a $1 million appropriation for the implementation of the act. According to the Detroit Free Press’ Clara Hendrickson, “The appropriation means that the legislation is not subject to a public referendum in which voters could reject the law. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in her first term issued an executive directive promising to veto any legislation ‘that circumvents the right to a referendum.’”

The Democratic Party gained a trifecta in Michigan as a result of the 2022 elections. Democrats hold a 56-54 majority in the House and a 20-18 majority in the Senate.   

Litigation updates

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon 

• Crowe v. Oregon State Bar: The district court ruled in favor of the defendants on Feb. 14. (The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the district court in February 2021.) 
• Gruber v. Oregon State Bar: The district court ruled in favor of the defendants on Feb. 14. (The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the district court in February 2021.) The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit on Feb. 23. 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

• Peltz-Steele v. UMass Faculty Federation: A First Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s ruling in favor of the defendants on Feb. 14.

U.S. Supreme Court

• Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group: Supreme Court declined to take the case on Feb. 21.
• O’Callaghan v. Drake: Was scheduled for Feb. 17 conference, rescheduled on Feb. 15.
• Savas v. California State Law Enforcement Agency: Was scheduled for Feb. 17 conference, rescheduled on Feb. 15.
• Kurk v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association: Response deadline extended to March 20.

What we’re reading

• The Texan, “Texas Supreme Court Appeal Seeks to Prohibit City of Austin from Paying Union Employees Public Salary,” March 3, 2023
• WSJ Opinion, “Public Unions vs. the People,” March 3, 2023 
• Bloomberg Law, “Oklahoma Bar Must Face Part of Compelled Speech Challenge,” March 2, 2023
• Colorado Newsline, “Colorado bill to add labor protections for public workers advances in the Legislature,” March 1, 2023
• The New York Times, “Biden Nominates Julie Su as U.S. Labor Secretary,” Feb. 28, 2023
• Wicked Local, “Right-to-strike bill filed, Massachusetts teachers hoping for support,” Feb. 27, 2023 
• Maryland Matters, “Opinion: Collective bargaining rights for academic workers will strengthen our public higher education institutions,” Feb. 22, 2023
• Empire Center, “The Janus Effect,” Feb. 21, 2023
• Montana Free Press, “Right-to-work resurfaces at the Montana Legislature, as do dozens of pro-union opponents,” Feb. 17, 2023 
• The74, “Mergers and Acquisitions: How the National Education Association’s Membership Numbers Keep Going Up,” Feb. 15, 2023
• Courthouse News Service, “Oregon State Bar prevails in challenge to compulsory membership,” Feb. 14, 2023 
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “State Supreme Court will not weigh in on UW Health nurses’ unionization efforts,” Feb. 13, 2023

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 163 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s) 

Recent legislative actions

Below is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue.

• Alaska HB46: This bill would require the Department of Health to bargain with childcare provider unions.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • House Labor & Commerce Committee hearing Feb. 20. Referred to House Health & Social Services Committee instead of House State Affairs Committee Feb. 27. House Labor & Commerce Committee hearing March 1. House Labor & Commerce Committee recommends committee substitute. Referred to House Health & Social Services Committee March 6.
• California AB1484: This bill would require temporary public employees hired to perform similar work to that of permanent public employees to be included in the same bargaining unit as permanent employees, upon the union’s request. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Introduced Feb. 17, may be heard in committee March 20. 
• California AB1672: This bill, called the “In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act,” would stipulate that the state is the employer of record for individual in-home supportive services providers for collective bargaining purposes. The bill would stipulate procedures for collective bargaining.  
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Introduced Feb. 17, may be heard in committee March 20. 
• California SB334: This bill would authorize the Public Employment Relations Board to include the impact of net-zero carbon emissions initiatives on public employees when conducting studies of employer-employee relations.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Referred to Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee Feb. 15.
• California SB716: This bill, which would enact the Excluded Employee Arbitration Act, would allow a union representing certain excluded employees to request binding arbitration in certain circumstances.
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Introduced, read first time, referred to Senate Rules Committee for assignment Feb. 16. Referred to Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee March 1. 
• Colorado SB111: This bill would give certain public employees the right to express views about union representation and workplace issues, engage in “protected, concerted activity for the purpose of mutual aid or protection,” participate in the political process while not at work, and join or not join a union. It would prohibit public employers from retaliating against employees for engaging in such activities. It would stipulate that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment is responsible for enforcement. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Local Government & Housing Committee hearing Feb. 28. Committee referred amended bill to Senate Appropriations Committee.
• Connecticut HB06720: This bill would give state managerial employees the right to bargain collectively. 
  • Committee-introduced bill. 
  • Referred to Joint Labor and Public Employees Committee Feb. 16. Public hearing Feb. 23, favorable vote Feb. 28. Filed with Legislative Commissioners’ Office March 1. 
• Connecticut SB00912: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to probate court employees as of Oct. 1, 2023.
  • Committee-introduced bill. 
  • Joint Labor and Public Employees Committee favorable report Feb. 16, filed with Legislative Commissioners’ Office. Referred to Office of Legislative Research and Office of Fiscal Analysis Feb. 27. Reported out of Legislative Commissioners’ Office March 6, tabled for Senate calendar. 
• Connecticut SB01199: This bill would provide that anyone holding an adjunct professor permit from the State Board of Education shall be a member of the exclusive bargaining unit for certified employees, unless the employer and bargaining unit agree otherwise. 
  • Committee-introduced bill.
  • Referred to Joint Education Committee March 9. Joint Education Committee public hearing March 15. 
• Delaware SB45: This bill would make exceptions to a law disqualifying individuals from unemployment benefits for two weeks if their unemployment was the result of a labor dispute work stoppage, including if the labor dispute was “caused by the failure or refusal of the employer to comply with an agreement or contract between the employer and the individual, including a collective bargaining agreement with a union representing the individual[.]” 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Introduced, assigned to Senate Labor Committee Feb. 17.  
• Florida H1445 and Florida S0256: These companion bills would require public employees who want to be union members to sign a membership authorization form including language specified in the bill. The bills would require unions to allow members to revoke membership at any time. The bills would prohibit public employers from collecting union dues from employees’ pay. The bills would amend registration and renewal requirements for certified bargaining agents. Unions representing law enforcement officers, correctional officers, correctional probation officers, and firefighters are excepted from the provisions of the bills. 
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • H1445: Filed March 3. First reading March 7. Referred to House State Affairs Committee and assigned to Constitutional Rights, Rule of Law & Government Operations Subcommittee March 9.
  • S0256: Filed Feb. 28, referred to Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee and Senate Fiscal Policy Committee March 1. Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing March 7, substitute bill reported favorably. Committee substitute referred to Senate Fiscal Policy Committee March 9. 
• Georgia SB166: This bill would allow public employees to organize and bargain collectively. The bill would establish the Georgia Public Employees Relations Board. It would repeal a law prohibiting payroll deductions for organizations engaging in collective bargaining. It would prohibit public employees from striking.  
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Introduced Feb. 14, referred to Senate Insurance and Labor Committee Feb. 15.
• Hawaii HB334: This bill would remove state and county employer contributions to the state’s health benefits trust fund from the scope of public-sector collective bargaining negotiations.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Reported from House Labor & Government Operations Committee as amended Feb. 13, recommending passage on second reading and referral to House Finance Committee. Passed second reading as amended and referred to House Finance Committee Feb. 13. House Finance Committee hearing Feb. 27. Committee recommends the measure be passed, unamended. Passed third reading March 3. Senate received from House March 7. Passed first reading March 7.
• Hawaii HB1205: This bill would stipulate that public employee unions are not required to provide grievance representation to members of the bargaining unit who do not pay dues, dues equivalents, or reasonable costs of representation.
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • House Labor & Government Operations Committee hearing Feb. 14. Committee recommends that the measure be passed with amendments. Passed second reading as amended, referred to House Finance Committee Feb. 16. House Finance Committee hearing Feb. 27. Committee recommends the measure be passed, unamended. Passed third reading March 3. Senate received from House March 7. Passed first reading March 7.  
• Illinois HB5107 (2022 session): This bill would define educational supervisors (e.g., principals and assistant principals) as educational employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. The bill would not allow educational supervisors in positions requiring an administrative license to strike. The bill would only apply to districts organized under Article 34 of the Illinois School Code, which applies to cities with a population of more than 500,000.  
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Governor signed Feb. 10. 
• Illinois HB1083: This bill would stipulate that any collective bargaining provision limiting a public employer’s ability to investigate employee conduct is unenforceable. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Referred to House Labor & Commerce Committee Feb. 21. Hearings March 1, March 8.
• Illinois HB1089: This bill would prohibit collective bargaining agreements between public employers and police unions from allowing unconstitutional police conduct. A collective bargaining agreement allowing unconstitutional police conduct would be void.      
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Referred to House Judiciary – Criminal Committee Feb. 21. Hearings Feb. 28, March 7, March 9.
• Illinois HB1120: This bill would require certified charter school contract renewals to include a union neutrality clause stating that the school agrees to be “neutral regarding the unionization of any of its employees …,” to provide “labor organization access at reasonable times…,” and to recognize unions “through a majority card check verified by a neutral third-party arbitrator[.]”
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • House Labor & Commerce Committee hearings Feb. 15, Feb. 22, March 1, March 8. Committee recommends “do pass” March 8.  
• Illinois HB2489: This bill would amend the definitions of “managerial employee,”  “supervisor,” and “unit” in the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. The bill would stipulate that public employers may bargain with managerial employee bargaining units. It would provide that the Illinois Labor Relations Board should use job functions instead of job titles in unit descriptions.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • First reading Feb. 15, referred to House Rules Committee. Assigned to House Labor & Commerce Committee Feb. 23. House Labor & Commerce Committee hearings March 1, March 8. 
• Illinois HB2863: This bill would amend the definitions of “managerial employee,” “supervisor,” and “unit” in the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. The bill would stipulate that public employers may bargain with managerial employee bargaining units. It would provide that the Illinois Labor Relations Board should use job functions instead of job titles in unit descriptions. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • First reading, referred to House Rules Committee Feb. 16. 
• Illinois HB3058: This bill would stipulate that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, “units of security employees of a public employer” includes units of county correctional or detention officers, probation officers, and public safety telecommunicators.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • First reading Feb. 17, referred to House Rules Committee. Assigned to House Labor & Commerce Committee Feb. 23. House Labor & Commerce Committee hearings March 1, March 8. 
• Illinois HB3094: This bill would stipulate that any provision of a peace officer collective bargaining agreement is unenforceable if it conflicts with a requirement in the bill that certain arbitration decisions are subject to administrative review.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • First reading, referred to House Rules Committee Feb. 17. 
• Illinois HB3114: This bill would amend the definition of police units “supervisors” in the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • First reading Feb. 17, referred to House Rules Committee. Assigned to House Labor & Commerce Committee Feb. 28. House Labor & Commerce Committee hearing March 8. Committee recommends “do pass” March 8.
• Illinois HB3313: This bill would stipulate that the Illinois Labor Relations Board must determine whether an employer violating the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with an exclusive representative “undermined or significantly impacted the collective bargaining process.” If so, the board must include the option of interest arbitration in its order. The bill would also stipulate that the board may order make-whole relief.
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • First reading Feb. 17, referred to House Rules Committee. Assigned to House Labor & Commerce Committee Feb. 28. House Labor & Commerce Committee hearing March 8. Committee recommends “do pass” March 8.
• Illinois SB1813: This bill would stipulate that any provision of a peace officer collective bargaining agreement is unenforceable if it conflicts with a requirement in the bill that certain arbitration decisions are subject to administrative review.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • First reading, referred to Senate Assignments Committee Feb. 9. 
• Illinois SB2371: This bill would amend the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act to state that certain assistant state’s attorneys, assistant public defenders, assistant appellate defenders, assistant appellate prosecutors, and Cook County Public Guardian attorneys are not managerial employees for collective bargaining purposes.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • First reading Feb. 10, referred to Senate Assignments Committee. Assigned to Senate Labor Committee Feb. 28. Senate committee amendment No. 1 referred to Assignments March 3. Senate Labor Committee hearing March 8. Committee recommends “do pass as amended” March 8.  
• Illinois SB2410: This bill would amend the definitions of “managerial employee,” “supervisor,” and “unit” in the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. The bill would stipulate that public employers may bargain with managerial employee bargaining units. It would provide that the Illinois Labor Relations Board should use job functions instead of job titles in unit descriptions.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • First reading, referred to Senate Assignments Committee Feb. 10. Assigned to Senate Executive Committee Feb. 28. 
• Illinois SB2430: This bill would stipulate that the Illinois Labor Relations Board must determine whether an employer violating the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with an exclusive representative “undermined or significantly impacted the collective bargaining process.” If so, the board must include the option of interest arbitration in its order. The bill would also stipulate that the board may order monetary make-whole relief including consequential damages and front pay.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • First reading, referred to Senate Assignments Committee Feb. 10. Assigned to Senate Labor Committee Feb. 28. 
• Iowa SF458: This bill would amend the scope of public employee collective bargaining negotiations. It would outline requirements for exclusive representative certification. The bill would repeal a prohibition on payroll deductions for union dues and require union dues payroll deductions to be collected for one year after a public employee chooses to have union dues deducted. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Introduced, referred to Senate Workforce Committee Feb. 28. Assigned to subcommittee March 7.
• Kentucky HB364: This bill would prohibit a state public retirement employer from deducting union dues or fees, or funds for union political activities, from a state public retirement employee’s pay. The bill would require state public employers to notify employees of their right not to join a union. It would prohibit state public employers from collecting public employee financial information and providing it to unions.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Introduced Feb. 17, first reading Feb. 21, referred to House Economic Development & Workforce Investment Committee. Hearing Feb. 23.  Reported favorably, second reading, referred to House Rules Committee with committee substitute. 
• Kentucky HB487: This bill would stipulate that “nothing in this chapter, or in any other statute of this state, shall preclude a public employer from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or on the effective date of the agreement.”
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Introduced Feb. 21, referred to House Committee on Committees.
• Kentucky SB7: This bill would prohibit public employers from deducting union dues or fees, or funds for union political activities, from public employees’ pay without written authorization. The bill would prohibit public employers from assisting a union in collecting funds or employee financial information.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Introduced Feb. 14. Referred to Senate Education Committee Feb. 16. Hearing Feb. 23, reported favorably. Second reading, referred to Senate Rules Committee Feb. 24. Floor amendment filed March 7.
• Maine LD1095: This bill would make an exception to the time limit for school administrative units and employee bargaining agents to meet for collective bargaining negotiations requested by the other party for “circumstances relating to wages, hours, working conditions or contract grievance arbitration.”
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Referred to Joint Labor and Housing Committee March 9. 
• Maryland HB65: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to certain county public library employees. The bill would prohibit employees from striking.  
  • Democratic sponsorship (HB65), bipartisan sponsorship (SB352).
  • House Appropriations Committee reported favorably, with amendments, on Feb. 27. House second reading passed with amendments Feb. 28. Third reading passed March 2. Referred to Senate Finance Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee March 3.   
• Maryland SB284: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to certain employees of the Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Finance Committee hearing Feb. 16.
• Maryland SB298: This bill would grant collective bargaining rights to certain state employees in supervisory and managerial roles. The bill would establish separate bargaining units for those employees. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Finance Committee hearing Feb. 16.
• Maryland HB275 and Maryland SB247: These companion bills would extend collective bargaining rights to certain faculty, teaching assistants, graduate assistants, fellows, and postdoctoral interns at University System of Maryland institutions, Morgan State University, and St. Mary’s College of Maryland.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • HB275: House Appropriations Committee hearing Feb. 14.
  • SB247: Senate Finance Committee hearing Feb. 16.  
• Maryland HB490: This bill would require the Maryland Department of Health to disclose certain information about residential service agency employees providing home health care to a union upon request.
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • House Health and Government Operations Committee hearing Feb. 23.
• Maryland HB579 and Maryland SB494: These companion bills would require the Secretary of Budget and Management to assign or reassign certain Department of Education employees to appropriate bargaining units.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • HB579: House Appropriations Committee hearing March 9.
  • SB494: Senate Finance Committee hearing March 3. Favorable report March 9.
• Maryland HB637 and Maryland SB428: These companion bills would allow sworn deputy sheriffs and correctional deputies at the rank of sergeant and below to bargain collectively with their employers. The bills would not authorize such employees to strike.
  • Sponsored by Washington County Delegation (HB637) and Washington County Senators (SB428). 
  • HB637: House Appropriations Committee hearing March 9.
  • SB428: Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee hearing Feb. 21.
• Maryland HB764: This bill would allow either party to the collective bargaining agreement for Montgomery County Housing Opportunities Commission employees to request the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator. The bill would establish procedures for mediation-arbitration.
  • Sponsored by Montgomery County Delegation.
  • House Appropriations Committee hearing March 7. 
• Maryland HB797: This bill would allow either party to the collective bargaining agreement for Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission employees to request the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator. The bill would establish procedures for mediation-arbitration.
  • Sponsored by Montgomery County Delegation and Prince George’s County Delegation.
  • House Appropriations Committee hearing March 9.
• Maryland HB984 and Maryland SB367: These companion bills would consolidate and amend public employee collective bargaining laws. They would stipulate rights and duties of employers, employees, and unions. The bills would establish the Public Employee Relations Board and repeal other existing boards. The bills would stipulate that public school employers, employees, and unions are subject to Title 21 of the State Government Article.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • HB984: First reading House Appropriations Committee Feb. 10. Committee hearing March 7.
  • SB367: Senate Finance Committee hearing Feb. 16.
• Maryland SB680: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to certain county public library employees. The bill would prohibit employees from striking.
  • Democratic sponsorship.      
  • Senate Finance Committee hearing scheduled for March 10. Hearing canceled Feb. 27. Withdrawn by sponsor March 8. 
• Maryland SB645: This bill would change the permitted subjects of collective bargaining for full-time law enforcement and court security officers to salary, wages, hours, and other employment matters managed by the sheriff or city. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • First reading Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Feb. 6. Committee hearing Feb. 23. 
• Michigan HB4004: This bill would repeal a section of law prohibiting public employees from being required to join or financially support a union. The bill stipulates that a public employer may “[make] an agreement with an exclusive bargaining representative … to require as a condition of employment that all other employees in the bargaining unit pay to the exclusive bargaining representative a service fee equivalent to the amount of dues uniformly required of members of the exclusive bargaining representative.”  
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • House Labor Committee reported with recommendation without amendment March 8. Second reading, substitute bill adopted. Third reading. House passed March 8, transmitted to Senate. Referred to Senate Labor Committee March 9.  
• Minnesota HF827: This bill would add certain requirements for teacher preparation time that must be included in collective bargaining agreements, such as requiring one or two uninterrupted blocks of preparation time, with additional time for certain teachers. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • House Education Policy Committee hearings Feb. 15, Feb. 22, March 1. House Education Policy Committee recommends to adopt as amended and re-refer to House Education Finance March 6. 
• Minnesota HF1600: This bill would require the commissioner of management and budget to consider only compensation data from the most recent salary and benefits survey when negotiating compensation as part of a collective bargaining agreement with law enforcement officers. The bill notes, “It is the legislature’s intent that the information in this study be used to compare salaries between the identified police departments and the State Patrol and to make appropriate increases to patrol trooper salaries.”
  • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
  • Introduction and first reading, referred to House State and Local Government Finance and Policy Committee Feb. 13. Committee hearing March 7. 
• Minnesota HF1690 and Minnesota SF1633: These companion bills would stipulate that public employers and unions are not liable for requiring agency fees from public employees. The bills would require public employers to provide exclusive representatives with certain contact information within 10 days of hiring a new employee, as well as a document containing certain contact information for all employees in the bargaining unit every 120 days. The bills would also require public employers to allow exclusive representatives access to employees, including on employer premises.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • HF1690: Introduction and first reading, referred to House Labor and Industry Finance and Policy Committee Feb. 13. Committee hearings Feb. 28, March 7.
  • SF1633: Introduction and first reading, referred to Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee Feb. 13. Withdrawn and referred to Senate Education Finance Committee Feb. 20. 
• Minnesota HF1691 and Minnesota SF1632: These companion bills would stipulate that public employers and unions are not liable for requiring agency fees from public employees. The bills would require public employers to provide exclusive representatives with certain contact information within 10 days of hiring a new employee, as well as a document containing certain contact information for all employees in the bargaining unit every 120 days. The bills would also require public employers to allow exclusive representatives access to employees, including on employer premises.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • HF1691: Introduction and first reading, referred to House Education Policy Committee Feb. 13. House Education Policy Committee hearing March 1, committee recommends to adopt and re-refer to House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee March 6. House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee hearing March 9. 
  • SF1632: Introduction and first reading, referred to Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee Feb. 13. Withdrawn and re-referred to Senate Labor Committee Feb. 20. Withdrawn and re-referred to Senate Education Policy Committee Feb. 27. Education Policy Committee hearing Feb. 28. Committee reports to pass and re-refer to Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee March 2. 
• Minnesota HF2463 and Minnesota SF2456: These companion bills would remove the requirement for the legislature to review state employee collective bargaining agreements and arbitration awards.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • HF2463: Introduction and first reading, referred to House State and Local Government Finance and Policy Committee March 2. 
  • SF2456: Introduction and first reading, referred to Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee March 2. Committee hearing March 7. 
• Minnesota SF2742: This bill would amend the circumstances under which teachers may strike to include a school district not offering a collective bargaining agreement with terms providing for the “maximum increase available” to salary and benefits. The bill would require the school district to calculate the maximum increase available based on changes in the state’s gross domestic product and district population, with guidance from the commissioner of management and budget,and notify the exclusive representative of the maximum increase available. If a collective bargaining agreement exceeds the maximum increase available, the bill would require a school district to explain the increase to district residents at an open meeting.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Introduction and first reading, referred to Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee March 8.
• Montana HB448: This bill would stipulate that public employees have the right not to join or assist a union. It would provide that public employees may revoke dues authorizations at any time with 30 days’ notice to the public employer. It would require public employers to notify employees who submit a dues authorization form of their right to revoke the authorization. The bill would require employers to display a notice titled “Employee freedom of choice” and provide the notice to employees upon the beginning and end of employment.  
  • Republican sponsorship.
  • House Business and Labor Committee hearing Feb. 17. Tabled in committee Feb. 22. Motion to take the bill from committee and place on second reading failed March 1. 
• Montana HB698: This bill would require certain “proof of interest” documentation in order for a petition to the Montana Board of Personnel Appeals to raise a question concerning representation. The bill would stipulate that a union may only be certified as an exclusive representative for public employees if it receives the majority of votes in a secret ballot election. The bill would provide that public employees may petition the Montana Board of Personnel Appeals to decertify an exclusive representative or choose a different union as the exclusive representative any time after the 12-month period following a valid election.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Introduced Feb. 20. Referred to House State Administration Committee Feb. 21. Committee hearing Feb. 27, tabled in committee. 
• Montana SB343: This bill would prohibit public employers from providing compensation or paid leave to public employees for time the employee spends on union activities. The bill would also prohibit public employers from reimbursing expenses a public employee incurs while engaged in union activities.  
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Introduced Feb. 14. Referred to Senate Local Government Committee Feb. 15. Committee hearing Feb. 22. Tabled in committee Feb. 23. 
• Nevada AB172: This bill would require every local government employer to provide recognized unions with certain contact information for all employees in the bargaining unit twice a year. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Read first time, referred to Assembly Government Affairs Committee Feb. 15. Committee hearing March 2. 
• Nevada AB211: This bill would authorize supplemental bargaining between local government employers and an exclusive representative for law enforcement dispatchers to negotiate for dispatchers to participate in the Police and Firefighters’ Retirement Fund, under certain circumstances. It would also authorize the same between the State of Nevada Executive Department and an exclusive representative for law enforcement dispatchers.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Read first time, referred to Assembly Government Affairs Committee Feb. 22. Committee hearing March 8. 
• Nevada AB224: This bill would authorize collective bargaining between State of Nevada Executive Department employers employing 400 or more professional employees and certain professional employees. The bill would provide for the designation of exclusive representatives and establish collective bargaining procedures. 
  • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
  • Read first time, referred to Assembly Government Affairs Committee Feb. 23. Committee hearing March 9. 
• Nevada SB206: This bill would provide that any collective bargaining provision limiting the authority of a school district board of trustees to terminate or reassign a school staff member of a school converted to a department charter school is unenforceable and void.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Read first time, referred to Senate Education Committee March 2. From printer, to committee March 3.
• New Hampshire HB134: This bill would establish the Legislature as a public employer and establish collective bargaining procedures for nonpartisan legislative employees. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • House Legislative Administration Committee executive session March 8. 
• New Hampshire HB150: This bill would decrease the number of employees required to certify a public employee collective bargaining unit from 10 to five. 
  • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
  • House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee executive session Feb. 16.
• New Hampshire HB241: This bill would define a reasonable opportunity for school district employees to meet with the school district for collective bargaining negotiations as being before 9:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. on scheduled work days.
  • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
  • House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee executive session Feb. 16. Committee reports “inexpedient to legislate” March 6.
• New Hampshire SB193: This bill stipulates that negotiating in good faith requires parties to meet for bargaining within 10 days of receiving a written request, unless mutually agreed otherwise.
  • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
  • Senate Commerce Committee reports “ought to pass” March 7. 
• New York A04823: This bill would void the terms of any collective bargaining agreement between a public employer and police union that authorized increased pay for implementing the use of body-worn cameras.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Referred to Assembly Governmental Employees Committee Feb. 23. 
• New York A04739: This bill would stipulate that an impasse is deemed to exist if more than one year has passed since the expiration of a public employee collective bargaining agreement or interest arbitration award. The bill would stipulate that the same criteria apply to a presumption of bad faith in the context of an improper practice charge, and that a strike occuring after that time period “shall be presumed to have been one caused by acts of extreme provocation.” 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Referred to Assembly Governmental Employees Committee Feb. 23.
• Oklahoma HB2026: This bill would require the Office of Management and Enterprise Services to provide a state employee union with a monthly report of employees who have opted-in to union membership. 
  • Republican sponsorship.
  • House Government Modernization and Technology Committee hearing Feb. 21, committee recommends “do pass.” 
• Oklahoma HB2543: This bill would require school district employees to sign an annual authorization form containing language specified in the bill in order for the school district to deduct union dues from employees’ pay.
  • Republican sponsorship.
  • House Appropriations and Budget Committee hearing Feb. 22.
• Oklahoma SB99: This bill would require that school district employee union dues payroll deductions must be reauthorized on an annual basis on a form provided by the Secretary of Education. The bill would prohibit debt to a union from accruing after an employee has requested to terminate dues deductions.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Senate Education Committee recommends “do pass” as amended by committee substitute Feb. 28. 
• Oregon HB2573: This bill would require the Employment Relations Board to develop procedures for the electronic preparation of authorizations designating bargaining representatives and for the electronic signing of those authorizations. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • House Business and Labor Committee work session March 13. 
• Oregon HB2703: This bill would remove language limiting the inclusion of class size and caseload limits as mandatory subjects of collective bargaining to schools qualifying for Title 1 assistance.  
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • House Education Committee public hearing March 6.
• Oregon HB2864: This bill would allow unions to charge “reasonable fees and costs for representation that are unrelated to the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement” to non-union Department of Corrections employees, Oregon Corrections Enterprises employees, and parole or probation officers supervising adult offenders.
  • Democratic sponsorship.  
  • House Business and Labor Committee work session March 6. 
• Oregon HB3270: This bill would stipulate that certain emergency communications workers and police officers are not supervisory employees for collective bargaining purposes.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • First reading, referred to speaker’s desk Feb. 21. Referred to House Business and Labor Committee Feb. 23. 
• Oregon SB194: This bill would exclude certain Oregon State Police employees from being defined as supervisory employees for collective bargaining purposes.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Labor and Business Committee recommends “do pass,” second reading Feb. 13. Passed third reading Feb. 21. First reading in House, referred to speaker’s desk Feb. 28. Referred to House Business and Labor Committee March 3.
• Oregon SB1067: This bill would stipulate that “standards, requirements or procedures relating to body-worn cameras” are excluded from the definition of “employment relations” for the purpose of law enforcement collective bargaining. The bill would prohibit unions from negotiating over such matters.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Introduction and first reading, referred to Senate president’s desk Feb. 27. Referred to Senate Labor and Business Committee March 1. 
• Pennsylvania SB399: This bill would provide that a public employer must provide notice on its website—or, if it does not have a website, in its main office—at least two weeks before and 30 days after signing a collective bargaining agreement including the terms of the agreement and estimated costs to the public employer. The bill would stipulate that proposed collective bargaining agreements and related documents are public records, and that proposed agreements must be posted on the public employer’s website within 48 hours of receipt.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Referred to Senate State Government Committee Feb. 21. 
• Pennsylvania SB405: This bill would provide that a public employee has the right to examine on a regular basis how the union representing the employee’s bargaining unit uses the membership dues it collects. The bill would provide that a union must file quarterly reports with the names of all union officers and employees, the annual salary and benefits of all union officers and employees, a detailed summary of union expenses, and information about independent expenditures made to influence elections. The bill would require the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board to make these reports publicly available online along with copies of all collective bargaining agreements. The bill would require public employers to provide copies of collective bargaining agreements to the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board within 15 days of the agreement being signed. 
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Referred to Senate Labor and Industry Committee Feb. 21.
• Rhode Island H5180 and Rhode Island S0426: These companion bills would establish a dispute arbitration method for municipal employees. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • H5180: House Labor Committee hearing March 1, committee recommended measure be held for further study. 
  • S0426: Introduced, referred to Senate Labor Committee Feb. 16.
• Texas HB1579 and Texas SB1436: These companion bills would stipulate that the requirements the bills impose for the investigation of municipal firefighters supersede any collective bargaining or meet and confer provisions in conflict with the requirements.  
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • HB1579: Read first time, referred to House Urban Affairs Committee March 3. 
  • SB1436: Filed March 2. 
• Texas HB2519: This bill would stipulate that a collective bargaining agreement or meet and confer agreement between a public employer and police union must “implement the progressive disciplinary matrix” the bill requires for municipal police officers and “may not conflict with and does not supersede an ordinance, order, statute, or rule concerning the disciplinary actions that may be imposed on a police officer under the progressive disciplinary matrix.” 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Filed Feb. 21. 
• Texas HB2917: This bill would prohibit a municipality from entering into a collective bargaining agreement or meet and confer agreement with a police union unless community members have been allowed to review and comment on the agreement.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Filed Feb. 27. 
• Texas SB736: This bill would establish mandatory binding interest arbitration for fire departments serving a municipality of at least 1.9 million people.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Read first time, referred to Senate Local Government Committee March 1.
• Utah HB0241: This bill would prohibit public employers from deducting union dues from public employee wages. It would prohibit the use of public funds to support union activities. It would prohibit public employers from restricting unions from accessing public property that is accessible to others.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Filed in House file for bills not passed March 3. 
• Utah HB0243: This bill would stipulate that supervisors, managerial employees, and confidential employees are not included as public transit district employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. 
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Senate Business and Labor hearing Feb. 10, favorable recommendation. Passed second reading Feb. 15. Passed third reading, signed by Senate president, returned to the House, signed by House Speaker, and sent for enrolling Feb. 16.    
• Vermont H0293: This bill would add a section to Vermont’s court procedure law to create a union agent-represented worker privilege to refuse to disclose confidential communication, with certain exceptions. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Read first time, referred to House Judiciary Committee Feb. 21. 
• Vermont H0296: This bill would allow a union to be recognized as an exclusive representative for state or school board employees by voluntary recognition or by majority sign-up, instead of by secret ballot only.    
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Read first time, referred to House General and Housing Committee Feb. 21.
• Vermont H0338: This bill would repeal a law stating that state employees and judiciary employees “may not strike or recognize a picket line of an employee or labor organization while in the performance of [their] official duties.” 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Read first time, referred to House General and Housing Committee Feb. 22. 
• Vermont H0454: This bill would establish a statewide bargaining unit for Vermont State Colleges adjunct faculty members, excluding employees of Vermont Technical College.  
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Read first time, referred to House General and Housing Committee March 1. 
• Vermont S0102: This bill would allow the State Labor Relations Board to certify a union as an exclusive representative for state employees based on a petition that a majority of members of the bargaining unit have signed. It would also allow unions to bring enforcement actions on behalf of the state for violations of the good cause standard for employment termination established by the bill.  
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs Committee hearing Feb. 23. Read first time, referred to Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs Committee Feb. 24. Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs Committee hearings March 1 and March 2.
• Washington HB1122 and Washington SB5141: These companion bills would grant certain Washington management service members the right to bargain collectively. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • HB1122: House Appropriations Committee executive session Feb. 20. Majority recommends “do pass” second substitute bill. Referred to House Rules Committee Feb. 23. Placed on second reading March 2. Second substitute bill substituted March 4. Third reading passed March 4. First reading in Senate, referred to Senate Labor & Commerce Committee March 7. Senate Labor & Commerce Committee executive session March 14. 
  • SB5141:  Senate Ways and Means Committee public hearing Feb. 16. Executive session Feb. 24, no action taken. 
• Washington HB1200: This bill would require public employers to provide exclusive bargaining representatives with information including employee name, date of hire, contact information, and employment and salary information within 10 days of hiring a new employee in the bargaining unit. All information for every employee in the unit must be sent to the exclusive bargaining representative at specified intervals. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Placed on second reading March 1. First substitute bill substituted March 2. Third reading passed March 2. First reading, referred to Senate Labor & Commerce Committee March 6, public hearing March 16.
• Washington HB1307: This bill would grant collective bargaining rights to resident and fellow physicians at public university medical schools. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • House Appropriations Committee public hearing Feb. 13, executive session Feb. 23.
• Washington HB1774 and Washington SB5694: These companion bills would allow the office of financial management more flexibility to use the state salary survey in collective bargaining negotiations. The bills would require classification plans to be negotiated with the relevant employee union. The bills would include the benchmark descriptions and job classifications used in conducting salary surveys as subjects of collective bargaining. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • HB1774: House State Government & Tribal Relations Committee executive session Feb. 17. No action taken. 
  • SB5694: Senate State Government & Elections Committee executive session Feb. 17. Majority recommends “do pass.” Referred to Senate Ways and Means Committee. 
• Wisconsin AB28: This bill would classify county jailers as protective occupation participants. The bill would stipulate that county jailers are general municipal employees unless a county is already treating county jailers as public safety employees when the bill goes into effect. However, if a county “raises a question concerning the appropriateness of including county jailers in a collective bargaining unit that includes public safety employees,” county jailers may not be treated as public safety employees.
  • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
  • Read first time, referred to Assembly State Affairs Committee Feb. 10. Fiscal estimate received, public hearing held March 1. Assembly State Affairs Committee recommends adoption of Assembly Amendment 1 and passage as amended March 8. Referred to Assembly Rules Committee March 8, placed on calendar for March 14.
• Wisconsin SB28: This bill would classify county jailers as protective occupation participants. The bill would stipulate that county jailers are general municipal employees unless a county is already treating county jailers as public safety employees when the bill goes into effect. However, if a county “raises a question concerning the appropriateness of including county jailers in a collective bargaining unit that includes public safety employees,” county jailers may not be treated as public safety employees.
  • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
  • Fiscal estimates received Feb. 9, Feb. 17.  

Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Email us at editor@ballotpedia.org with any feedback or recommendations.

On May 26, an Illinois judge denied a petition to have the Illinois Right to Collective Bargaining Amendment (Amendment 1) removed from the November general election ballot. 

Background

The Illinois General Assembly referred a constitutional amendment to the Nov. 8, 2022, ballot that would guarantee employees the right to organize and bargain collectively.

The proposed amendment would add the following language to Article I of the Illinois Constitution:

1. “Employees shall have the fundamental right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions, and to protect their economic welfare and safety at work. No law shall be passed that interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively over their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and work place safety, including any law or ordinance that prohibits the execution or application of agreements between employers and labor organizations that represent employees requiring membership in an organization as a condition of employment.”
2. “The provisions of this Section are controlling over those of Section 6 of Article VII.”

In Illinois, a legislatively referred constitutional amendment requires three-fifths of the members of both houses of the General Assembly to vote to put it on the ballot. Amendment 1 was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 11 on May 7, 2021. The resolution passed the Senate 49-7 on May 21, 2021, and passed the House 80-30 on May 26. No Democrats voted against the resolution. Eleven Republicans in the Senate and nine Republicans in the House supported the resolution. 

For the amendment to be ratified, the ballot measure must be approved by three-fifths of voters, or by a majority of voters who cast a ballot in the election. In most states, voters can pass a legislatively referred constitutional amendment with a simple majority vote on the question.  

About the petition

On April 21, 2022, petitioners Sarah Sachen, Ifeoma Nkemdi, Joseph Ocol, and Alberto Molina filed a petition and complaint in the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court in Sangamon County against the Illinois State Board of Elections, the Illinois Secretary of State, and the Illinois State Comptroller, seeking to remove the amendment from the ballot. Attorneys from the Liberty Justice Center and the Illinois Policy Institute represent the petitioners, who are Chicago Public School teachers or parents.  

The petitioners alleged that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) “preempts Amendment 1’s attempt to provide a state-law right to collective bargaining” and that “Amendment 1 conflicts with the NLRA.” The petitioners asked the court to declare that the amendment would violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and to block the defendants from using public funds to put the amendment on the ballot. The petition said, “Petitioners have standing to bring their claim as taxpayers. Taxpayers are injured when the state uses its general revenue funds for an unconstitutional purpose because they are liable to replenish improperly used funds. … Thus, the Illinois Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that taxpayers have standing to seek an injunction to prevent the state from using public funds to place an unconstitutional proposal on the ballot.” 

A hearing was held on May 20. 

The court’s decision

On May 26, Circuit Judge Raylene Grischow denied the petition, writing that “the Court has no power to restrain a referendum on the grounds that, if the proposed law were enacted, its enforcement would be unconstitutional” and that the petitioners “offer no basis for preventing the Amendment’s submission to the voters merely because some anticipated applications may be preempted by federal law.” 

Grischow wrote:

“At most, federal preemption would merely render the Workers’ Rights Amendment dormant, not invalid, because it would still apply to situations not covered by the NLRA and would become enforceable even as to preempted applications in the event the NLRA were ever repealed. … 

“Thus, the proposed Amendment would serve at least three permissible purposes. First, it would create rights for public employees, which Petitioners concede is not preempted by the NLRA. Second, it would restrain the power of the General Assembly to pass laws restricting union security agreements, a subject left open to the states. Third, it would act as a state-law failsafe to preserve rights for private-sector employees in the event the federal government ever decided to abandon the NLRA. … 

“Accordingly, the Petition states no reasonable grounds for filing suit. The Illinois constitution requires the amendment to be put to the voters because it complies with the requirements in Article XIV, section 2 of the Illinois constitution. The Court has no power to pass on the validity of the proposed Amendment unless and until it is adopted by the voters. To do so would constitute an improper advisory opinion. … Moreover, even if the Court could entertain Petitioners’ challenges to the anticipated enforcement of the proposed Amendment, Petitioners plainly concede it has substantial applications unaffected by any federal preemption. Petitioners are therefore not entitled to an order prohibiting the placement of the proposed Amendment on the ballot.”

The case name and number are Sachen v. Illinois State Board of Elections (22-CH-34).

What happens next

Representatives from the Liberty Justice Center and the Illinois Policy Institute say they plan to appeal the circuit court’s decision.  

Illinois Policy Institute attorney Mailee Smith said, “We are committed to pursuing our claims in court and ensuring Illinois voters are not forced to vote on an unconstitutional amendment. The law is clear that Amendment 1 would do more than the state is allowed to do. Illinoisans deserve to have this addressed now. Not later. Not after their tax dollars have been wasted putting an unconstitutional measure on the ballot. We look forward to our next opportunity to argue on behalf of taxpayers.”

According to NPR Illinois’ Hannah Meisel, Amendment 1 “will have a full-scale campaign behind it beginning later this spring, orchestrated by labor-backed independent expenditure committee Vote Yes for Workers Rights.” A representative for the committee said, “Frankly, we aren’t surprised that big money special interest groups are trying to keep workers in Illinois from being able to vote yes for workers rights in a fair and free election. … We’re confident that this amendment will be on the ballot in November…And I think that it’s very telling that [the opposition] knows voters have this opportunity to make this choice and they’re doing everything that they can to remove that choice from the hands of working Illinoisans.”

At least three state constitutions—in Hawaii, Missouri, and New York—provide a right to collective bargaining. Unlike in those states, the Illinois Right to Collective Bargaining Amendment would also preempt right-to-work laws prohibiting collective bargaining agreements requiring union membership as a condition of employment. 

What we’re reading

• San Francisco Chronicle, “California can deduct union dues from Medi-Cal payments to in-home caretakers, court rules,” June 8, 2022
• Bloomberg Law, “Medicaid Providers Denied Right to Sue Over Union Dues Deduction,” June 8, 2022
• The Center Square, “Ohio public employee settles with union over vacation time,” June 8, 2022
• Reuters, “Immigration judge union wins revival of challenge to DOJ gag policy,” June 8, 2022
• Wisconsin Examiner, “UW Health can bargain with unions, AG Kaul says in legal opinion,” June 3, 2022
• AFSCME, “Colorado collective bargaining law is latest evidence of surging union momentum,” June 3, 2022
• Connecticut Inside Investigator, “Lawsuit alleges New Haven union violated school cafeteria cook’s right to stop paying dues,” June 3, 2022 

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 144 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s) 

Recent legislative actions

Below is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue.

• California AB1577: This bill would allow state legislative employees to organize and bargain collectively.
  • Bipartisan sponsorship.
  • Referred to Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee June 8.
• California AB1714: This bill would allow unions representing excluded state employees to request arbitration with the Department of Human Resources in certain circumstances.
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Referred to Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee June 8. Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee hearing set for June 13.
• California SB931: This bill would allow a union to bring a claim before the Public Employment Relations Board against a public employer allegedly in violation of California Government Code Section 3550 and sets civil penalties for violations. Section 3550 prohibits public employers from discouraging union membership.
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing set for June 14.
• Pennsylvania HB844: This bill would ban public employee social security numbers and personal contact information as subjects of collective bargaining.
  • Republican sponsorship.
  • Removed from the table June 7, laid on the table again June 8.
• Pennsylvania HB845: This bill would require any proposed public employee collective bargaining agreement to be published on the public employer’s website at least 14 days before the agreement is accepted. It would also make documents from the collective bargaining process into public records subject to the state’s right-to-know law.
  • Republican sponsorship.
  • Removed from the table June 7, laid on the table again June 8.
• Pennsylvania HB2042: This bill would require public employers to provide non-union members with an annual notification that they are not required to make payments to a union and to provide new and returning employees with a notification that they do not have to join a union.
  • Republican sponsorship.
  • Removed from the table June 7, laid on the table again June 8.
• Pennsylvania HB2048: This bill would prohibit collective bargaining agreements from authorizing the deduction of political contributions from public employee wages.
  • Republican sponsorship.
  • Removed from the table June 7, laid on the table again June 8.

On May 17, the U.S. Department of Justice settled a lawsuit four unions filed asking a federal court to declare that a federal law prohibiting members of the armed forces from unionizing did not apply to members of the National Guard on state active duty. 

About the case

Four unions representing workers in Connecticut—American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 4, the Connecticut Police and Fire Union, the National Association of Government Employees, and Civil Service Employees International Union Local 2001—filed a lawsuit on Nov. 15, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Attorneys from Yale Law School’s Veterans Legal Services Clinic and Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly represented the unions. 

A union representative said at the time, “We are bringing this lawsuit because Guard members on state orders should have the same opportunity to have a voice in their state workplace as the public employees with whom they work shoulder to shoulder.”

The unions’ lawsuit said: 

“While serving under the command of the Governor and pursuant to state law, Guard members work alongside other state and local employees. Yet unlike firefighters, healthcare workers, law enforcement, emergency medical technicians, and other state and local employees, members of the Connecticut National Guard have no labor organization that can represent them or advocate for their interests when in state status.

“Section 976 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code makes it a felony for members of the armed forces—including members of the National Guard when activated to federal status—to join or attempt to form a labor organization. The same federal statute makes it a felony for unions such as Plaintiffs to support labor organizing in the armed forces, including by Guard members when activated to federal status.

“The plain language of this federal criminal statute, confirmed by its legislative

history, does not apply to members of the National Guard when they are mobilized by state governors under state law. 

“However, the statute’s serious criminal penalties—combined with the lack of

historical and legal precedent confirming that a Guard member in state service who joins or forms a labor organization will not be subjected to federal prosecution—has chilled the speech and associational activity of Guard members in state service, and of unions that they might otherwise seek to join.”

The unions asked the court to either declare the statute did not apply to Connecticut National Guard members attempting to organize while serving on state active duty, or to block the statute from being enforced against National Guard members on state active duty as a violation of the First and Tenth Amendments.

In January 2022, Garland and the DOJ sought to dismiss the case. Justice Department lawyers said, “Plaintiffs seek a declaration that ‘members of the armed forces’ does not include members of the Connecticut National Guard on state active duty or in the Inactive National Guard. But by its own terms, § 976 does not apply to Guard members on state active duty or in the Inactive National Guard. Indeed, at no point in the history of § 976 has any government entity ever interpreted the statute as such. Plaintiffs’ suit is thus not a case or controversy within the meaning of Article III of the United States Constitution.” 

Two settlement conferences were held in March, and Garland and the DOJ reached a settlement with the unions on May 17. According to a news release from Yale Law School, “As part of the settlement … the Department of Justice’s position on the ability of National Guard members on state orders to organize has been distributed to all 54 National Guard Human Resources departments.”

The case name and number are AFSCME Council 4 et al. v. Garland et al. (3:21-cv-01524).

What happens now

According to the Associated Press’s Dave Collins, “Connecticut Guard members were waiting for the agreement to be finalized before beginning unionizing efforts,” and National Guard officials said they were reviewing the case. 

However, Collins said, the DOJ’s statement in January encouraged a group of Texas National Guard members to join the Texas State Employees Union months before the case was settled. Jacobin’s Steve Early and Suzanne Gordon wrote, “Union goals include a guaranteed end date for all Guard members on state active duty, full restoration of tuition assistance slashed by [Gov. Greg Abbott (R)], and immediate access to the same health care coverage as other state employees, along with state subsidized coverage ‘for our families while on Texas Military state mobilization.’”  

According to Collins, “[A Connecticut National Guard spokesman] said he did not think the lawsuit settlement would have a major impact on the state Guard, because active duty state deployments are not common. But it could have a significant effect on other state Guards with ongoing state deployments, including Texas …” 

Perspectives

Support

A news release from Yale Law School said, “[U]nions around the country can now support National Guard members on state orders in organizing for better conditions of employment without fear of prosecution under federal law.” 

Opposition

The Freedom Foundation, which calls itself a “battle tank that’s battering the entrenched power of left-wing government union bosses,” said, “Unionization is fundamentally incompatible with military service of any kind. Unionizing National Guard units could erode discipline, dilute the chain of command, and undermine unit readiness.” 

What we’re reading

• Fulton Sun, “Missouri Supreme Court weighs impact of merit system changes on labor contracts,” May 26, 2022 
• The Sacramento Bee, “A new California state worker union? Legislative staff could organize under new bill,” May 25, 2022
• On Labor, “Massachusetts’s Prohibition on Public Employee Strikes Warrants Repeal,” May 25, 2022
• Government Executive, “NTEU Calls on FLRA and the Supreme Court to Clarify Policies that Hurt Unions Under Trump,” May 24, 2022
• St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “Missouri’s high court to hear Greitens-era labor union dispute,” May 23, 2022
• Daily Pilot, “Lifeguards across O.C. state beaches willing to take union dues lawsuit to Supreme Court,” May 21, 2022
• The Philadelphia Inquirer, “Wisconsin’s union law worked. Now it’s Pennsylvania’s turn.,” May 20, 2022

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 143 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s) 

Recent legislative actions

Below is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue.

• California AB1577: This bill would allow state legislative employees to organize and bargain collectively.
  • Bipartisan sponsorship.
  • Senate read second time, amended, and sent back to Senate Appropriations Committee May 24. Sent to Senate Rules Committee May 25.
• California SB931: This bill would allow a union to bring a claim before the Public Employment Relations Board against a public employer allegedly in violation of California Government Code Section 3550 and sets civil penalties for violations. Section 3550 prohibits public employers from discouraging union membership.
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Senate read third time, passed, ordered to the Assembly May 24. Assembly read first time, held at desk May 25.
• California SB1313: This bill would prohibit Los Angeles County from discriminating against union members by limiting employee health benefits.
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Senate read third time, passed, ordered to the Assembly May 24. Assembly read first time, held at desk May 25.
• California SB1406: This bill would allow unions representing excluded state employees to request arbitration with the Department of Human Resources in certain circumstances.
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Senate read third time, passed, ordered to the Assembly May 25.
• Pennsylvania HB844: This bill would ban public employee social security numbers and personal contact information as subjects of collective bargaining.
  • Republican sponsorship.
  • Removed from the table May 24, laid on the table again.
• Pennsylvania HB845: This bill would require any proposed public employee collective bargaining agreement to be published on the public employer’s website at least 14 days before the agreement is accepted. It would also make documents from the collective bargaining process into public records subject to the state’s right-to-know law.
  • Republican sponsorship.
  • Removed from the table May 24, laid on the table again.
• Pennsylvania HB2042: This bill would require public employers to provide non-union members with an annual notification that they are not required to make payments to a union and to provide new and returning employees with a notification that they do not have to join a union.
  • Republican sponsorship.
  • Removed from the table May 24, laid on the table again.
• Pennsylvania HB2048: This bill would prohibit collective bargaining agreements from authorizing the deduction of political contributions from public employee wages.
  • Republican sponsorship.
  • Removed from the table May 24, laid on the table again.

On May 12, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a rule allowing states to make Medicaid payments to third parties, such as for union dues or benefits, on behalf of individual home care providers.

About the rule

The final rule “explicitly authorizes States to make payments to third parties on behalf of individual practitioners, for individual practitioners’ health insurance and welfare benefits, skills training, and other benefits customary for employees, if the individual practitioner consents to such payments on their behalf.” The rule was published in the Federal Register on May 16.

The rule “reinterprets the scope” of Section 1902(a)(32) of the Social Security Act, which says, “[N]o payment under the plan for any care or service provided to an individual shall be made to anyone other than such individual or the person or institution providing such care or service,” with certain exceptions.

According to Bloomberg Law‘s Christopher Brown, “Medicaid has become increasingly reliant on the home health workforce in recent years as federal health-care policy has shifted to encourage care in the home and community rather than in institutions. Over 50% of Medicaid spending on long-term care now takes place in the home and communities, up from less than 10% in the 1980s.” Brown said that of the 3.4 million individual practitioners in the country, at least 800,000 belong to a union. 

The backstory 

In a final rule document published in 2014, during the Obama administration, CMS said the goal of the statute in question was “not to preclude a Medicaid program that is functioning as the practitioner’s primary source of revenue from fulfilling the basic responsibilities that are associated with that role.” The 2014 rule made an exception allowing states to “enter into third party payment arrangements on behalf of individual practitioners for health and welfare benefit contributions, training costs, and other costs customary for employees.” 

In 2019, during the Trump administration, CMS published a final rule that removed the 2014 exception, saying, “[T]his provision [§ 447.10(g)(4)] is neither explicitly nor implicitly authorized by the statute, which identifies the only permissible exceptions to the rule that only a provider may receive Medicaid payments.“ 

Six states—California, Connecticut, Illinois, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Washington—challenged the 2019 rule with a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In November 2020, the court struck the rule and sent it back to CMS for further assessment. The defendant, then-HHS Secretary Alex Azar, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case was temporarily suspended following the change in administrations and is currently on administrative hold through June 2022. 

In the May 2022 final rule document, CMS said: 

“Presently, as a result of the district court decision, the 2019 final rule is nullified and the 2014 final rule implementing § 447.10(g)(4) represents current policy. When the district court vacated the 2019 final rule and remanded the case to HHS for further proceedings, we had broad discretion as to how to address the remand. Because the vacatur reestablished the policy from the 2014 rule, we could have simply published a final rule in the Federal Register waiving notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment and informing the public that § 447.10(g)(4) was in effect due to the district court’s decision … We initially appealed, then chose to review the statute anew, eventually determining that the payments to third parties addressed in this rulemaking fall outside the scope of the statute.”

To read more about the rulemaking process and see comments CMS received about the most recent rule, click here.

About CMS

Part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), CMS administers public healthcare programs including Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the health insurance marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act.  

What we’re reading

• Federal News Network, “Feds: National Guard members on state duty can join unions,” May 18, 2022 
• The Seattle Times, “Inside WA legislative workers’ union push as frustration builds with Democratic leadership,” May 17, 2022
• Government Executive, “With a Senate Confirmation Vote, A Federal Labor Relations Board is Back in Democratic Control,” May 16, 2022
• National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, “Orange County Lifeguards Push for Rehearing of First Amendment Challenge to Union Scheme Trapping Them in Union Membership,” May 16, 2022 

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 142 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s) 

Recent legislative actions

Below is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue.

• California AB1714: This bill would allow unions representing excluded state employees to request arbitration with the Department of Human Resources in certain circumstances. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing May 19. 
• California AB2556: This bill would change the time frame for a local public agency employer to implement a final offer after a factfinders’ recommendation has been submitted in the case of a dispute between the employer and employee organization. 
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Referred to Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee May 18. 
• California SB931: This bill would allow a union to bring a claim before the Public Employment Relations Board against a public employer allegedly in violation of California Government Code Section 3550 and sets civil penalties for violations. Section 3550 prohibits public employers from discouraging union membership.
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Senate Appropriations Committee hearing May 19. 
• California SB1313: This bill would prohibit Los Angeles County from discriminating against union members by limiting employee health benefits. 
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Senate Appropriations Committee hearing May 19.
• California SB1406: This bill would allow unions representing excluded state employees to request arbitration with the Department of Human Resources in certain circumstances.
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Senate Appropriations Committee hearing May 19.
• Colorado SB230: This bill would give county employees the right to organize and bargain collectively beginning in 2023.
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Speaker of the House and president of the Senate signed May 18. Bill sent to the governor.
• Louisiana HB663: This bill would allow public employees to resign from union membership and revoke dues deduction authorizations at any time. It would require employees to annually renew dues deduction authorizations by signing a form described in the bill. The public employer would be required to confirm the authorization by email.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • House Labor and Industrial Relations Committee hearing May 19. 
• Missouri HB2121: This bill would establish the “Public Employee Janus Rights Act.” It would require public employees to give written, informed consent before union dues or fees may be withheld from their paychecks. Employees must also give written, informed consent for unions to use fees or dues for political purposes.
  • Republican sponsorship.
  • Referred to House Workforce Development Committee May 13.
• Missouri HB2122: This bill would bar employers from requiring employees to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of a union as a condition of employment.    
  • Republican sponsorship.
  • Referred to House Workforce Development Committee May 13.

U.S. House of Representatives votes to let staff bargain collectively 

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to allow staff to unionize and bargain collectively. 

About the resolution

Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.) sponsored House Resolution 1096, which was introduced and passed on May 10. The House voted 217-202 along party lines to adopt the resolution. 

H.Res.1096 says: “The requirements and exemptions of [United States Code, Title 5, Chapter 71] as made applicable by section 220 of the [Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA)], shall apply to covered employees who are employed in the offices listed in section H2472.1 in the same manner and to the same extent as those requirements and exemptions are applied to other covered employees.” 

The employing offices listed in section H2472.1 of the resolution include “the personal office of any member of the House of Representatives or of any Senator,” “a standing select, special, permanent, temporary, or other committee of the Senate or House of Representatives,” and six other categories of offices. 

Part of the law to which section 220 of the CAA refers—United States Code, Title 5, Section 7102—says the following:

“Each employee shall have the right to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and each employee shall be protected in the exercise of such right. Except as otherwise provided under this chapter, such right includes the right— (1) to act for a labor organization in the capacity of a representative and the right, in that capacity, to present the views of the labor organization to heads of agencies and other officials of the executive branch of the Government, the Congress, or other appropriate authorities, and (2) to engage in collective bargaining with respect to conditions of employment through representatives chosen by employees under this chapter.” 

The American Prospect’s Jarod Facundo wrote that the resolution would allow “nearly 10,000 House staffers to organize under the 1995 Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) … The resolution implements a provision of the CAA that’s been dormant for congressional staffers since 1996, when lawmakers allowed federal employees to unionize, but not their staffers.” According to CBS News’ Rebecca Kaplan and Kathryn Watson, “Congress approved the framework for Hill staffers to unionize … but never followed up by formally passing a set of regulations to allow staffers to begin the process.” 

An organization of staffers called the Congressional Workers Union, which says it has a “dedicated organizing committee that is focused on organizing Congress,” supported the resolution. Ahead of the vote, the group said, “With this vote, every member of Congress will have the opportunity to grant their own workers the right to organize and bargain collectively, free from retaliation. … We expect that every member who has stood up for workers’ rights will vote for our right to form a union.” A member of the group said, “We came to the Hill wanting to get involved in good public policy. … In personal offices [the pay] is devastatingly low, and there are stories of folks living in affordable housing struggling to make ends meet. And then on top of that, with wild hours, you have this burnout… [and] there’s so much incentive because of that burnout to go into lobbying work.” 

Vox’s Li Zhou wrote, “While CWU has gotten interest from Republican staffers … its work has predominantly been driven by Democratic ones.” 

According to the Associated Press’ Kevin Freking, “Collective bargaining would take place at the employing office level, which means that it will be done separately between members and House committees and their staffs. There will not be one bargaining unit covering most or all House employees.” Roll Call’s Chris Cioffi wrote, “For House staff, the future is in the hands of [the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR)], which would certify and supervise the results of a secret ballot election for the ‘bargaining unit’ seeking to unionize. The vote would require a majority of an office’s staff to be in favor of a labor organization becoming their representative. … Staffers might face limits on what they could negotiate on benefits and wages unless new legislation changing those stipulations were passed.” 

A simple resolution affects only the operation of the chamber that initiated it. According to Congress.gov, “A matter concerning the rules, the operation, or the opinion of either House alone is initiated by a simple resolution. … Simple resolutions are considered only by the body in which they were introduced. Upon adoption, simple resolutions are attested to by the Clerk of the House of Representatives or the Secretary of the Senate and are published in the Congressional Record.” 

Perspectives

Support

The Congressional Workers Union said the vote was an “historic moment for thousands of congressional workers who have won basic labor protections to organize and bargain collectively without fear of retaliation. … For 26 years, Congress has had the opportunity to pass this resolution but has failed to act, until our collective demands were too loud for them to ignore. Tonight is a reminder of the power of collective action and what the freedom to form a union truly means — democracy not just in our elections, but in our workplaces too.”

Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said, “Just three months after announcing their efforts to organize a union, House congressional staff have won an historic vote by the U.S. House that grants them the right to form a union and bargain over working conditions. … While there is much work to do before House staff can begin reaping the benefits of unionization, this is a historic achievement that paves the way for House staff to begin that process.”

Opposition 

Americans for Fair Treatment senior writer and researcher Suzanne Bates said, “This expansion on Capitol Hill is about unions building their political capital. It isn’t about the working class and what they need. … Can you imagine what union meddling could mean for a congressional committee or office?” 

Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) said, “Not only do most congressional staff already have the benefits most unions fight for … [unionization] would create serious problems and lead to even more dysfunction in Washington. … Congress’ unique office structure, fluctuating partisan balance, unpredictable schedule changes, and unavoidable turnover due to elections make unions impractical in our offices and committees.” 

What we’re reading

• Center Square, “County officials to ask Gov. Polis to veto collective bargaining bill,” May 11, 2022
• Colorado Politics, “Collective bargaining finally wins House approval,” May 11, 2022 
• The Washington Post, “Opinion | That time Alito overturned a long-standing precedent and — crickets,” May 11, 2022
• CPR News, “After a whole lot of cuts, what would Colorado’s public sector collective bargaining bill actually change?” May 10, 2022
• Jacobin, “Texas Soldiers Are Unionizing After Facing Attacks by a Right-Wing Governor,” May 9, 2022
• The Denver Post, “Limping labor bill takes another blow in Colorado House,” May 6, 2022
• Center Square, “Buffalo teacher resigned, New York union keeps taking dues from her check; now she’s filed a lawsuit,” May 6, 2022
• VPM News, “Richmond employees speak against mayor’s stricter collective bargaining proposal,” May 5, 2022

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 142 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s) 

Recent legislative actions

Below is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue.

• California AB2556: This bill would change the time frame for a local public agency employer to implement a final offer after a factfinders’ recommendation has been submitted in the case of a dispute between the employer and employee organization.
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Read third time in Assembly, passed, ordered to Senate May 9. Read first time in Senate, referred to Senate Rules Committee for assignment May 10.
• Colorado SB230: This bill would give county employees the right to organize and bargain collectively beginning in 2023.  
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Appropriations Committee amended, referred to House May 6. House second reading passed with amendments May 6. House third reading passed with amendments May 11. Senate concurred with House amendments and re-passed May 11.
• Maine LD449: Existing law requires public employers and collective bargaining agents to meet within 10 days of receiving written notice of a request for a bargaining meeting. This only applies if the parties have not otherwise agreed in an earlier contract. This bill would eliminate that exception.
  • Democratic sponsorship.
  • Enacted without the governor’s signature May 8.

On April 28, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued decisions in three cases we’re tracking related to public-sector union policy. In each case, the judges upheld the decision of the district court. 

About the cases 

The panel—Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Paez, U.S. Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, and Chief U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota John Tunheim—heard oral arguments for all three cases on Feb. 8. The three judges also heard arguments in six other relevant cases in which decisions have not yet been issued. At least three other appellate cases are on hold pending the outcome of cases heard on Feb. 8.

Here’s a rundown of the three decisions: 

Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

• Appeal from: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California 
• Original complaint: Nov. 13, 2018
• Plaintiff’s representation: Benbrook Law Group, Mitchell Law, and Talcott Franklin  
• District judge: John A. Mendez
• District court ruling: July 9, 2019
• Summary of the appeal: “Appeal from the dismissal of an action alleging First Amendment violations in connection with plaintiff’s attempts to resign from his union membership.” 
• From the panel’s decision: “The district court properly found that Cooley’s membership application met the essential elements of a contract. …The district court properly found Cooley was bound to maintain union membership until June 1, 2019 under the maintenance of membership provision in the CBA. … The district court properly concluded that Cooley does not have a First Amendment right to resign from his union. Although the freedom of association contained within the First Amendment includes the freedom against compelled associations, none of the cases cited to the district court or to this Court establish that there is a constitutional right to end voluntary contractual associations. … Cooley agreed to become a member of CSLEA subject to the stated membership resignation limitations and the First Amendment cannot and does not erase that voluntary Association.”  

O’Callaghan v. Napolitano

• Appeal from: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California 
• Original complaint: March 27, 2019
• Plaintiffs’ representation: Law Office of Mark W. Bucher and Liberty Justice Center
• District judge: James V. Selna 
• District court ruling: Sept. 30, 2019
• Summary of the appeal: “An appeal from the district court’s dismissal of an action brought by two employees of the University of California alleging that the continued deduction of their union dues violated their First Amendment rights.” 
• From the panel’s decision: “The trial court correctly determined that the Defendants did not violate Appellants’ First Amendment rights. Although the First Amendment protects against compelled association, it does not permit one to renege on voluntary agreements. … Appellants affirmatively agreed to join the Union and authorized the University to deduct dues from their wages pursuant to the terms of their agreements, including terms limiting when they could withdraw authorization. … The district court correctly held that exclusive Union representation does not violate Appellants’ First Amendment right to freely associate. Janus prohibited the collection of agency fees from nonmembers; it did not render unions’ service as exclusive bargaining agents unconstitutional.” 

Savas v. California State Law Enforcement Agency

• Appeal from: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California 
• Original complaint: Jan. 6, 2020
• Plaintiffs’ representation: Freedom Foundation 
• District judge: Dana M. Sabraw
• District court ruling: Sept. 9, 2020
• Summary of the appeal: “Appeal from the dismissal of an action alleging First Amendment violations in connection with plaintiffs’ attempts to resign from their union membership.” 
• From the panel’s decision: “The district court correctly concluded that the holding in Janus applied to nonunion members only and because [the plaintiffs-appellants] are union members, Janus is inapplicable here. … The [plaintiffs-appellants] cannot escape this conclusion by arguing they become nonmembers once they make their resignation known to the union. A member of a union continues to be bound by the requirements of their membership application, including their duty to pay dues, even if they decide that they no longer want the benefits of union membership. … Though the [plaintiffs-appellants] had to choose, at the time they joined, between an agency fee and union membership, the [plaintiffs-appellants] still made the affirmative choice to become members.”

Once an appellate panel has published its decision, parties may file a petition for a panel rehearing or rehearing en banc within 14 days or a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court within 90 days. 

President Bill Clinton (D) nominated Paez to the Ninth Circuit, and President Barack Obama (D) nominated Nguyen. Clinton nominated Tunheim to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

About the Ninth Circuit 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears appeals from the district courts within its jurisdiction, which includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The chief judge of the court is Mary Murguia, an Obama appointee. Of the court’s 29 active judges, Clinton nominated five, George W. Bush (R) nominated three, Obama nominated seven, Donald Trump (R) nominated 10, and Joe Biden (D) nominated four.  

What we’re reading

• NJ.com, “South Jersey bus drivers sue over union dues they say they shouldn’t have paid,” May 3, 2022
• Cook County Record, “Appeals panel says states can make lawyers join the bar based on ‘undermined’ law, but SCOTUS might say ‘no,’” May 2, 2022
• International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, “Baltimore County Public Library Employees Vote to Ratify First Machinists Union Contract Following Groundbreaking Organizing Campaign,” May 2, 2022
• Colorado Politics, “Senators give preliminary approval to collective bargaining bill after reaching compromise,” April 30, 2022
• Bloomberg Law, “Mandatory Membership in State Bar of Wisconsin Constitutional,” April 29, 2022
• California Teachers Association, “Oakland Educators Go on One-Day Unfair Labor Practice Strike,” April 29, 2022

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 142 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s) 

Recent legislative actions

Below is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue.

• California SB931: This bill would allow a union to bring a claim before the Public Employment Relations Board against a public employer allegedly in violation of California Government Code Section 3550 and sets civil penalties for violations. Section 3550 prohibits public employers from discouraging union membership. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Appropriations Committee hearing held May 2, bill placed on Appropriations Suspense File.  
• California SB1313: This bill would prohibit Los Angeles County from discriminating against union members by limiting employee health benefits.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Appropriations Committee hearing held May 2, bill placed on Appropriations Suspense File.
• California SB1406: This bill would allow unions representing excluded state employees to request arbitration with the Department of Human Resources in certain circumstances.  
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Appropriations Committee hearing held May 2, bill placed on Appropriations Suspense File. 
• Colorado SB230: This bill would give county employees the right to organize and bargain collectively beginning in 2023. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Appropriations Committee hearing held April 29, adopted amendment, referred to Senate. Senate second reading April 29, passed with amendments. Senate third reading May 2, passed without amendment. Introduced in House, referred to House State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs Committee May 2. Committee hearing May 5.
• Minnesota SF4574: This bill would eliminate the requirement for the legislature to approve negotiated collective bargaining agreements and arbitration awards for state employees.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Introduced and referred to Senate State Government Finance and Policy and Elections Committee May 4. 
• Oklahoma SB1579: This bill would allow school boards to grant unpaid leaves of absence for employees to hold office in an employee association if certain criteria are met. An employee organization would be required to comply with this law in order to be recognized as the representative of a bargaining unit.     
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Governor signed into law on April 29.