Is it too late for a compromise on collective bargaining bill? One senator is still trying

A week after the Legislature narrowly passed a controversial bill that bans teacher, firefighter and police unions from collective bargaining, a Utah lawmaker is attempting to work on a compromise. 

Sen. David Hinkins, R-Ferron, confirmed on Thursday that he’s working on a bill that would still allow public unions to collectively bargain, as long as they can get support from a majority of the employees in the organization they represent regardless of whether they’re part of the union. 

The Utah Senate narrowly passed HB267 last week, which bans public unions from collective bargaining, the process where they meet with an employer — in this case, a school district, city, county, or other government entity — to negotiate terms of employment. It now sits on Utah Gov. Spencer Cox’s desk, and he has until Wednesday if he chooses to veto it. 

Hinkins says his bill will give the governor another option that would still allow unions to collectively bargain. If the governor decides to veto HB267, Hinkins says that will create an avenue for his bill. If Cox signs HB267 into law, that will likely mark the end of Hinkins’ efforts. 

Senate abandons compromise with unions, passes ban on public sector collective bargaining

In a text message, Cox’s office said the governor is aware of ongoing discussions and is “carefully reviewing the legislation that has reached his desk.” The governor’s office did not indicate whether he will sign or veto the bill. 

It’s unlikely Hinkins’ bill will get support from Senate leadership. Utah Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, both said the bill was a nonstarter on Thursday. 

“I think it would be tough to bring this up again,” said Cullimore, who sponsored HB267 in the Senate. “I mean, for me, I think we landed in the right policy spot.” 

Adams, who said Hinkins hasn’t talked to him about his attempts to find a compromise, echoed Cullimore.

“We learned about Sen. Hinkins’ bill from the media, which is kind of interesting up here,” Adams said. “We’ve got other issues in front of us, and we’re looking forwards not backwards.” 

Hinkins, when asked about the sentiment from Senate leaders, shrugged it off. 

“I’ve heard that my bill’s a nonstarter. Well, that’s fine. I’ve had a lot of nonstarters that ended up getting passed, too. I’ve been here long enough to know that one person’s opinion is no better than my opinion. You’ve got to get 15 people who have that same opinion, not one, whether it’s the president or majority leader or whoever,” Hinkins told Utah News Dispatch. 

HB267 drew the ire of thousands of the state’s public employees, who protested the bill at every step. Teachers, firefighters, police officers, municipal employees and union advocates, in both the public and private sectors, flooded committee rooms to speak against the bill, backed petitions that garnered thousands of signatures, and gathered en masse in the rotunda in one of the largest and loudest protests inside the Capitol in recent memory. 

Massive crowd descends on Utah Capitol calling for governor to veto union bill

The bill’s sponsors — Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan, and Cullimore — signaled some intent to work with labor groups on a compromise. After it passed the House with a 42-32 vote, an amended version of the bill was proposed, allowing public unions to still be recognized as a bargaining unit if they hold an election and receive more than 50% support from the employees. 

For example, if a majority of school district employees vote in favor of the teachers union to represent them in negotiations, the union could engage in collective bargaining. 

But that compromise was ultimately abandoned, with Cullimore telling reporters that support for the amendment never materialized among public employees. Rather than continue working toward a more popular alternative, the Senate voted 16-13 to pass the bill, with seven Republicans joining the Senate’s six Democrats to vote “no.” 

Now, Hinkins says he wants to take that amended version of HB267 which was ultimately abandoned, and use it to completely replace a bill he’s already sponsoring, SB168.

SB168 is a sweeping, complex bill that would have created a Utah Labor Relations board and set a number of guidelines for the state’s public unions. It was seen as a counter to HB267 — but Hinkins is now abandoning it, instead using it as a vessel to push the compromise version of HB267. 

“If people want representation, by damn, they ought to be able to have it. And some of these teachers want it,” Hinkins said. “And if the majority wants it, then that’s what it should be.” 

Hinkins couldn’t say on Thursday which way the governor was leaning. But if Cox does veto the bill, he said there is enough Republican opposition to HB267 that, at least in the Senate, they couldn’t muster the two-thirds majority required to override a veto. 

When asked for his thoughts about the compromise on Thursday, House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, said he wasn’t sure.

“We’ll see what it looks like. … We’ve got enough to focus on, I don’t know what the Senate’s going to do with that bill,” he said, reaffirming his support for HB267.

“I have a hard time with collective bargaining in the state of Utah with public employees. I’ve seen firsthand how it has a negative effect on our kids in our schools,” he said, telling reporters he thinks teachers unions don’t always negotiate for conditions that are in the best interest of students, or taxpayers.

The reasoning behind ‘anti-union’ HB267

HB267 was arguably the most controversial law passed this legislative session. But the bill’s sponsors say it’s a much needed policy to safeguard taxpayer dollars, while making sure all public employees get a voice, regardless of their union membership. 

Since public institutions don’t have the same profit incentive as the private sector, lawmakers say union negotiations can result in scenarios that misuse taxpayer dollars. Essentially, government employees (a teachers union, for example) who are negotiating with other government employees (the school district) don’t always have the taxpayer’s best interest in mind. 

Cullimore and Teuscher also say the bill would give greater voice to public employees, not all of whom are represented by a union. If a teachers union only represents one third of the employees in a school district, it shouldn’t be able to negotiate employment contracts on behalf of everyone, they said. 

Currently, just Salt Lake City’s police and fire departments, and a handful of the state’s school districts, have unions that engage in collective bargaining, and Cullimore and Teuscher repeatedly said this bill would only impact a small portion of the state’s public unions. 

None of this reasoning sat well with the bill’s opponents. They say eliminating collective bargaining makes the state less safe, as unions that represent firefighters, police officers and teachers no longer have the power to ask for improved working conditions, better wages or safety measures. 

Salt Lake City’s Fire Department Union, for example, was able to negotiate for better staffing, which led to “more people on a fire faster and reduced property damage, civilian injury and firefighter injuries,” said Zach Jeppson, the union president. 

In addition to the ban on collective bargaining, HB267 would restrict certain government resources from going toward union activity. That includes ensuring taxpayer funds won’t pay a public employee for the work they do for a union. 

And unions wouldn’t get special exemptions for using public resources, like property — for instance, if other groups or people have to pay to use a public room or space, so does the union.

People who are employed by a union, but aren’t actually employed by the entity the union represents (for example, someone who works in an administrative position for a teachers union full time, but isn’t actually employed by a school district) would no longer have access to the Utah Retirement System. 

And the bill would offer professional liability insurance for teachers, which in most cases is only currently offered through a union. Teuscher said that would cost each teacher between $110 to $150 annually.

Hinkins’ compromise bill would still include these provisions.