Union Station: June 22, 2018

Get Union Station: Ballotpedia's weekly deep dive on public-sector union policy

Email *

First Name

Please complete the Captcha above

Another day of SCOTUS opinions, another day without a verdict Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (Janus v. AFSCME), a case challenging the constitutionality of public sector employee union agency fees (i.e., fees required of non-members to cover the costs of non-political union activities). The next opinion release dates are June 25, 2018, and June 28, 2018.

In anticipation of this ruling, state legislatures have begun considering bills relating to public sector employee unions. In this newsletter, Ballotpedia will track those bills, highlight national legislative trends, and provide a sampling of commentary surrounding the subject.

What people are saying

In opposition to Janus:

“	Union engagement in public policy has led to an even larger impact on working families — union and nonunion alike. In recent years California has passed a wide range of public policy measures that were initiated or backed by the state’s unions. … Unions’ engagement in policy is not limited to workplace protections. Other labor-backed efforts ensured continued school funding during the 2008-09 recession, protected patients from receiving surprise out-of-network medical bills, and created greater transparency in prescription drug pricing in the state. The same organizations that brought Janus vs. AFSCME to the Supreme Court have worked for years to weaken private and public sector unions alike. Maintaining strong unions isn’t just an issue for union members — it affects all of us.	”
—Ken Jacobs and Sarah Thomason, of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, in an op-ed for The San Francisco Chronicle (June 21, 2018)

In favor of Janus:

“	These 'agency fees' cover the cost of collective bargaining, yet still take approximately three-quarters of full membership dues out of workers' paychecks. [These employees] must pay hundreds of dollars annually to a union they didn't join — or lose their jobs. Since 2007, Pennsylvania public sector unions have spent $115 million in dues and PAC money lobbying against meaningful reforms and helping elect candidates. Further, they use those dues and agency fees to fund collective bargaining, which directly impacts public policy and taxpayers. Through closed-door contract negotiations with public officials — whom they often help elect — union leaders demand more spending, which leads to higher taxes that bind our state economy and job growth. Freedom from forced fees not only gives public workers greater workplace freedom, but better serves taxpayers.	”
—Jessica Barnett, policy analyst for the Commonwealth Foundation, in an article from Watchdog.org (June 21, 2018)

What we've been reading

Below is a sampling of the news articles and commentary relating to public sector unions that we've been reading:

• Chicago Sun-Times, "Who is Mark Janus?" June 21, 2018
• San Francisco Chronicle, "What is at stake in Supreme Court ruling on Janus v. AFSCME?" June 21, 2018
• The New York Times, "A Question of Legitimacy Looms for the Supreme Court," June 21, 2018
• Pennsylvania Watchdog, "Pennsylvania awaits decision in Supreme Court forced union dues case," June 21, 2018
• The 74, "Understanding Janus: 13 Ways the Pivotal Supreme Court Case Could Change the Finances, Membership & Politics of Teachers Unions," June 19, 2018
• The Beacon, "The Fight for Freedom Must Continue Post-Janus," June 16, 2018

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

As of June 22, 2018, we are tracking 196 pieces of legislation dealing with public sector employee union policy. No new bills were added this week. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click the map for complete information.

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

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

Recent legislative actions

Since last week, the following major legislative actions occurred:

• Two bills were submitted to governors:
  • California SB866
  • Illinois HB0126
• One bill cleared an upper chamber:
  • Rhode Island S2158

Below is a complete list of legislative action on relevant bills in the past week. The bills submitted to governors are listed first. After that, bills are listed in alphabetical order, first by state and then by bill number. Because some state bill tracking systems are not updated in real time, some action may have occurred more than a week ago.

• California SB866: This bill would extend public sector union provisions to employees of the Regents of the University of California, the Judicial Council, counties, cities, and public authorities, authorizing unions to request payroll deductions for employee fees and dues. This bill is similar to other bills pending before the legislature, but it is not a formal companion those bills.
  • On June 18, 2018, the Senate concurred in Assembly amendments to the bill and submitted it to the governor.
• Illinois HB0126: This bill would amend the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act to modify the definition of "firefighter" to include paramedics employed by local governments.
  • On June 20, 2018, this bill was submitted to the governor, having already cleared the House and Senate.
• California AB1832: This bill would extend public sector union provisions to employees of the Regents of the University of California, the Judicial Council, counties, cities, and public authorities, authorizing unions to request payroll deductions for employee fees and dues. This bill is similar to other bills pending before the legislature, but it is not a formal companion those bills.
  • On June 18, 2018, the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee recommended that the bill be passed. It was read a second time in the Senate and ordered to a third reading.
• California AB2886: This bill would require employers and employees of the Orange County Transit District to "adjudicate complaints of specified labor violations" before the Public Employment Relations Board.
  • This bill is scheduled to be considered at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 26, 2018.
• California SB1085: This bill would require public employers to grant leaves of absence without loss of pay or benefits to employees who serve as stewards or officers of an employee organization.
  • On June 20, 2018, the Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement, and Social Security recommended that the bill be passed and re-referred it to the Committee on Appropriations.
• Delaware HB464: This bill would require public employers to release information about employees to recognized union representatives.
  • On June 20, 2018, the bill was reported out of the House Labor Committee. The bill was introduced on June 14, 2018.
• Rhode Island H7377: This bill would authorize municipal police unions to refrain from representing employees in grievance/arbitration proceedings if those employees were not members of the collective bargaining unit within 90 days of the event precipitating grievance/arbitration proceedings.
  • On June 19, 2018, the Senate Labor Committee recommended passage of a substitute bill in concurrence.
• Rhode Island S2158: This bill, which is similar to H7377, would authorize municipal police unions to refrain from representing employees in grievance/arbitration proceedings if those employees were not members of the collective bargaining unit within 90 days of the event precipitating grievance/arbitration proceedings.
  • On June 19, 2018, the Senate passed a substitute bill.

See also

• Public sector union policy in the United States