Union Station: March 29, 2019

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

Email *

First Name

Please complete the Captcha above

Welcome to Union Station, our weekly newsletter that keeps you abreast of the legislation, national trends, and public debate surrounding public-sector union policy. This week, we shine a spotlight on California, where two university employees filed a federal lawsuit this week alleging their former union illegally deducted dues from their paychecks.

State spotlight: University of California employees sue over payroll deduction of union dues

On March 27, two University of California employees filed suit in U.S. District Court alleging union dues were illegally deducted from their paychecks after they resigned their memberships.

• Who are the parties to the suit? The plaintiffs are Cara O’Callaghan and Jenée Misraje, non-academic employees of the University of California. Attorneys from the Liberty Justice Center and the California Policy Center are representing them. The defendants are the Regents of the University of California, Teamsters Local 2010, and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.
• What is at issue? Both O’Callaghan and Misraje resigned their union memberships in 2018 and instructed their unions and employers to stop deducting dues from their paychecks. Both were informed that according to the union’s collective bargaining agreement with the university, dues deduction arrangements could only be modified during a designated opt-out period. O’Callaghan and Misraje argue this violates the precedent established in Janus v. AFSCME.
• What are the responses?
  • Mark Bucher, CEO of the California Policy Center, said, "California government unions are continuing to force public employees to pay them money, even after workers have made it clear they want to exercise their Janus rights. We have been contacted by hundreds of workers who cannot stop money from being deducted from their paychecks against their will. What these unions are doing is wrong, and the courts should force them to stop."
  • Neither the University of California nor Teamsters Local 2010 have commented publicly on the suit.
• The case, O’Callaghan v. The Regents of the University of California, 2:19-cv-02289, is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 91 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 legislative actions on relevant bills since the beginning of the year. Bills are listed in alphabetical order, first by state and then by bill number.

• Connecticut SB00064: This bill would prohibit employers from requiring employees to attend or participate in meetings concerning an employer's views of religious or political matters, including matters related to unions.
  • Referred to Office of Legislative Research and Office of Fiscal Analysis March 28.
• Delaware SB8: This bill would establish compensation as a mandatory subject of collective bargaining efforts.
  • Referred to House Labor Committee March 27.
• New Hampshire SB148: This bill would require public employers to notify hirees of their right to join or refrain from joining a union. The notification would also include the estimated annual cost of joining a union.
  • Senate passed March 27.
• New Mexico HB85: This bill would authorize employers and labor unions to enter into agreements requiring employees to become union members as a condition of employment.
  • Governor signed into law March 27.
• Oregon HB2016: This bill would require public employers to grant paid time to employees participating in certain union activities. It would also require employers to furnish unions with access to employees.
  • First reading in Senate March 28. House approved March 27.
• Washington HB1575: This bill would declare that public employers and public-sector unions are not liable for claims involving agency fees paid to unions before Janus.
  • Senate Labor and Commerce Committee reported favorably March 28.

See also

• Public sector union policy in the United States