Union Station: May 11, 2018

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

Email *

First Name

Please complete the Captcha above

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unions represented nearly 8 million public sector workers in 2017 -- 37.9 percent of the total public sector workforce. Of this total, 7.2 million were union members; the remaining employees were non-members represented by unions. Conversely, unions represented 7.3 percent of private sector workers. The high rate of public sector unionization gives those unions considerable political influence at the local, state, and federal levels.

The Supreme Court of the United States is poised to issue a decision in 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).

Agency fee opponents say requiring such fees violates individual worker’s First Amendment associational rights. Fee proponents argue they are necessary to support the costs associated with representing non-members.

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:

“	Under current law, no one can be required to join a union. However, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously 41 years ago that when a union is established by a vote of the employees, nonmembers who are covered by that contract can be required to pay a 'fair share' fee toward the cost of negotiating and maintaining the agreement. The Janus case would overturn that precedent, allowing employees to benefit from a contract without having to pay toward maintaining it. … The Janus case is not about giving people their 'rights'; it’s about undermining the right of employees to be represented by a strong union that can negotiate for safe working conditions, decent health care, paid time off, job security, professional development, a fair salary, and retirement security.	”
—Tasho Cordero, Secretary of the Bristol-Plymouth Teachers Association, in an op-ed for The Boston Globe (April 13, 2018)

In favor of Janus:

“	This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court could issue a decision in Janus v. AFSCME that would invalidate forced union dues for public employees. Illinois public employee Mark Janus is suing the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees for the freedom to work without paying fees to the union just to keep his job. Should he win, nearly five million public employees in America will have their First Amendment rights expanded, allowing them to keep their entire paychecks without being forced to divert monthly fees to subsidize a union that may not be serving their interests. … Unions can either seek to become more inclusive and focus their energies on being responsive to employee needs, as many unions in right-to-work states have done successfully, or they can choose to double down on intimidation and coercion in an effort to force workers to remain in the fold.	”
—Lindsey Boyd Killen and Erica Jedynak, in an op-ed for The Hill (April 25, 2018)

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

As of May 10, 2018, we have tracked 193 pieces of current 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 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

Below is a list of actions taken by legislatures on relevant bills over the course of the past week. Bills are listed in alphabetical order. For states with multiple bills, bills are listed in reverse chronological order by date of last action.

• California SB1085: This bill would "require public employers ... and specified public employers of transit workers, upon request of the exclusive representative of an employee, to grant reasonable leaves of absence without loss of compensation or other benefits for the purpose of enabling employees to serve as stewards or officers of the exclusive representative, or of any statewide or national employee organization with which the exclusive representative is affiliated."
  • On May 8, the bill was read for a second time and ordered to a third reading.
• California AB2017: This bill would expand the definition of "public employer" to include employers of excluded supervisory and judicial council employees. This bill would also "prohibit a public employer from deterring or discouraging prospective public employees ... from becoming or remaining members of an employee organization."
  • On May 3, this bill was referred to the Senate Comm. on Public Employees and Retirement. The legislation cleared the Assembly on April 23.
• Connecticut HB05177: This bill would require a public agency, upon receiving a request to inspect or copy personnel records, to disclose those records (provided that disclosure would not constitute invasion of privacy) and "make a reasonable attempt to send to each employee involved and any collective bargaining representative a written or electronic copy of the request" or a brief description thereof.
  • On May 9, 2018, the legislation cleared the Senate (having cleared the House on April 11, 2018).
• Illinois HB0126: This bill would expand the definition of "fire fighter" under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act to include paramedics employed by local governments.
  • On May 10, this bill was ordered to a third reading set for May 15. The bill has already cleared the House.
• Illinois HB4742: This bill would prohibit a school district from using a recruiting firm to hire substitute teachers in the event of a teachers' strike. This bill would also permit a substitute teacher recruiting firm to enter into an agreement with a labor organization that has a collective bargaining agreement with a school district.
  • On May 9, this bill was reported favorably by the Senate Education Comm. and ordered to a second reading. This legislation has already cleared the House.
• Illinois SB2838: The provisions of this bill are similar to those of HB4742, described above. The bill is not, however, a true companion bill.
  • On May 7, the bill was assigned to the House Elementary and Secondary Education Comm., with a hearing set for May 16. The bill has already cleared the Senate.
• Missouri HJR79: This bill proposes a constitutional amendment that would prohibit employers from requiring employees to join a union or pay dues to a union.
  • On May 9, this bill was reported favorably by the House Rules Comm.
• Missouri HB1577: This is an omnibus bill that stipulates that union dues cannot be deducted from a worker's pay without annual authorization. The bill would also require unions "to maintain financial records substantially similar to federal law" and to "make the records available to employees in a searchable format."
  • On May 8, the bill was reported favorably by the House Fiscal Review Comm.
• Missouri HJR103: This bill proposes a constitutional amendment that would prohibit employers from requiring employees to join a union or pay dues to a union.
  • On May 7, the bill was referred to the House Economic Development Comm.
• Missouri HJR88: This bill proposes a constitutional amendment that would prohibit employers from requiring employees to join a union or pay dues to a union.
  • On May 7, the bill was referred to the House Economic Development Comm.

See also

• Public sector union policy in the United States