4 hours Ago
One of Utah’s biggest bills this session involved banning public unions in the state from collectively bargaining. That came to pass, its House sponsor said, after lawmakers realized unions in the state were “willing to stab them in the back.” South Jordan Republican Rep.
Jordan Teuscher candidly broke down his version of the behind-the-scenes politics that unfolded before HB267 was signed into law in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece , in which he warned Republicans that “unions will inevitably turn on you.” “Utah’s experience should serve as a warning for Republicans everywhere, but especially in Washington,” his piece published on Feb. 28 concluded.
“If unions in Utah — where collaboration is a core part of our political culture — were willing to stab lawmakers in the back, they’ll do the same anywhere.” His account indicates that the anti-public union bill’s filing and passage this session came after an alleged “reneged” agreement last year between state legislators and the Utah Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union. The UEA, meanwhile, asserts Teuscher misrepresented them.
What happened? (Bethany Baker | The Salt Lake Tribune) Union supporters hold signs during a protest against HB267 at the Utah Capitol in Salt Lake City on Friday, Feb. 7, 2025. The alleged UEA agreement came to be, Teuscher wrote in the Wall Street Journal piece, after he introduced a measure last year that would have mandated that public unions regularly hold recertification elections.
“Though my colleagues and I had the votes to pass the bill, we agreed to pause it as a sign of good faith toward the Utah Education Association,” he wrote. That’s because, he asserted, the UEA agreed to stay neutral on constitutional Amendment A, a ballot initiative that stood to broaden what Utah’s income tax revenue can be spent on. (Right now, it’s reserved for three purposes: public education, higher education and services for people with disabilities).
That amendment dates back to the last day of the 2023 legislative session, when lawmakers passed a resolution to add it to November 2024 ballots. The UEA at the time fluctuated between opposing certain drafts to eventually taking a “no position” stance. After it passed, the organization remained silent on the issue for nearly a year.
But following the end of the 2024 legislative session, and seven months before voters expected to see it on ballots, the UEA suddenly declared its opposition . In a statement dated March 14, 2024, UEA President Renée Pinkney announced that the union’s board had voted to oppose the constitutional amendment, calling it a move that “goes against our values and challenges what we stand for.” Months later, in September, the UEA also tacked a complaint against Amendment A onto a lawsuit that the teachers union first filed in May 2024 , which argued that the state’s $82 million “Utah Fits All” school voucher program is unconstitutional for using income tax dollars to fund vouchers.
A judge ultimately ordered Amendment A void ; no ruling has yet been issued on the voucher program’s constitutionality. “The union exploited our good faith,” Teuscher wrote in his piece. In a statement Wednesday, Teuscher told The Salt Lake Tribune that the UEA had been involved in negotiations throughout the process and then, “without any warning, they abruptly changed course, opposed the proposal, and mobilized national donors and funding to sue for the amendment’s removal from the ballot.
” He argued the move “harmed education.” “A simple phone call, email, or meeting — any form of communication — would have been appreciated,” he said. “Instead, they went back on their word, and in doing so, broke a lot of trust.
” After Teuscher’s piece published, UEA officials acknowledged last week that the union previously took a “no position” stance on Amendment A, but, they told The Tribune, they “never promised” neutrality. Their stance shifted, they said, after lawmakers last year doubled funding for the Utah Fits All voucher program, electing to expand the program enough to cover $8,000 scholarships for 10,000 students before it had even launched. Their decision to oppose Amendment A was made “to protect funding for Utah’s public schools and ensure taxpayer dollars remain in public schools,” UEA officials said, asserting that the change-up was based on “legal violations, not policy debates.
” How a potential compromise to HB267 fell apart (Bethany Baker | The Salt Lake Tribune) Union supporters gather during a protest against HB267 at the Utah Capitol in Salt Lake City on Friday, Feb. 7, 2025. Enter this year’s legislative session, when Teuscher introduced HB267, which took aim at collective bargaining in the public sector.
“Collective bargaining strips employees of the freedom to negotiate directly with their employers, allowing union leaders to pursue their own agendas over individual workers’ interests,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “My bill also guaranteed that teachers would get new professional liability insurance options, ensuring they have the protections they deserve.” But once again, Teuscher asserts, House and Senate leaders sought a compromise.
A revised version of the bill dropped Jan. 31. It would have allowed collective bargaining but required a routine recertification process every five years.
Senators delayed immediate action to allow union representatives more time to review the changes. Teuscher wrote in the Wall Street Journal that eight of the state’s largest unions “pledged to remain neutral” to those updated parameters. “They even provided a signed letter from the president of Utah’s AFL-CIO affirming their commitment,” he wrote.
The Utah AFL-CIO represents 41 public and private sector unions. Its president, Jeff Worthington, said he was “very offended” by Teuscher’s piece. “Those are basically fighting words,” he told The Salt Lake Tribune.
(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) People pack the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee hearing at the Capitol in addition to several overflow rooms to discuss HB267, a bill aimed at banning collective bargaining for public labor unions in Utah, sponsored by Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan, center right, in Salt Lake City on Wednesday, Jan 29, 2025. According to Worthington, Teuscher and the bill’s co-sponsor, Sen.
Kirk Cullimore, R-Cottonwood Heights, had promised a “union-neutral” rewrite of HB267, the original draft of which saw massive public opposition . Worthington and the president of the Professional Firefighters of Utah, Jack Tidrow, both met with Teuscher on Jan. 23 to discuss that rewrite, according to a letter Worthington sent to Teuscher that The Tribune obtained.
“I am writing to confirm our verbal agreement regarding the amendments to HB267, conditioned upon the consensus of our unions,” Worthington wrote in the letter, dated Jan. 27. It went on to list seven unions — including the Utah Public Employees Association, the Utah School Employees Association and the AFSCME — that “will remain neutral on this legislation as discussed.
” The letter also listed several “agreed amendments” to HB267: Eliminate the provision “Prohibiting Collective Bargaining.” Establish a recertification vote requiring a minimum of 50% plus one (1) approval. Implement a recertification process every five years.
Clarify the intent of public building usage by unions. Clarify that URS participation is not permitted for Labor Union employees who are not Public Employees. Grant unions until July 1, 2026, to transition away from employer dues deductions, post which a reporting requirement will take effect.
The revised bill that came days later contained a sticking point, though: The routine recertification elections would have required at least 50% of employees, plus one, to vote in favor — but any failures to vote would be counted as “no” votes. Worthington said he consulted with union members in the days following, who strongly opposed that failure-to-vote provision. “They wanted to take an opposition,” Worthington previously told The Tribune.
“So, I had to, because I’m their leader, and I am listening to my constituents and to my members.” Less than a week later, on Feb. 5, lawmakers scrapped the revised bill and moved forward with the original collective bargaining ban, which Gov.
Spencer Cox signed into law Feb. 14. “We were getting indications that some of these groups were coming together, and that there was going to be this consensus of neutrality, and that just hasn’t crystallized,” Cullimore said Feb.
5. “If there’s not going to be consensus, then let’s just run it on its face. And I guess whatever happens, happens.
” (Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) Firefighters look on as the Senate votes on HB267, a bill aimed at banning collective bargaining for public labor unions in Utah, at the Utah Capitol in Salt Lake City on Thursday, Jan. 30, 2025. In his Wall Street Journal piece, Teuscher said there were some “honorable actors” who “upheld their commitments,” naming the Fraternal Order of Police as an example.
“The rest either quietly encouraged members to protest the compromise or actively worked against it,” he wrote. “Their strategy was clear: stall, delay and hope lawmakers ran out of time to pass anything — including the compromise they said they supported.” In the end, Teuscher wrote, “They miscalculated.
” In a statement about his decision to sign HB267 into law, Cox on Feb. 14 wrote that “the process did not ultimately deliver the compromise that at one point was on the table and that some stakeholders had accepted.” Teuscher contended in his opinion piece that that “wasn’t the Legislature’s fault.
” “The blame lies with the unions,” he wrote. “No one worked harder than I did to achieve a compromise. Still, I’m proud of the final law.
It benefits Utah’s public servants and taxpayers alike.” Worthington argued that Teuscher’s assertions were “disingenuous,” because in his piece, Teuscher did not mention the conditions that organizations laid out in order for them to agree to neutrality. “I’ve felt since day one that he’s been misrepresenting what was actually agreed to with that letter,” Worthington said.
“He hasn’t been forthright with the public about it, kind of vilifying the labor unions and me in particular.” Teuscher defends HB267 as a policy decision, not political retribution (Bethany Baker | The Salt Lake Tribune) The Utah Education Association holds a press conference after lawmakers postponed action on HB267 at the Capitol in Salt Lake City Friday, Jan. 31, 2025.
Though Teuscher’s piece outlined his perspective of how HB267 materialized, some union representatives had already asserted that a clash between state officials and the UEA fueled the bill. “Many representatives that we’ve spoken to are upset with the Utah Education Association,” Brad Asay, president of the American Federation of Teachers Utah and vice president of the Utah AFL-CIO told The Tribune in January . “This was really targeted at them.
It’s retaliatory,” Asay previously said. “The problem is [everyone else] is collateral damage.” Teuscher, however, in his statement Wednesday, said the bill was “not a response to any singular event or particular bad faith actions from any organization.
” “It was pursued because it is good policy — ensuring transparency, accountability, and a more direct voice for all public employees,” Teuscher said. Regardless of his reasoning for running the bill, Carol Corbett Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education , a New York-based public schools advocacy group, said she was puzzled by Teuscher’s Wall Street Journal piece. “I am baffled why Mr.
Teuscher would air a Utah feud in a national paper,” Burris said. “It appears petty and will only further alienate the state’s teachers from the Legislature, which is not in the best interest of children.” (Bethany Baker | The Salt Lake Tribune) A girl holds up a sign during a protest against HB267 at the Utah Capitol in Salt Lake City on Friday, Feb.
7, 2025. As an outsider to Utah’s education system, she said HB267 fits into a “larger war that the Republican party is waging against public schools.” “The support for public schools and local control are no longer part of the party’s national agenda,” Burris said.
“The ultimate objective is privatizing education, forcing parents to shop for schools under the guise of school choice. Once that occurs, public funding will be reduced and eventually eliminated. Teacher unions stand in the way.
” To the UEA, Teuscher’s piece was “disheartening.” Officials accused him of using a “national platform to misrepresent the Utah Education Association’s positions on Constitutional Amendment A and the 2025 labor bill.” “Utahns deserve honest discussions, not misleading claims that attempt to undermine those who serve our communities every day,” their statement continued.
Utah labor unions said Wednesday they will run a ballot referendum to try and repeal HB267. Note to readers • This story is available to Salt Lake Tribune subscribers only. Thank you for supporting local journalism.
.
